[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-promo
Subject: RE: [kde-promo] KDE League Clarifications
From: Philippe FREMY <P.FREMY () OBERTHURCS ! com>
Date: 2002-10-09 8:01:43
[Download RAW message or body]
I find it unacceptable that someone publicly insult someone else on a
mailing list. Mr Black seem to lack the minimal level of respect and
courtesy necessary to discuss on a mailing list. I ask the administrator to
remove Mr Black from this mailing-list, unless he publicly present excuse to
Andreas Pour.
Mr Black, if you doubt about the truth of the fact presented by Andreas
Pour, I suggest you call the Delaware Office of Corporate Divisions and
check your facts, like Andreas and Dep did. But it is far easier to insult
people than to actually do something.
Second note, you should check what a Nazi is. I have never seen Andreas
promoting massive killing of any population. Reading his messages, I find
the opposite, a strong opponent of any killing, which makes your insult even
more stupid. The one that seem to be filled with hate is yourself.
Philippe Fremy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Black [mailto:blackfarm@mountain.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 6:58 AM
> To: kde-promo@mail.kde.org
> Subject: Re: [kde-promo] KDE League Clarifications
>
>
> Frankly I don't believe you Mr. Pour your Hate filled
> ramblings brings your
> integrity into question. Your a Nazi plain and simple with no
> exageration.
> The sooner haters like yourself leave KDE the better.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Andreas Pour <pour@mieterra.com>
> To: Promo KDE <kde-promo@kde.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:59 AM
> Subject: [kde-promo] KDE League Clarifications
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Some of you may have seen the story at
> >
> http://www.linuxandmain.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article
> &sid=249 ,
> which
> > is entitled "Delaware: KDE League, federally tax-exempt, is
> reinstated".
> The
> > title is to the best of my knowledge a lie, and having
> investigated only
> the
> > tax-exempt part of the "story" (I'm currently too busy to
> spend much time
> on
> > responding to this kind of mud-slinging) most if not all of
> that appears
> to be a
> > lie as well.
> >
> > Although the story correctly notes that the League has been
> reinstated in
> good
> > standing, it provides a number of new (apparent) lies. I called the
> Delaware
> > Office of Corporate Divisions at 302-739-3073 (see
> > http://www.state.de.us/corp/phoneinfo.htm). Here is what I
> found out.
> (BTW, I
> > would *really* like to know who the "story" supposedly
> quoted from the
> Del.
> > Sect. of State office, so that the accuracy of these
> quotes, which is
> extremely
> > questionable based on my conversations with the corporate
> division, can be
> > ascertained, and in the event someone actually made these
> statements, that
> they
> > can be retracted and accurate information provided instead.)
> >
> > The franchise tax was filed late this year - the recorded
> filing date is
> April
> > 2, 2002, whereas the due date is March 1, 2002. B/c the
> payment was late,
> the
> > office did impose a penalty and since the payment did not cover this
> penalty the
> > office did suspend the corporation. This was done in
> error, since it was
> > explained to me that the State's policy is that not-for-profit
> corporations do
> > not need to pay late penalties. When this was discovered
> yesterday, due
> to an
> > inquiry by either the League's law firm or someone else, I
> don't know, the
> > penalty was reversed; this meant that the franchise tax had
> been paid in
> full
> > and hence the corporation restored (retroactively) to good standing.
> >
> > Then I started asking questions about the various other
> things that are
> claimed
> > in the story re: 501(c)(3) status. To answer these questions I was
> transferred
> > to Dot Savage, who told me that she made the good standing
> correction
> > yesterday. I read her the quotes from the "story", and she
> insisted (a)
> that
> > she had not said those things; (b) that nobody should have
> said those
> things;
> > and (c) that they were factually incorrect. She made clear
> the obvious,
> that
> > Delaware is concerned only with state corporate law and not
> with federal
> tax law
> > (i.e., tax-exempt status). She added their computers have
> no way to track
> > federal tax-exempt status and this is of no concern to
> them, and that
> certainly
> > Delaware would not make a statement as to the tax-exempt status of a
> Delaware
> > corporation. In particular, she could not understand the
> leading sentence
> to
> > the story, which begins "The KDE League, Inc., filed papers
> purporting
> that it
> > had a federal grant of tax-exempt nonprofit status", since
> Delaware does
> not
> > track these issues and the application does not ask about
> federal tax
> status.
> >
> > The "story" also has the following statement supposedly
> made by a Delaware
> > official: "Indeed, because it is tax-exempt, she said, the
> KDE League had
> been
> > listed as 'void' in error in the state's computer system
> and would now be
> > reinstated." I asked Dot about this and she admitted that
> she was the one
> who
> > restored the League status (due to the error) but she
> assured me that
> tax-exempt
> > status had nothing to do with it - indeed, as I already mentioned,
> Delaware does
> > not concern itself with tax-exempt status. Instead, it was
> restored b/c
> the
> > League is "not-for-profit" (though referred to as a
> "non-profit" in the
> > Certificate of Incorporation, but again this is a matter of state
> corporate law
> > rather than of federal tax law).
> >
> > As to the reference to 501(c)(3) in the League's Certificate of
> Incorporation,
> > Article Eight, on page 3, provides:
> >
> > "Upon the dissolution of the corporation or the winding up of its
> affairs, the
> > assets of the corporation shall be distributed exclusively
> for charitable
> or
> > educational purposes or to organizations which are then exempt from
> federal tax
> > under Section 501(c)(3) or Section 501(c)(6) of the
> Internal Revenue Code
> of
> > 1986."
> >
> > While IIRC such a provision is *required* for a tax-exempt
> organization,
> having
> > such a provision by no means makes an organization
> tax-exempt; we simply
> felt it
> > a sensible approach to distributing assets if the League
> were dissolved.
> Tax
> > exemption requires forms to be filed with the IRS
> requesting that status,
> and
> > AFAIK such forms have never been filed on behalf of the
> League, and I
> certainly
> > did not request anyone to file them. It is true that tax
> exemption was
> > considered, in fact quite some time was spent on deciding
> this issue, but
> in the
> > end it was decided in conjunction with the League's lawyers
> not to seek
> such
> > status.
> >
> > As to everything else, as I noted, I am doing an interview
> for Ofb.biz and
> I
> > will address them then, but currently I have other pressing
> projects on my
> to-do
> > list.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Andreas Pour
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > This message is from the kde-promo mailing list.
> >
> > Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-promo to
> unsubscribe, set
> digest on or temporarily stop your subscription.
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message is from the kde-promo mailing list.
>
> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-promo to
> unsubscribe, set digest on or temporarily stop your subscription.
>
###########################################
This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange.
For more information, connect to http://www.F-Secure.com/
_______________________________________________
This message is from the kde-promo mailing list.
Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-promo to unsubscribe, set digest on or \
temporarily stop your subscription.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic