New Statement on SFW's Website

Hawkeye

Long Time Member
Messages
3,013
SFW posted this statement on its website today: http://sfw.net/2016/03/02/2492/ I found the following statement to be of particular interest:

"One of the primary attractions to the WHCE is 200 special Utah hunting permits available to the public for a $5 application fee each. The $5 drawing alone raised more than $1 million for Utah conservation this year. One dollar and fifty-cents of each $5 application fee is retained for the Utah Division of Wildlife and its wildlife conservation programs, and $3.50 evenly split between SFW and MDF, all of which is used to bolster wildlife conservation throughout the state of Utah benefiting multiple species. This commitment to utilize 100% of the application fee revenue to support Utah Conservation Initiatives included in the contract that SFW recently signed with the State to distribute expo permits from 2017 to 2021. We will annually disclose how these funds are utilized to benefit Utah wildlife."

Do any of you folks have any insight into what SFW means when it says "100% of the application fee revenue to support Utah Conservation Initiatives"? It sounds like SFW and the DWR may have addressed this issue in their contract that was just recently signed. SFW also states that they will annually disclose how these funds are utilized to benefit wildlife.

So what do you guys think? Is it possible that the DWR and the groups have listened to the public and addressed this problem? Does anybody have any insight into what was agreed to by SFW and the DWR? I submitted a GRAMA request to the DWR requesting a copy of the latest contract but I am still waiting for a response. I would sure like to see this matter resolved. But as the old saying goes, the devil is in the details. Cross your fingers.

-Hawkeye-
 
Then there should be no issue telling everyone where every cent of the $6 million plus will go, and where all the millions in years past unaccounted for have went. So open up SFW, where has and will the money be going?
 
That is very interesting. Looks like a direct response to the questions being raised by the sportsman/women about this issue.

I found this statement in the write up interesting.

"Reporting targeted expenditures to sportsmen and tracking results will also become more vigorous."

That statement alone says they have not done this in the past but will in the future. We will see I guess. As a side note they sure mentioned the $5.00 app fee a lot in that write up.

Without seeing what is in the new contract to address this it remains only a letter to cover their butt at this time. Listing all those projects does nothing to prove that the money to pay for them came from the millions they received off the $5.00 app fee. If they put out numbers showing that specific money from the app fees going directly to those projects and not into someone's bank account then that would end this issue.
 
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but 104k in membership dues and assessments? Going off the lowest membership fees of $35 which would give them the benefit of the doubt of the highest amount of members, that's less then 3k actual paying members. Is that really all that actually financially support them?
 
This statement may be too little too late.

I am more concerned about how the awarding process went down.
 
Hawkeye, I received this response from the Governors office after I emailed them about my concerns on how the expo contract was awarded,check out the last paragraph.


Thank you for your email to the Office of the Governor regarding the Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR). I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Governor.

Our office appreciates hearing from constituents and your comments and opinion regarding this issue have been noted. As much misinformation has been circulated, I wanted to share a statement from Michael Canning, Assistant Director at DWR. I hope the below details remove any doubt you may have had regarding the expo selection process.

"The purpose of the wildlife expo permits is to raise revenue for conservation, but also to bring a large wildlife exposition to Utah for all of the economic benefits such an exposition would provide to the state. Whenever the state desires to procure goods or services, we follow the process described in state procurement code. In this case, state procurement code required that the state issue a formal "Request for Proposal", which not only asks that proposals be submitted, but it also clearly defines how those proposals will be scored. The RFP for the expo permit distributor clearly stated that proposals would be scored on: 1) the viability of the business plan and potential to put on a high quality expo (40% of total score), 2) the ability to organize and conduct a secure and fair permit drawing (20%), 3) the commitment of the organization to use revenue generated for wildlife conservation in Utah (30%), and 4) the historical contribution and previous performance of the organization in Utah (10%). All of this information was made available to potential applicants before proposals were written.

After proposals were received, an independent four-person committee (comprised of members from the Department of Information Technology Services, the Department of Natural Resources, the Governor's Office, and the Division of Wildlife Resources) reviewed the proposals and scored them based on the pre-established criteria. The independent committee unanimously agreed that the proposal submitted by Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) was the superior proposal, because it better addressed the criteria in the RFP, and consequently had the highest total score. The SFW proposal scored particularly well because it contained a detailed expo business and marketing plan that included data to support the claims in the proposal, and it also provided a detailed data security plan to protect the personal information of the state's customers, as well as the credit card information of people that attend the expo. The other proposal provided a much less detailed business plan, and its data security plan provided little to no detail. The lack of detail in the data security plan was particularly troubling, as a data breach could cost the state millions of dollars. As I'm sure you can understand, we could not put the social security numbers and credit card numbers of our customers at risk due to the lack of a detailed data security plan. If you would like more information about the committee's decision, please read the justification statement for their selection, which is located at: http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf.

As many have noted, the SFW proposal did not directly return the most money to the state on a percentage basis (and as you can tell by the justification statement, that component of the SFW proposal was scored accordingly). However, it was the only proposal that provided enough detail to give the state certainty that a high-quality expo would occur and that customer data could be secured. Because of these concerns with the losing proposal and the lack of detail it provided, there is no way to say with any certainty that the total amount of money directly provided to the state would have been higher if the losing proposal was selected. In fact, the losing proposal may have cost the state money if the expo was not economically viable or if there had been data security issues. Although both proposals had their strong points, the state purchasing process selected the best proposal in a fair and unbiased manner. Finally, it is important to note that the contract recently signed between the state and SFW to distribute expo permits clearly states that all of the money raised from expo permit application fees will be used specifically to "support conservation initiatives in Utah". No money has been lost, and all proceeds will benefit Utah wildlife conservation."

Thank you for taking time to contact us regarding this matter. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact the Governor's Office again.

Sincerely,



Austin Cox
Constituent Services
 
Apexmtnman-

Yes, that is the "canned" statement that the Governor's office is sending out in response to emails and concerns from sportsmen. Ironically, the "canned" response was drafted by Mike Canning, the DWR official who participated in the RFP selection committee.

I don't know what he means when he says that "the contract recently signed between the state and SFW to distribute expo permits clearly states that all of the money raised from expo permit application fees will be used specifically to 'support conservation initiatives in Utah'. No money has been lost, and all proceeds will benefit Utah wildlife conservation."

That clearly was not stated or promised in SFW's response to the RFP, which included the same 70/30 split that has existed since the 2013 Expo. I am guessing that the groups and the DWR agreed to something new in their contract -- likely in response to the concerns expressed by sportsmen. We won't know what was agreed to until the DWR or the groups release the contract. I have a GRAMA request to the DWR but I am still waiting for a response.

-Hawkeye-
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-16 AT 10:43AM (MST)[p]If you like your insurance you can keep it! That's what it reminds me of!

It's a ploy to shut sportsman up and a ploy to cover up millions of dollars that are unaccounted for.

Open the books up for previous years sfw. Just cause you got called out and a shizz storm has started u want to play fair now. I say bs and don't fall for it!

It's a ploy to get off their backs and sportsman cannot back down to the past years of unaccounted money!
 
Is it possible that administrative costs can and probably are part of directing, participating, arranging, choosing etc the projects that would be done. So if some of the money is spent in that regards, isn't it still considered being used to enhance, promote, etc wildlife conservation. Aren't all the conservation groups in place to do just that very thing? We certainly can disagree with what salaries are and what legitimate expenses are in regards to the use of those "administrative funds" but isn't it all tied to helping conserve our wildlife heritage in the state? I believe that the DWR looks on all of the conservation groups as partners in this effort. It seems to me that we should support the ones that we believe is most in line with our own views and concerns.
Also, what if we find out that SFW-MDF has used all the money from the past years for "administrative" purposes and not specifically for "on the ground" projects. What can be done or should be done?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-16 AT 12:20PM (MST)[p]

>Is it possible that administrative costs
>can and probably are part
>of directing, participating, arranging, choosing
>etc the projects that would
>be done. So if some
>of the money is spent
>in that regards, isn't it
>still considered being used to
>enhance, promote, etc wildlife conservation.
>Aren't all the conservation groups
>in place to do just
>that very thing? We certainly
>can disagree with what salaries
>are and what legitimate expenses
>are in regards to the
>use of those "administrative funds"
>but isn't it all tied
>to helping conserve our wildlife
>heritage in the state? I
>believe that the DWR looks
>on all of the conservation
>groups as partners in this
>effort. It seems to me
>that we should support the
>ones that we believe is
>most in line with our
>own views and concerns.
>Also, what if we find out
>that SFW-MDF has used all
>the money from the past
>years for "administrative" purposes and
>not specifically for "on the
>ground" projects. What can be
>done or should be done?
>
If they need 70% percent of the tag money to do admin work for 30% of the tag
Money's worth of work. That to me means they have a serious problem!
 
Nebo,

We are now how many years into the expo? 10? Shouldn't the people of Utah have the answers to these questions? Do you think the people of Utah should know how much of the money raised went to the ground? If the money is already being used for "conservation efforts", then why all the pushback from SFW to show where the money went? I have lived by the trust but verify ideal. It has now come to the point where Utah should no longer trust SFW with these tags if they refuse to allow the people to verify where their investment is being used. JMO
 
Nebo asked: "what if we find out that SFW-MDF has used all the money from the past years for "administrative" purposes and not specifically for "on the ground" projects. What can be done or should be done?"

Good question. As a RAC member, how would you respond to that news?

-Hawkeye-
 
There's an old saying...

"If you're taking flack you must be over the target"



[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
In the 2013 tax return link posted in the other thread Don Peay Consulting received 261,000 dollars and 184,000 dollars went to habitat improvement. So they paid Don Peay 77,000 more than what they put on the ground for habitat improvement. A travesty in my opinion.
 
Legally IMO we couldn't require the money to be given back because we disagree about how or what the money was spent on. They were operating under the rules at the time. No crime there I wouldn't think.Going forward under the required 70/30 split we can make sure that the use of the money is accounted for each year. If we don't like how the 70% is being used then we can ask the DWR to change the structure and requirements for its use after the next 5 year contract is done. I think there are other threads on this site that seem to be addressing the transparency issue. Whether you agree with where the money is being used or not is a whole different matter.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-16 AT 09:28AM (MST)[p]http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf

The DWR just added their EXPO FAQ to their website

http://wildlife.utah.gov/utah-expo-permits-faq.html

I received these in an email from Mr Canning this morning.


Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-16 AT 10:37AM (MST)[p]Reading the signed contract section 7a allows SFW to keep 100% of the bank interest of all tag fees made from the 200 tags, not just from their $1.50 cut. Section 7b is the stipulation of keeping 30% of the generated fees in a separate account and that the money be used within a two year period for projects that have to be approved by the DWR. However, in section 7c the remaining 70% of the money, even though it's to be held in a separate account, has nothing in it that gives the DWR any control over it, and in fact it states the SFW can essentially use it for whatever they want, including personnel with no request for approval by the DWR. Cha ching---The Dons consulting fees as one example! In a nutshell, all this stuff coming out from SFW, MDF, and DWR is one big lying smokescreen to make it look like they've done what people have been asking for, when in effect, it's the same old ball game as the last two contracts! Looking over the Questions/Answers in #8 they claim that SFW/MDF is committed to spending 100% of the fee money as I mentioned the way the contract states, but it's so wide open they can spend it for just about anything, including personnel, that has the slightest look as if it was used for conservation.
 
Thanks BillyBob for posting those links. We should all carefully review these documents and the continue the discussion.

-Hawkeye-
 
I know I always get a kick out of SFWs claim to be educators. So what I think SFW means is that they will be paying the 70% to themselves and will be sure to require anyone that draws a salary speak to at least one kindygarten class a year about the good things about hunting.
 
Exactly Topgun. That's what I have been trying to explain to yall all this time. Everybody has been talking about when you get to see how the %70 is spent somehow all this corruption gets to come to light. In reality there isn't any corruption because its and AGREED UPON PAYMENT. Just like when you get paid for a job you get to do with it what you want, well so do they. They do a job they get paid. That simple.

Like I explained also in previous posts the DWR makes more money off the 200 tags than if they just kept them in the draw and the community benefits fiscally from wildlife. Plain and simple. The difference between me and others is it doesn't bother me when people get a fiscal benefit when they do a job which SFW does.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-16 AT 11:24AM (MST)[p]After quickly reviewing the latest contract between the DWR and SFW and DWR's FAQ's regarding the Expo Tags, I am confused and offer the following general response:

1. I don't see any real change in what the groups can do with the 70% they retain from the application fees. The have to use that 70% for "policies, programs, projects and personnel that support wildlife conservation inititives in Utah." What does that mean? Does everything SFW does accomplish those goals? Did they simply draft a provision that authorizes them to do what they were already doing? Can they pay salaries to SFW "personnel" with that money? Can they lobby with that money in an effort to affect "policies"? There is not audit provided for the 70% or for the 30% for that matter. And the annual report provided by SFW to the DWR only covers the 30% that has to be spent on approved projects. The groups have issued statement stating that they will "annually disclose how these funds are utilized to benefit Utah wildlife" and the DWR's FAQ's states that "SFW and its partner, MDF, have committed to annually disclose how 100 percent of these funds are used to benefit Utah wildlife." However, I don't see anything in the rule or the contract that requires any accountability or transparency with the 70% the groups retain. I am going to have to ask around and find out what was intended by the groups and the DWR.

2. After reviewing the "Frequently Asked Questions" prepared by the DWR, it is obvious that they are feeling the heat. I take issue with a number of the statements in that document, and I will prepare a detailed response when I have some time. Just as a preview, consider FAQ #9: "Has the Wildlife Expo Permit Program ever been audited? Yes, the DWR audits the program annually." Once again the DWR is playing word games. Over the years, the DWR has conducted certain "Wildlife Convention Audits." The first such audit was conducted in 2010, four years after the Expo began. In fact the 2010 "audit" states that no formal audit was performed in 2007, 2008 or 2009. More importantly, those "audits" never looked at how any of the application fees were spent by the groups until 2013, when the DWR began to require the groups to spend 30% on actual conservation. The DWR fully understands that the public is concerned about how the money is being spent by the groups and that is why we are asking for an audit. Yet, the DWR is more than happy to simply state, "Yes, the DWR audits the program annually." That statement is confusing and misleading.

I will post a more detailed response when I have time.

-Hawkeye-
 
The following was C/Pd right from the IRS website. Please read it and tell me how SFW can do what they do, both using money they obtain to take all their employees on hunting trips, as well as the specific lobbying they do that is outlawed.


Exemption Requirements - 501(c)(3) Organizations
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.
 
The key word in that post is "net earnings" and the subjective word is "substantial". I am sure that in the actual code unlike the summary there is a specific portioned number given. As for a net earning a person's salary within a company is not considered the net earnings of said company.
 
Now besides an expert lawyer it looks like you're a tax expert too. Thanks for your free advice!
 
Topgun, I am glad to see you take an interest in all the wrong doing, illegal stuff, SFW is doing. With your expertise and knowledge, you need to take this issue and get it fixed. Run with it and get it done.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-16 AT 01:38PM (MST)[p]>Topgun, I am glad to
>see you take an interest
>in all the wrong doing,
>illegal stuff, SFW is doing.
> With your expertise and
>knowledge, you need to take
>this issue and get it
>fixed. Run with it
>and get it done.



I'd suggest you go back to all the work you said you had for the next five weeks, as we're working on it and more heat will be applied by the boys in Utah before it's all over. By the way, after watching your Governor make his little speech it's obvious that this goes right to the top. What a sham and a shame what the people of Utah are putting up with! How many hundreds of thousands of dollars do you figure to give the Don out of that 70% that could have gone to conservation? Sad, very very sad that you allow people like him to make fools of you!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-16 AT 01:47PM (MST)[p]Hawkeye is spot on.
In my emails with Mr Canning, his words were misleading and side stepped a lot with his answers to questions. I would hardly call the DWR annual audit, an official audit. I wish I could have my wife audit my finances and make a final report to the IRS where it would be accepted.
Also, this new contract that was signed in January simply is vague in regards to the 70% revenue. It was typed up to change absolutely nothing.

Here is a small piece of the last email I received from Mr Canning and you decide if the DWR is 100% interested in Utahs wildlife success.

"You mention in your e-mail that you want us to do what's best for Utah's wildlife, not what's best for our constituents. We're trying to strike a balance and do both. We all love wildlife in DWR, and we manage them for the people of the state to enjoy"




Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-16 AT 02:04PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-16 AT 02:03?PM (MST)

This is the rest of his email. I want to reiterate that this contract in my understanding, isn't really different than the other administrative rules.

" (http://wildlife.utah.gov/utah-expo-permits-faq.html) This document answers the questions people have been asking, and it also addresses many of the internet rumors and misinformation. In addition, we have also posted the contract DWR and SFW signed in January (http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/expo_permit_contract.pdf). The contract clearly states that ALL of the application fee revenue will be used for conservation initiatives in Utah. Finally, I suggest you visit the SFW web site (http://sfw.net/2016/03/02/2492/), where they affirm their contractual commitment to spend 100% of the revenue on conservation initiatives and to annually disclose how those funds are spent. "

They (SFW) of course, agreed to CONTINUE to be "annually audited" by the DWR.
But I think all this raises more questions than answers any.




Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
 
>That answer seems perfectly clear to
>me.

It's clear to you because neither they nor you care to mention that the audits of the program for the past years consists of auditing ONLY the fairness of the draw procedure and NOTHING ABOUT THE FINANCES.
 
Wow....

After reading the FAQ's I feel like I need a shower.

Its an insult to intelligence to think if you use different verbiage to describe an outcome it makes the outcome different.

They don't get it and they are making the situation worse. They are still being lead by the nose and taking the same bad advice from the people that got them in this mess.

So to those at the Division reading this, you have the option of making changes to this program with mutual consent. You have obviously heard an earful. The advice you may want to heed is this.

You aren't bullchitting anyone with your spin of the situation. You should immediately address this situation with all parties involved. SFW and the RMEF and the ambulance chasers from both groups.
Get everyone in the same room and don't come out till a compromise that benefits Utah's wildlife is reached.

Grow a pair, man up and do the right thing. And for Christ sake quit hiding behind your political wall.



"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
HUNT"
Finn 2/14/16
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-16 AT 07:04PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-16 AT 06:25?PM (MST)

>The key word in that post
>is "net earnings" and the
>subjective word is "substantial".
>I am sure that in
>the actual code unlike the
>summary there is a specific
>portioned number given. As
>for a net earning a
>person's salary within a company
>is not considered the net
>earnings of said company.

It's a good thing that you weren't on "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" and your answer about "substantial" having a specific portioned number in the code wasn't your final answer! There is no such number! When I couldn't find it in their instructions for applying for 501(c)(3)status, nor on their website, nor in the IRS code, I called them on the phone and talked to an agent and her supervisor and neither of them could give me a specific number. So I begin suggesting numbers starting with 51% on the charitable mission and 49% influencing legislation, and it wasn't until we got to 75%/25% before the agent said, "That sounds about right". Apparently, it's somewhat like being audited by the IRS, the code is subject to interpretation depending on whether the agent likes you or not! I didn't try going the other way, but I suspect that 30% on the charitable mission and 70% influencing legislation would never have sounded about right.
 
Spot on WW.



Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
 
Hey ww?

That just cost you a few years of not Drawing that Elk Tag!

I Thought You Had Learned something from me doing the same many years ago?

You gotta start Throwin more Empties!

Times are Tough in the Basin!




[font color="blue"]"I Don't get No Sleep!I Don't get No Peace!"

Hey Founder?

Did You get Permission From shotgun1 before you made your Last
Post?
[/font]
 
That's when you know somebody is spewing BS. They try and convince you they got an IRS agent on the phone. And on a Friday none the less! :D
 
BEBOP, the way things are going now we'll all be needing a bunch of empties.



"WE USED TO HUNT GAME TO
MANAGE, NOW WE MANAGE TO
HUNT"
Finn 2/14/16
 
>That's when you know somebody is
>spewing BS. They try
>and convince you they got
>an IRS agent on the
>phone. And on a Friday
>none the less! :D
>


Is that sort of like a certain member on here that has a bunch of lawyers in the family and gets all his expert advice from them?!
 
>No Topgun. One of those
>is unlikely and the other
>is flat out impossible. :D
>


Got to poke another one at you---which is which, LOL? Have a good weekend!
 
>That's when you know somebody is
>spewing BS. They try
>and convince you they got
>an IRS agent on the
>phone. And on a Friday
>none the less! :D
>

You assume way too much! I'm thinking it's a result of your grandiose opinion of your own intelligence and your insatiable need to be right all of the time. I never wrote in a time when I called the IRS nor when I did the online (and paper) research regarding the IRS definition of "substantial". I only wrote that I did it.

In fact, it was over a year ago while I was in the process of establishing United Wildlife Cooperative's 501(c)(3) status with a 56 page application and a supplemental 12 page addendum. (They don't make it easy to get a non-profit status.) I called several times and asked lots of questions and also dug into the application instructions both online and on paper, and this question was just one of them. And, FWIW, I still have the agent's name and number as well as the supervisor's just in case we may need to change some things in the future. After all, it is the IRS we're dealing with!
 
Now I know why they haven't answered the phone for a year straight. They have been standing by waiting for calls about SFW. :D

Post up that direct line they owe me a buttload of money.
 
>Now I know why they haven't
>answered the phone for a
>year straight. They have
>been standing by waiting for
>calls about SFW. :D
>
>
>Post up that direct line they
>owe me a buttload of
>money.

Why would they be waiting for calls about SFW? Are you assuming something else again?

The direct lines I have won't do you any good; wrong department. Any logical person would know that. However, I hope you get the money you say they owe you, but I can't help you.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom