jim.manico at owasp.org
Mon May 11 02:29:38 UTC 2015
Thank you for looking into this and updating us Paul.
> On May 10, 2015, at 7:23 PM, Paul Ritchie <paul.ritchie at owasp.org> wrote:
> Hi All, I wanted to step in with some facts on this issue before anyone gets too worried about whether the OWASP Foundation, or individual Board members have a tax issue with Trainers fees.
> Issue: The issue of active Board member getting paid a portion of training fees has been discussed at some length via this email thread.
> In fact, the training fees related to AppSec conferences, were treated as vendor invoices rather than actual 1099 tax forms paid to 'contractors'. What this means is that the OWASP Foundation tax returns for the past 7-8 years have not shown 'any' compensation paid to Board members....even it it was a couple thousand dollars for a training fee. Instead, it has been booked as a vendor expense. This appears to be true for all trainers....whether they were Board members or not.
> Our Audit for 2013, which completed late last year, reviewed this approach and no red flags were raised. Also, when KPMG did the 2013 tax return, they had no objections to this approach.
> It is an issue that I have already discussed with our accounting team, including Virtual Mgmt, and it is an issue we expect to investigate again during the 2014 US tax filing process. Basically, should the OWASP Foundation be sending 1099 contractor 'Misc. Income' statements to all OWASP trainers who receive fees, or are we OK continuing to expense those fees as part of the overall AppSec Conference program.?
> I have no definitive answer right now, but I wanted to let you all know that we are certainly aware of the issue, and it was definitely covered during the 2013 Audit and tax filing process in late 2014.
> Best Regards, Paul Ritchie
> OWASP Executive Director
> paul.ritchie at owasp.org
>> On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Bev Corwin <bev.corwin at owasp.org> wrote:
>> It is complex. have heard different views from different lawyers, difficult areas to try to understand, not always clear cut, or logical as one would hope. All good points, however, and perhaps makes possible cases for eventual OWASP 501(c)6 ?
>>> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
>>> Certainly. Having counsel review these issues are always a good idea. These issues are also discussed in detail via the various books the board was tasked to read.
>>> Jim Manico
>>> (808) 652-3805
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Owasp-board