Re: [Iasa20] Memo exploring options for IASA 2.0 models

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 16 February 2018 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E9A1126DD9 for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:10:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zlz3leMl47Rb for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:10:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B195126C2F for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:10:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09E7520090; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:17:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8538880706; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:10:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brad Biddle <brad@biddle.law>
cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, iasa20@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgQFg+XVnhKW8FveHv11ZrL85R4Ddjj1T8t00QwR2B3k4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4483006c-1652-7340-19f8-8d0579af8213@cdt.org> <CA+9kkMBK0YzWmVZqFnRuzKj_mTZeSHy4xhZSgrjjNr7NnO68DQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABtrr-V88xYcRDNMDz8aH_6Jq-fvtDLMwpYxxXFxLZv-S25SSg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgQu-zi_FySTsDX_HbPOt+FrFYypSvPLwY8QfnfffR3QrQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMC_BjV4DdxNSk5LrgR0uU1vVF3YDyqobFYc7-t_idx60w@mail.gmail.com> <CAPdOjkhqQiqgeWUeMRb-Q3MzKtk=fEYxzQdmaaWoaGvZsQ8+Bg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMAQijV+vFZXosFPT3tFen_Azjitjdf=cEEKz2ZRc+tbqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgQFg+XVnhKW8FveHv11ZrL85R4Ddjj1T8t00QwR2B3k4Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7-RC3; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:10:51 -0500
Message-ID: <6036.1518808251@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/vIQskaARfMEkTurlZ04wM5UbtOM>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Memo exploring options for IASA 2.0 models
X-BeenThere: iasa20@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions relating to reorganising the IETF administrative structures in the so called “IASA 2.0” project. <iasa20.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iasa20/>
List-Post: <mailto:iasa20@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 19:10:54 -0000

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
    > That matches my understanding, i.e., that for tax purposes, the
    > difference between ISOC and the disregarded entity is disregarded;
    > everything looks like ISOC.

    > However, the "for tax purposes" part is important. For all other
    > purposes, they are separate entities with a limited relationship
    > encoded in the bylaws / operating agreement. It's just that these
    > separate accounts "roll up" into the same tax statements.

So to add, it's "for tax purposes" .. *OF ISOC AND THE LLC*

    > IIUC, the confusion around sponsorship was largely, "Is this
    > sponsorship going to support the IETF or ISOC more broadly?" Either
    > Option II or III answers that question, since you pay the entity you
    > want to pay; it's only the IRS that disregards the difference.

so for tax purposes of the contributor, are they still distinct entities?


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-