Thursday, February 18, 2016

CSBA: Some Simple Math? Some Missing Annual Reports?

******* Updated ******

This morning, we were doing a customary re-read of the “CSBA: Some Simple Math? Some Missing Annual Reports?” post, we had noticed some typo’s to correct and were planning to update the article with links to the Texas Comptroller site with the information that resulted in our analysis of the breakdown of franchise fees.  What we noticed today that we did not notice when we originally wrote this posting, this FAQ only applies to franchise fees prior to 2008.  The $150,000/$150,000 threshold for gross receipts in the prior fiscal year and carry over assets into the current fiscal year were not correct to apply to “Attorneys for Special Needs Children.”  The threshold set for prior to 2008 that we had used to base our calculations was actually too low.  In all honesty, it made the notion that Candy would have to pay $1,500 on $150,000 in gross donations and $20,000 to $30,000 in carry over assets actually very plausible.   

The point we were hoping to make, was that given the fact that to make the franchise fee of $1,500 work out, as Candy had stated in the tweet that was part of her massive Q&A over the legitimacy of Atty4Kids, a reasonable person would not understand why she would not have paid the $1,500 to maintain the charter that is necessary for operating in Texas.  After all, if you received $150,000 in gross receipts in one fiscal year, 1% is not some overreach.  Likewise, as a “charity” it is the charity’s responsibility to make a lot of this information public, how much they received as donations/income, how much they paid staff, how much they paid in grants, what the overall liabilities were and what the assets were.  In other words, is her figure of $1,500 plausible, does her decision to forgo paying it appear to be reasonable, and as always, where is the money going, where are the “charities” documents to support any of this.

So how did this go off the rails?  Apparently, after 2008, we have discovered that there were some changes to how the franchise fees were calculated, for one, it is no longer as simple as looking at gross receipts & carried over assets.  There are now 3 or 4 different calculations that must be applied and then the least $’s of those calculations is what is used to figure the franchise fees, including what appears to be Net receipts/profit.  We are going to spend some time working thru those calculations based on $1,500 in franchise fees due to determine what the break down would or could be based on revised rates.  So far the number we keep coming back to is a net of $300,000 or so.  

The big kicker in all of this is, however, Starting in 2008, it appears that the minimum no-tax-due threshold test for income was set at $300,000, which jumped to $1,000,000 in 2010, increased to $1,030,000 for 2012, 1,080,000 in 2014, and currently for 2016 sits at 1,110,000.  So for the year that we are directly discussing, 2011,, if these tables and what we are reading from the state are indeed accurate and the franchise fee of $1,500 as stated by candice was the true amount due, gross receipts had to be greater than or equal to $1,000,000. That is a staggering number.  Joan, Candy’s BFF, has stated to me on more then one occasion that she does not think there was any impropriety in how Candy has run the purported “charity” Atty4kids, but without the transparency that you would find with other reputable charities to back that up, its simply words from a friend.  In the big picture, it is hard to imagine & understand why the reluctance of Candy to release the proper Annual reports persists, after all, a legit charity has nothing to hide, but then again I think a legit charity would also have a valid charter in the state of TX, right?

As a result of this new information, we have removed the prior blog post and will update this one with new information as we dig further into corroborating Candy’s statement. We at the CSBA are sorry for any confusion that this has created as always, we will continue to research this so that we can present as accurate information as possible.

*** Update 2/27/2016 ***

So after a few energy drinks or something last night, Candy posted some tweets—not so much answering questions raised on this post but rather it appears to us that she intended to double down on the $1,500 franchise fee figure she had thrown out to the world previously.  After all, she wouldn’t want her Press Secretary Joan to see it any other way.  Joan, btw, has stopped tweeting from @Joan_LaLoca & @Jan_of_arc_ and moved on to one of her other Sock Puppet Accounts, @synthespia1, as seen in Candy-Canes tweets below, we think it was supposed to be a secret, so don’t tell anyone, @Jannofarc is of course one of Candy-Canes sock puppet accounts #BirdsOfAFeather.  Ok, so a couple of the tweets:

The EZ form for Texas Franchise Fees for 2010 can be found here!  First, we invite all of our readers to print this form out and fill it out given the information supplied by Candy in the above tweets and see if you come anywhere close to the $1,500 in franchise fees Candice says were the demise of the Attorney’s For Special Needs Children “charity’s” Texas Charter.

When we tried it with just the $500 in donations, as stated by Candy-Cane, and assumed that all of that money came from Texas and that there were no expenses, discounts or deducts, which should have yielded the highest franchise fee due, we calculated just $2.875 in franchise fees, far below the $1,500 that Candice has stated was due—what number did all of you get? Further, if we were to include any of those $539 in expenses stated by Candy, that franchise fee number would only go down.  One thought on those expenses: a net expense of $39 to create a vehicle that markets one’s “web/sm marketing business” and “Law Firm” for a year is pretty cheap, wouldn’t you say?  #FinancialStake

Now, this exercise clearly ignores 2 important details, if the franchise fees due are less then $1,000 and/or total receipts/income for the year are below the “No Tax Due Threshold,” which we believe to be $1,000,000 in 2010,  then there would be NO FRANCHISE FEE DUE as stated just below item 17 on the franchise fee form. #AlwaysReadTheFinePrint  Likewise, it ignores that a 501c3 organization is exempt from franchise fees in TX.

This all brings us back to the bigger question of why a purported “charity” that is purportedly a 501c3 organization would allow/have its Charter Revoked over $1,500 in Franchise Fees that, according to Candice, it owes when the math does not add up to the “Charity” owing any franchise fees at all?  And when did the word “Bankrupt” come into this discussion?

Bankrupt(?) + Revoked Charter + Lack of Transparency = is/was Legit Charity? Seriously?

On a totally different note, Candice wants everyone to know that she has once again been awarded a certificate from the Texas Bar recognizing all of her “Pro Bono” work. “Snaps for Candice”  We at CSBA are so proud of you we are beaming from Ear to Ear and have decided to give some $$$’s to a WORTHY charity in your honor.  We love your Ben Carson, “things are starting to happen” attitude—keep it up Candy-Cane.  




Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)