Radio Free Registry

[Steve Heinrichs]

Joel,

I really do not know the answers and the footnote comment is not clear. If there were accrual basis financials, the actual "pre-paid" magazine liability would be recorded but a 'closing down' accrual would not be because that would not be anticipated.

Steve Heinrichs

[Steve Heinrichs]

Joris,

Most organizations like the Registry (whether in Ohio or elsewhere as the tax filing is first and foremost a federal requirement, then state) would be some version of cash basis like the Registry. When the cash basis numbers are pulled together, they consitute "cash basis" financial statements. I do not know of any formal requirement for any interim (meaning during the year) financial statment filing.

My guess is that (part of the legal discovery is to determine this and help determine to what extent if any the Registry was 'harmed') the Registry does not have any (or did not have any) interim cash basis financials nor accrual basis ones.

Yor term "pre-paid" is the accurate term and my guess is that that would constitute most all of the liability.

Joris/all---here is the irony: All the Registry had to do as to this matter was to say: "You know, we are not exactly certain but it is probably about what Ron said it was a year ago". Instead, you no doubt recall scores of pages of criticism and personal shots for asking that and---God forbid: "How did we do last year and how are we doing this year?"

Steve Heinrichs

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Carrera GT]

Joris,

Most organizations like the Registry (whether in Ohio or elsewhere as the tax filing is first and foremost a federal requirement, then state) would be some version of cash basis like the Registry. When the cash basis numbers are pulled together, they consitute "cash basis" financial statements. I do not know of any formal requirement for any interim (meaning during the year) financial statment filing.

My guess is that (part of the legal discovery is to determine this and help determine to what extent if any the Registry was 'harmed') the Registry does not have any (or did not have any) interim cash basis financials nor accrual basis ones.

Yor term "pre-paid" is the accurate term and my guess is that that would constitute most all of the liability.

Joris/all---here is the irony: All the Registry had to do as to this matter was to say: "You know, we are not exactly certain but it is probably about what Ron said it was a year ago". Instead, you no doubt recall scores of pages of criticism and personal shots for asking that and---God forbid: "How did we do last year and how are we doing this year?"

Steve Heinrichs

Carrera_The_Kid wrote:

I agree that without knowing the outstanding liabilities it is difficult to judge the financial health accurately. Am I right in assuming that the current liability likely consists pretty much entirely of pre-paid dues?

Best,

Joris

Hello Joris,

I see your previous questions were answered already - and quite properly by Steve Heinrichs - he being the most qualified and respected in this professional field, including other business and tax matters.

As presented, the current audit-report, disclosed by the fk CPA firm - is based on "Sample" information that the firm was given, of which they reviewed for "a Limited Purpose" - done for nothing more than a previously filed "cash basis" Tax Return. Yes, on the surface - to an untrained persons eye - the Report looks all dressed up with its financial numbers and important sounding disclosure letters. However, it is nothing more than carefully designed fancy-footwork. The 356 Registry membership basically paid this firm for nothing at all that is material - as compared to what a "real paper trail" - fact based audited report would be.

Unfortunately, this current report is just another pattern of Trustee behavior - not putting forth the valid information they are required to. As background, the Registry members should take heed in the most recent ruling words of the Ohio Court Appeal Justices - that the Trustees "Cannot Have It Both Ways".

Both PCNA and Porsche have also taken note of this contradiction as well.

Perhaps yourself and others are getting a more clear-focused picture now - that what should have been simple, fact based answers to Steve Heinrichs prior financial questions - has now become so far-fetched and complex with the Trustees, the Publisher, and the silly-see through cover letters written by George Dunn. And to think that the Trustees wish to take this position of theirs the Ohio State Supreme Court? ...hmm, I doubt even the audit firm would considered that smart management.

The Registry members, retired like Steve Heinrichs, or who are working professionals in small, corporate, or other type businesses, ALL deserve the real "Facts" on documentation and reporting of the 356 Registry records and contracts (including past, present and future obligations) for an accurate financial understanding. Why shouldn't a non-profit "Car Club" be rightfully given this information ???

To think this has carried on - like this - really has become an insult to members and non-members intelligence alike.

Michael Doyle

[S.J.Szabo]

Again

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[S.J.Szabo]

The club is a non-profit! This is not a business. There are no losses.

[Carrera GT]

It may be the time to re-think what the "Trustee" position at the 356 Registry actually means...and does. The roles played by 7 of them - if that many are really needed(?) - may be better served as regional representatives to locations around the USA - AND as well in England/Europe (which they do not have - but surely need). The Trustee tasks may be to ONLY serve the needs of the local clubs and for annual Holiday events and so forth.

The "Business Affairs" of the Club could/should be managed by Non-356 vendor related Member business "professionals" (ie. CPA's or Financial Planners) that could donate their time and skills to Club contracts, Financial statements, Tax filings, and "Clear & Concise" annual reporting to the Membership.

By removing any and all self serving personalities from the business management of the Club - it also removes any partisan power, inner circle groupies, Print and Internet control.

Had this structure been in place, there would most likely be no current lawsuit that is based on very "Fair - Concerned - Objective Questions". The current "Trustees" response has led them (the Club) down a path of personality destruction - including to themselves - and added a defamation lawsuit because of their actions.

Re-thinking is Good. Change has been a long time coming. Hopefully more is, and sooner, rather than later.

Michael Doyle

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Bill Sampson]

Mark Roth, a member of the Open Foursome that ran for Registry trustee last year and received about 1/3 of the vote asked President In Waiting Liberty a simple question, ignored thus far (10/31/2013):

"Jim, how much did the audit cost?"

Would someone who is a member mind contacting Trustee Liberty and asking him for the answer? Obviously he knows it. That's his job.

Bill

[jstenner]

----

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[S.J.Szabo]

[S.J.Szabo]

[356JAGER]

DELETED