Has the USCF Board Learned from the Errors of the Past?


S

samsloan

texasrob said:
With all the scrutiny, the media attention, and the
attention of most of the chess playing world, I would find it
difficult or improbable for errors of the past to occur now, and for
the foreseeable future. With all of us shooting from the hip, I thank
those still brave enough to serve. I think this will be a highlight
for many who have braved the journey during these trying financial
times. I applaud are the parents and caregivers who have sacrificed
the time and money for their children, the volunteers and organizers,
and all the back of the house people.

Texas Rob
You are mistaken. The errors of the past are being repeated. They have
learned that they are getting away with these errors and thus are
repeating them.

Take for example the item of "imaginary money". Every year the
financial statements include about $100,000 that the USCF is
theoretically supposed to get from the Life Members but does not
actually receive. This means that real revenues are about $100,000
less than what is actually reported. So, for example, last year when
the USCF reported a loss of $70,000, the real loss was actually
$170,000 for that item alone. This means that for every year of the
last four years that Bill Goichberg has been president, the USCF has
lost $100,000 more per year than has been reported.

At the 2007 USCF delegates meeting in Cherry Hill, the delegates voted
to reduce this $100,000 to $50,000 by changing the estimated life span
of a life member from 20 years to 40 years, thereby cutting the
imaginary money from $100,000 to $50,000. However, at the 2008 meeting
in Dallas, we found that that Bill Hall and the board had decided to
ignore that delegate mandate and had put the $100,000 in fake money
back in, so as to make their performance look better than it actually
was.

If I am elected, I will demand that ALL of the fake money be
eliminated from the financial statements. The office will have to
learn to survive on what money actually comes in. They will no longer
be allowed to claim that they received money that they did not
actually get.

Sam Sloan
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

samsloan

Allen said:
That is the problem with Sam - it is really hard to
even agree with him because he won't listen and cannot seem to connect
unless you say exactly what he is saying.
The problem I have with Allen Priest is that he is new to the USCF,
does not know the history and tied up the delegate's meeting with his
long winded views.

In the first place, I did not shout or speak at all when Allen Priest
was speaking. I was at the very back of the meeting room and as he was
at the front facing the podium so he could not have known who was
interrupting him.

The shouts probably came from a conservative group of old timers who
sat at the back right hand side of the meeting room if observed from
the rear. A lot of members, not only me, were upset that the board and
the office had chosen to completely ignore the resolutions passed by
the delegates in the 2007 meeting.

Secondly, these accounting issues have been debated and discussed at
every delegates meeting for at least the last 20-30 years. We have had
some top quality people involved in this. I do not know what
qualifications Allen Priest has. I am not impressed with his CPA
license. My wife is an accounting major. She is in the final semester
before getting her BS in accounting and she plans to take the CPA test
before the end of this year. Yet, SHE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT.

I passed the New York Stock Exchange Exam, the SEC Principals exam,
and numerous exams pertaining to reading and analyzing financial
statements of publicly held corporations. I have written 10-K reports
filed with the SEC by publicly held companies and I have written a
widely acclaimed book on this subject. Yet I do not go around telling
everybody about how great my knowledge is of financial statements.

Instead of spending time telling us his own long-winded views of how
he believes the USCF accounting systems should be modified and changed
to the way he believes it should be, I think Allen Priest would have
better served the USCF by asking the board why it has repeatedly
decided to ignore delegate resolutions passed during pervious years
when this subject was debated and discussed.

Sam Sloan
 
S

samsloan

chessoffice said:
The idea that the board should try to have a
surplus because the LMA has insufficient assets to cover the liability
to life members makes sense. The idea that if the current board
breaks even, it is really losing $100,000 because other boards years
ago lost that amount is ridiculous.

Bill Goichberg
It is Bill Goichberg's reply that is ridiculous.

Every year, the financial statements under Bill Goichberg shows the
receipt of $100,000 more than it actually got.

This extra $100,000 is derived from a perverted interpretation of
accrual accounting.

Thus, in 2008, the USCF lost $170,000, not the $70,000 that it
reported losing.

Sam Sloa
 
J

Jürgen R.

samsloan said:
chessoffice said:
The idea that the board should try to have a
surplus because the LMA has insufficient assets to cover the liability
to life members makes sense. The idea that if the current board
breaks even, it is really losing $100,000 because other boards years
ago lost that amount is ridiculous.

Bill Goichberg
It is Bill Goichberg's reply that is ridiculous.

Every year, the financial statements under Bill Goichberg shows the
receipt of $100,000 more than it actually got.

This extra $100,000 is derived from a perverted interpretation of
accrual accounting.

Thus, in 2008, the USCF lost $170,000, not the $70,000 that it
reported losing.

Sam Sloa
When reading a balance sheet one must look at both sides.

There is an entry that balances the dastardly $100K - what is it?
 
S

samsloan

samsloan said:
chessoffice said:
The idea that the board should try to have a
surplus because the LMA has insufficient assets to cover the liability
to life members makes sense.  The idea that if the current board
breaks even, it is really losing $100,000 because other boards years
ago lost that amount is ridiculous.
Bill Goichberg
It is Bill Goichberg's reply that is ridiculous.
Every year, the financial statements under Bill Goichberg shows the
receipt of $100,000 more than it actually got.
This extra $100,000 is derived from a perverted interpretation of
accrual accounting.
Thus, in 2008, the USCF lost $170,000, not the $70,000 that it
reported losing.
When reading a balance sheet one must look at both sides.  

There is an entry that balances the dastardly $100K - what is it?
No there is not. There is no offsetting entry.

On the 2007-2008 financial statements it shows membership revenue as
$1,757,853.

In reality, the USCF received $100,000 less, or $1,657,853.

There is nothing in the financial statements, not even a footnote, to
indicate this.

Sam Sloan
 
J

Jürgen R.

samsloan said:
samsloan said:
chessoffice said:
The idea that the board should try to have a
surplus because the LMA has insufficient assets to cover the
liability to life members makes sense. The idea that if the current
board breaks even, it is really losing $100,000 because other
boards years ago lost that amount is ridiculous.
Bill Goichberg
It is Bill Goichberg's reply that is ridiculous.
Every year, the financial statements under Bill Goichberg shows the
receipt of $100,000 more than it actually got.
This extra $100,000 is derived from a perverted interpretation of
accrual accounting.
Thus, in 2008, the USCF lost $170,000, not the $70,000 that it
reported losing.
When reading a balance sheet one must look at both sides.

There is an entry that balances the dastardly $100K - what is it?
No there is not. There is no offsetting entry.

On the 2007-2008 financial statements it shows membership revenue as
$1,757,853.

In reality, the USCF received $100,000 less, or $1,657,853.

There is nothing in the financial statements, not even a footnote, to
indicate this.

Sam Sloan
In that case the balance sheet doesn't balance and you really would have
something to bleet about.
However, the balance sheet does balance - so where is the off-setting entry?
 
S

samsloan

samsloan said:
samsloan wrote:
chessoffice said:
The idea that the board should try to have a
surplus because the LMA has insufficient assets to cover the
liability to life members makes sense. The idea that if the current
board breaks even, it is really losing $100,000 because other
boards years ago lost that amount is ridiculous.
Bill Goichberg
It is Bill Goichberg's reply that is ridiculous.
Every year, the financial statements under Bill Goichberg shows the
receipt of $100,000 more than it actually got.
This extra $100,000 is derived from a perverted interpretation of
accrual accounting.
Thus, in 2008, the USCF lost $170,000, not the $70,000 that it
reported losing.
Sam Sloa
When reading a balance sheet one must look at both sides.
There is an entry that balances the dastardly $100K - what is it?
No there is not. There is no offsetting entry.
On the 2007-2008 financial statements it shows membership revenue as
$1,757,853.
In reality, the USCF received $100,000 less, or $1,657,853.
There is nothing in the financial statements, not even a footnote, to
indicate this.
Sam Sloan
In that case the balance sheet doesn't balance and you really would have
something to bleet about.
However, the balance sheet does balance - so where is the off-setting entry?
I do not know. Why don't you ask some of the USCF bigshots here, such
as Randy Bauer who comes here occasionally?

Sam Sloan
 
J

Jürgen R.

samsloan said:
samsloan said:
samsloan wrote:
chessoffice said:
The idea that the board should try to have a
surplus because the LMA has insufficient assets to cover the
liability to life members makes sense. The idea that if the
current board breaks even, it is really losing $100,000 because
other boards years ago lost that amount is ridiculous.
Bill Goichberg
It is Bill Goichberg's reply that is ridiculous.
Every year, the financial statements under Bill Goichberg shows
the receipt of $100,000 more than it actually got.
This extra $100,000 is derived from a perverted interpretation of
accrual accounting.
Thus, in 2008, the USCF lost $170,000, not the $70,000 that it
reported losing.
When reading a balance sheet one must look at both sides.
There is an entry that balances the dastardly $100K - what is it?
No there is not. There is no offsetting entry.
On the 2007-2008 financial statements it shows membership revenue as
$1,757,853.
In reality, the USCF received $100,000 less, or $1,657,853.
There is nothing in the financial statements, not even a footnote,
to indicate this.
Sam Sloan
In that case the balance sheet doesn't balance and you really would
have something to bleet about.
However, the balance sheet does balance - so where is the
off-setting entry?
I do not know. Why don't you ask some of the USCF bigshots here, such
as Randy Bauer who comes here occasionally?

Sam Sloan
No - you are the one who claims something is wrong with the books.
 
J

Jürgen R.

Jürgen R. said:
samsloan said:
samsloan wrote:
samsloan wrote:
chessoffice said:
The idea that the board should try to have a
surplus because the LMA has insufficient assets to cover the
liability to life members makes sense. The idea that if the
current board breaks even, it is really losing $100,000 because
other boards years ago lost that amount is ridiculous.

Bill Goichberg
It is Bill Goichberg's reply that is ridiculous.

Every year, the financial statements under Bill Goichberg shows
the receipt of $100,000 more than it actually got.

This extra $100,000 is derived from a perverted interpretation of
accrual accounting.

Thus, in 2008, the USCF lost $170,000, not the $70,000 that it
reported losing.

Sam Sloa

When reading a balance sheet one must look at both sides.

There is an entry that balances the dastardly $100K - what is it?

No there is not. There is no offsetting entry.

On the 2007-2008 financial statements it shows membership revenue
as $1,757,853.

In reality, the USCF received $100,000 less, or $1,657,853.

There is nothing in the financial statements, not even a footnote,
to indicate this.

Sam Sloan

In that case the balance sheet doesn't balance and you really would
have something to bleet about.
However, the balance sheet does balance - so where is the
off-setting entry?
I do not know. Why don't you ask some of the USCF bigshots here, such
as Randy Bauer who comes here occasionally?

Sam Sloan
No - you are the one who claims something is wrong with the books.
Most likely you will find two fictitious payments balancing each
other - one from the fund for current expenses servicing lifetime
members, and one to the fund reducing the debt. That would be
entirely reasonable.
 
S

samsloan

Allen Priest writes the following on the USCF Issues Forum:

by Allen on Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:54 am #136717

samsloan wrote:On the 2007-2008 financial statements it shows
membership revenue as $1,757,853.

In reality, the USCF received about $100,000 less, or about
$1,657,853.

There is nothing in the financial statements, not even a footnote,
to indicate this.

Sam Sloan



My suggestions:

Read the cash flow statement.

Read the deferred revenue notes - note 1 bottom of page 7.

Read the deferred revenue note top of page 8.

Read Note D.

Read Note E and notice that it has the required schedule showing
collections and recognition, along with expected future amortization
of existing life memberships.

For someone with your extensive experience in corporate finance I
would have thought those disclosures would have been clear. They were
to me, but then I am just a lowly CPA who has only been in the
business 27 years. It is a pretty straight-forward disclosure for
folks who work with these all the time.
 
S

samsloan

Allen Priest writes the following on the USCF Issues Forum:

by Allen on Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:54 am #136717

    samsloan wrote:On the 2007-2008 financial statements it shows
membership revenue as $1,757,853.

    In reality, the USCF received about $100,000 less, or about
$1,657,853.

    There is nothing in the financial statements, not even a footnote,
to indicate this.

    Sam Sloan

My suggestions:

Read the cash flow statement.

Read the deferred revenue notes - note 1 bottom of page 7.

Read the deferred revenue note top of page 8.

Read Note D.

Read Note E and notice that it has the required schedule showing
collections and recognition, along with expected future amortization
of existing life memberships.

For someone with your extensive experience in corporate finance I
would have thought those disclosures would have been clear. They were
to me, but then I am just a lowly CPA who has only been in the
business 27 years. It is a pretty straight-forward disclosure for
folks who work with these all the time.
Mr. Priest must be reading some other document, because I am reading
2007-2008-audited-financials.pdf from the uschess.org website.

The document I am reading does not contain a note 1. It does contain a
note A however. Note A states what we all already know, which is that
the federation offers life and sustaining memberships to its members.

Page 8 also tels us what we all already know, which is that the USCF
maintains deferred membership categories, including multi-year
memberships.

Note D says that the USCF is required to have an appraisal done on the
Crossville Land and Building every three years, and the last appraisal
was done on July 15, 2003, which is six years ago. That is certainly
alarming, especially since many have stated that the Crossville Land
and Building are worth far less than the total of $855,101 that is
carried on the books. The actual value of the land and building is
said to be in the high five to low six figures. I guess this explains
why a current appraisal has not been done.

Note E page 11 is the only one that seems to pertain to the issue
here. It says under "deferred life and sustaining membership income",
"Amount Recorded as Income (118,670)". So, in other words, this amount
of (118,670) is the offset to the amount showed as membership dues
received. This means that $118,670 is the amount of imaginary money
recorded as having been received as membership dues this year.

I guess Mr. Priest was hoping that I would not actually read the
documents he told me to read.

One bit of good news in the financial statements comes in Note J on
page 12 regarding the current litigation involving the USCF. It
states, "After taking into consideration legal counsel's evaluation of
such actions, management is of the opinion that their outcome will not
have a significant effect on the federations financial statements."

Boy, I sure am relieved to learn that.

It certainly is good to have someone with Mr. Priests' vast experience
helping us out on this.

Sam Sloan
 
S

samsloan

by Allen on Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:49 pm #137001

samsloan wrote:

Allen wrote:

samsloan wrote:On the 2007-2008 financial statements it
shows membership revenue as $1,757,853.

In reality, the USCF received about $100,000 less, or
about $1,657,853.

There is nothing in the financial statements, not even a
footnote, to indicate this.

Sam Sloan



My suggestions:

Read the cash flow statement.

Read the deferred revenue notes - note 1 bottom of page 7.

Read the deferred revenue note top of page 8.

Read Note D.

Read Note E and notice that it has the required schedule
showing collections and recognition, along with expected future
amortization of existing life memberships.

For someone with your extensive experience in corporate
finance I would have thought those disclosures would have been clear.
They were to me, but then I am just a lowly CPA who has only been in
the business 27 years. It is a pretty straight-forward disclosure for
folks who work with these all the time.




Mr. Priest must be reading some other document, because I am
reading 2007-2008-audited-financials.pdf from the uschess.org website.

The document I am reading does not contain a note 1. It does
contain a note A however. Note A states what we all already know,
which is that the federation offers life and sustaining memberships to
its members.

Page 8 also tells us what we all already know, which is that the
USCF maintains deferred membership categories, including multi-year
memberships.

Note D says that the USCF is required to have an appraisal done on
the Crossville Land and Building every three years, and the last
appraisal was done on July 15, 2003, which is six years ago. That is
certainly alarming, especially since many have stated that the
Crossville Land and Building are worth far less than the total of
$855,101 that is carried on the books. The actual value of the land
and building is said to be in the high five to low six figures. I
guess this explains why a current appraisal has not been done.

Note E page 11 is the only one that seems to pertain to the issue
here. It says under "deferred life and sustaining membership income",
"Amount Recorded as Income (118,670)". So, in other words, this amount
of (118,670) is the offset to the amount showed as membership dues
received. This means that $118,670 is the amount of imaginary money
recorded as having been received as membership dues this year.

I guess Mr. Priest was hoping that I would not actually read the
documents he told me to read.

One bit of good news in the financial statements comes in Note J
on page 12 regarding the current litigation involving the USCF. It
states, "After taking into consideration legal counsel's evaluation of
such actions, management is of the opinion that their outcome will not
have a significant effect on the federations financial statements."

Boy, I sure am relieved to learn that.

It certainly is good to have someone with Mr. Priests' vast
experience helping us out on this.

Sam Sloan



Very good Sam. You found the right document!

Note 1 -Note A - big deal - the first footnote then. This note
indicates that the organization uses the accrual basis of accounting.
Now that tells us that or statement of activities will not be the cash
inflows and outflows but will represent the cash plus changes in the
amounts owed and the amounts due to the organization. And, yes, it
says the organization offers memberships lasting longer than one year.
So we turn back through the footntoes to learn about those. Still with
me buddy?

Note D is titled Life Membership Assets. You will note that those
consist of cash, CD's and securities as well as land, building and
building improvements. So regardless of your red herring about an
appraisal - which I agree ought to be done but has nothing to do with
tracing through the membership cash and revenue - Note D tells the
reader that there are some assets set aside for such memberships. But
is it enough? Note D doesn't tell us that (because it is not supposed
to do so), therefore we move on through the footnotes. But Note D does
tell us that $27,145 more cash was added into the LMA investments
during the year. Still hanging in there Sam?

Note E is titled Deferred Revenue Life and Sustaining Memberships.
This note tells us that the organization had deferred revenue of
$1,082,201 at 6/1/06. We collected $87,119 for these types of
memerbships for the year ended 5/07. Under the revenue recognition
policy the organization has consistently used it recognized $101,095
in revenue from such memberships in recognition that all those members
are one year older and need one less year of membership services. That
leaves $1,068,225 in deferred revenue at 5/07. In the last year we
collected $65,262 for these types of memberships. Under the revenue
recognition policy the organization has we recognized $118,670 in
revenue from such memberships in recognition that all those members
are one year older and need one less year of membership services. Thus
at 5/08 there remained $1,014,817 of deferred revenue reflecting the
liability to provide member services to those members through the
estimated remainder of their membership periods. Then there is a
schedule to show how much will be recognized in each year until total
deferred revenue is fully recognized.

You still with me?

Now you noted that the $118,670 was recognized as revenue. Very good.
So let's turn back to the cash flow statement and compare that to the
statement of activities and changes in net assets (which just for ease
of use let's call the income statement). The income statement has
membership revenue of $1,757,853. Comparing that to the cash flow
statement we find that the indirect method is presented. Now I prefer
the direct method becuase I think it has more information, but I'm
sure you can toggle back and forth between the two, Sam, as we know it
isn't that hard to do for experienced users of financial statements.
The cash flow statement shows that the deferred revenue for our life
and sustaining members declined by $53,408. Of course it did as that
is the difference between the revenue recognized of $118,670 and the
additional membership receipts from this class of members of $65,262.
($118,670-$65,262=$53,408) So cash inflow from memberships would be
reduced by the $53,408. One would do a similar exercise with multi-
year memberships. Still there?

Now remember back in Note D we saw that the LMA fund got $27,145 more
in cash over the year. But the deferred revenue number went up by
$53,408. Now we would like for the deposits tot he LMA to equal or
exceed the amount of deferred revenue. Since it didn't it means that
the organization should have set aside more money into the LMA than it
did - at least $26,000 more - more or less. I would for it to be more
and not less. But it was a start. There should be as much cash in the
LMA as there is deferred revenue so that funds will be avaialble in
the future to deliver the membership benefits to those life and
sustaining members. I fully agree with that. It isn't there becuase at
some point in the past that money was spent in the year received
instead of being set aside as it should ahve been. That was not a good
thing to do. I have said that over and over. But that has been done
and we cannot change the past. What needs to happen going forward is
that the cash needs to be set aside as we go on But that will take
many years to clean up unless the finances change substantially. Fewer
lawsuits would help don't you think?

There is no "imaginary money", whatever that is supposed to mean.
There is a difference between the member revenues recognized and cash
received and there was money put into the LMA fund. More needs to be
put there.

Thanks for your recognition of my expertise.
I was counting on you reading the documents.
I'm just disappointed that your analysis was not more astute given
your self-proclaimed financial expertise. Or maybe you were going so
fast that you skipped over the obvious stuff so we could talk on a
higher level. But I thought we ought to go back through the details
for the benefit of those who don't read these things every day.

I hope you didn't mind that Sam. Thanks for the opportunity to explain
this in greater detail for them. I didn't want to be too long-winded
in my post before as that seemed to trouble you. These things usually
take more time to explain that one can do in a pithy sound bite.

Allen
 
S

samsloan

Income statements work on revenue earned
not received. Any new receipts of Life and
sustaining memberships would not be shown
as revenue but rather as an increase in deferred
revenue net of this year's recognition.

Sam you're either incompetent or an idiot or both.
You obviously do not understand the issue.

When a new life member joins the USCF and pays $1000, that money is
supposed to be deposited into the LMA account and a small amount
deducted, about $15, to pay to send Chess Life to that member for one
year.

This was done throughout the 1980s up until 1996 when Goichberg was
elected Vice-President of the USCF.

By that time the LMA had $2 million in it.

However, starting in 1996, USCF operations would regularly "borrow"
money from the LMA. This was not supposed to happen and was not
permitted when Anthony Cottell, a CPA of New Jersey, who had been
instrumental in setting up the LMA, had been USCF Treasurer.

Starting in 1996, the LMA started going down as more and more money
was borrowed by operations from the LMA. Finally, by 2003, because of
the huge operating losses under three successive executive directors,
Cavallo, DeFeis and Niro, the entire $2 million in the LMA had been
spent and the account was closed. Niro then changed accounting methods
in 2003 it hide the fact that the LMA accoount no longer existed. If
you search yoiu will see that there was a tremendous outcry on rgcp
when Niro did this.

The $2 million that had been lost was still carried as a "debt" to the
LMA. Since there were about 10,000 life members, every year about $10
for each life member was supposed to be transferred from the LMA
account to operations. However, because the LMA account no longer
existed, this transfer did not actually take place. It was a
bookkeeping entry as no money was involved. That is why it is called
"imaginary money".

In 2004 Bill Goichberg sold the USCF's headquarters building in New
Windsor for $513,000. A new LMA account was created and that $513,000
was put in it. The funds in the NEW LMA account did not in any way
come from dues paid by the Life members. This is one point that Allen
Priest does not seem to understand.

It was not until I was on the board in 2007 that Beatriz Marinello
discovered and pointed out that funds from the sales of new Life
Memberships was not being put into the LMA account as required but was
being treated as operating income. This led to the delegate
resolutions passed in Cherry Hill in August 2007.

The problem now is that the delegate resolutions that were passed in
2007 are being ignored by the board and by the executive director.
They are still making the paper transfer of the old LMA Finds to
Operations every year, transferring about $100,000 each year, thereby
making it seem that the USCF is getting $100,000 more in membership
revenues than it actually receives. If the Old LMA account still
existed and still had money in it, this would make sense. However,
because the Old LMA Account no longer exists this is a fraudulent
transfer.

What is so upsetting about Mr. Allen Priest is that he is a new member
of the USCF and was not around when all these things were happening
and he does not understand the difference between the Old LMA account
(that no longer exists) and the New LMA account (that contains
entirely of money derived from the sale of the building in 2004 plus a
small amount from the sale of life memberships since 2007). He keeps
saying that a transfer of funds from the Old LMA account is "required
by GAAP' when that is obviously nonsense. Prison cells are filled with
accountants who made similar claims. Note that even Grant Perks has
specifically stated that he does not go along with this and has
nothing to do with the fact that the office, the executive board and
Mr. Allen Priest are continuing to ignore the delegate resolutions
passed in Cherry Hill in 2007.

Sam Sloan
 
S

samsloan

The LMA agreed to loan money to operations THIS TIME with the
understanding that if operations defaults and does not repay the funds
on schedule, there would be no more "loans".

Amazingly, for the first time ever in USCF recorded history, the loan
was repaid. Of course, by this time the bequest of $350,000 had been
received so there were ample funds to repay the loan.

However, at the present rate, before long the $350,000 bequest will
have been used up and when operations stops repaying it will be a
different story.

As far as "professional CPAs" having passed on the propriety of USCF
accounting, at least 20 CPAs over the years have been involved in USCF
finances, and the views of Mr. Allen Priest are unique in that as far
as I know no oher CPA has agreed with them. Most of the others, I
admit, have given up and left.

Sam Sloan
 
S

samsloan

Allen said:
samsloan said:
As far as "professional CPAs" having
passed on the propriety of USCF accounting, at least 20 CPAs over the
years have been involved in USCF finances, and the views of Mr. Allen
Priest are unique in that as far as I know no oher CPA has agreed with
them. Most of the others, I admit, have given up and left.

Sam Sloan
How many gave up and left because they were tired of being abused by
you and decided they would rather do things they get paid to do? For
example, why, even in the quoted post, cast aspersions on the
professional qualifications of those with which you disagree?

Allen Priest
The answer is: None of them. Tony Cottell, a CPA who was USCF
Treasurer for many years and who set up the initial LMA account, last
appeared at the USCF Delegate's meeting in Framingham in 2001. He made
a motion to put the LMA Funds into a seperate corporation so that it
could not be reached by operations, not even in bankruptcy.

His motion failed by only a few votes. Cottell moved to Florida and
has not attended a meeting since. I voted against the Cottell motion
because I accepted Goichberg's argument that there are times when
operations legitimately needs to access LMA funds. I did not realize
and indeed nobody except possibly Tony Cottell realized that in just
two more years the entire LMA account would be emptied and the account
closed.

I deeply regret voting against Cottell's motion. Had his motion
passed, the USCF would be in far better financial shape today.

Another CPA who was chased away was Stan Booz. He was kicked out
because of obscene statements he often made on the Internet. We now
know that most of the obscene statements were by "The Fake Stan Booz"
who was the same person as "The Fake Sam Sloan".

Another person who was chased away was Tom Dorsch. His case was
different because he claimed to have a financial background and led
people to believe that he was a CPA, when he was not. He had no
financial background at all. However, his wife, Carolyn, had a
financial background.

The one accountant I have openly criticized is Grant Perks. However,
got on his case not because of accounting matters but because he paid
out more than $7500 in "per diem" allowances when that was clearly not
allowed by IRA Rules.

Again, not one of the CPAs that I know of agree with Mr. Allen
Priest's assertions on how the USCF's financial statements should be
done.

Sam Sloan
 
S

samsloan

Allen said:
Finally, per diem allowances are OK under IRS rules and
there are no limits on the same. The only issue is the tax treatment
of them if they exceed actual costs incurred, which is a matter
reported at the recipient level.
Once again, you do not know what the issue was and did not bother to
check the archives to find out what it was.

The issue was that "per diem allowances" are only to be paid for away
from home travel. Instead, they were paid by Mr. Perks as a tax free
salary of $50 per day or $350 per week for 22 weeks straight during
which there was little or no away from home travel.

By the way, during my one year one year on the board I received zero
in per diem allowances. I also claimed lower reimbursement of expenses
than any other board member claimed.

In the Grant Perks case, I was censured for making a statement that I
never made. I challenged the Ethics Committee to produce an instance
of me making that statement and they were never able to do so. This is
the problem with having a politically motivated ethics committee.

Sam Sloan
 
H

help bot

At 6:02 am Mr. Sloan was dead certain that
there was no offsetting entry. But by 3:41 pm,
the poor chap's brain was "reset", and he
then reported that he didn't know, one way
or the other.

I do not know. Why don't you ask some of the USCF bigshots here, such
as Randy Bauer who comes here occasionally?

As any rational person can plainly see, the
poor fellow's mind is in a shambles; he does
not "know" anything, except on a whim; and
if his bluster is resolutely challenged, poor
Mr. Sloan will quickly back down and reverse
course, admitting that what he said he knew
was nothing more than hot air escaping one
or another of his bodily orifices.


-- help bot
 
J

jkh001

samsloan said:
Allen said:
Finally, per diem allowances are OK under IRS rules and
there are no limits on the same. The only issue is the tax treatment
of them if they exceed actual costs incurred, which is a matter
reported at the recipient level.
Once again, you do not know what the issue was and did not bother to
check the archives to find out what it was.

The issue was that "per diem allowances" are only to be paid for away
from home travel. Instead, they were paid by Mr. Perks as a tax free
salary of $50 per day or $350 per week for 22 weeks straight during
which there was little or no away from home travel.

By the way, during my one year one year on the board I received zero
in per diem allowances. I also claimed lower reimbursement of expenses
than any other board member claimed.

In the Grant Perks case, I was censured for making a statement that I
never made. I challenged the Ethics Committee to produce an instance
of me making that statement and they were never able to do so. This is
the problem with having a politically motivated ethics committee.

Sam Sloan
Sam, the way you phrased that implies that you declined the per diem
on principle. That's a flat-out lie. You /demanded/ a per diem. You
whined and complained about it. You continued to do this even after
you were shown the motion from six years earlier abolishing per diems
for EB members. And you have the gall to mention ethics?
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

samsloan

Randy Bauer said:
samsloan said:
By the way, during my one year one year on the board I received zero
in per diem allowances. I also claimed lower reimbursement of expenses
than any other board member claimed.
Sam Sloan
A false statement. Go to the 2007 Delegate's call, page 7. Bill
Goichberg was reimbursed for $0.00 in expenses for that year. Sam
Sloan was reimbursed for $469.84.

Last time I looked, under any reasonable form of accounting, a $469.84
expense is greater than a $0.00 expense.

Yet another example of Sam Sloan's amazing grasp of simple facts.

Randy Bauer
My statement is accurate. I wrote that I asked for less than anybody
else asked for. Since Goichberg did not ask for any reimbursement, his
request was not less than mine.

Also, to compare me to Goichberg is not appropriate. Goichberg
organizes the World Open with $400,000 in prizes. I derived no income
from chess. I am a true volunteer, as opposed to Goichberg who is able
to use his position on the board to help him in his business
interests.

Another difference is that Goichberg scheduled the board meetings so
that they would be held wherever he was. For example, the February
2-3, 2007 board meeting was held near the Santa Anita Race Track in
Los Angeles, because the horses are running there at that time of the
year, and Goichberg plays the horses, whereas the other board members
with the exception of Randy Hough had to fly in from all over the
country to attend the meeting.

Sam Sloan
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top