|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > March 2005 > Answer the question Glenn.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Answer the question Glenn.
|
|
|
| You continue to evade the issue and you have not answered the question.
You stated above: "We have been in the process to change from our
granted 501(c)6 to a 501(c)3 status for...well...years." You now state
that:
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> If and/or when we apply for a change of status I'll be sure to pass
> along your expertise to the IRS. I'm sure your opinion will be met
> with the consideration it deserves.
"If and/or when?" Or in the process "for...well...years?" Which is it?
I'm sure your application to the IRS for a change in status "will be
met with the consideration it deserves," as well.
The IRS will never consider CRSQA a 501(c)(3) as long as it derives the
bulk of its income from certification fees collected from surgeons. To
gain 501(c)(3) status, a qualifying organization must FIRST show that
its purpose benefits the public and that at least one third of its
income is derived from public donations. CRSQA, as it exists, will
never qualify under the tax code as a 501(c)(3) public charity because
it cannot meet those conditions.
RETURNING to the original question:
Why is it that nowhere on your web site do you state your true
501(c)(6) status and purpose as a trade organization/business league,
engaged in the pursuit of improving business conditions for the
refractive surgery industry, while you quite obviously and deliberately
attempt to pass CRSQA off as a public benefit, charitable, educational
organization?
...........................................
CRSQA represents CRSQA surgeons and Glenn Hagele. Period.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-31, 11:53 am |
| I have responded to your questions each and every time. We removed
the "pending" reference on our website and have not pushed the IRS for
a reevaluation because the issue of whether or not we are a 501(c)6 or
a 501(c)3 is inconsequential to the work we do. Whether we are a
nonprofit organization under IRS section 501(c)6, or under 501(c)3
makes no practical difference. The services we provide will continue
to be the same either way.
You have made your points on this issue, though many are nonsensical.
If anybody has a problem with the fact that we are a 501(c)6 rather
than a 501(c)3, then they should not use the services we provide.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> I have responded to your questions each and every time. We removed
> the "pending" reference on our website and have not pushed the IRS
for
> a reevaluation because the issue of whether or not we are a 501(c)6
or
> a 501(c)3 is inconsequential to the work we do. Whether we are a
> nonprofit organization under IRS section 501(c)6, or under 501(c)3
> makes no practical difference. The services we provide will continue
> to be the same either way.
>
> You have made your points on this issue, though many are nonsensical.
> If anybody has a problem with the fact that we are a 501(c)6 rather
> than a 501(c)3, then they should not use the services we provide.
>
Glenn, you have "responded," attempted to trivialize and make it
irrelevant, and in general, blown a lot of hot air, but you STILL have
not answered the question.
I did not ask if or why you removed the 501(c)(3) pending language from
your web site, nor whether the classification was consequential to your
business interests.
THE QUESTION REMAINS:
WHY do you persist in hiding the fact that you are merely a trade
organization/business league established to promote refractive
surgerons, while at the same time, you quite blatantly attempt to
mislead the public into thinking that you are a public charity
established for the public benefit.
NOWHERE ON YOUR WEBSITE DO YOU DISCLOSE YOUR TRUE IRS CLASSIFICATION AS
A 501(c)(6).
If it is, as you say, "inconsequential," why do you so visibly claim to
be a public charitable organization, the requirement for a 501(c)(3),
but utter nary a peep about being what you really are-a 501(c)(6)
trade organization/business league established to promote the business
interests of refractive surgeons/surgery?
Could it be, perhaps, that an honest answer might compromise your
stunning record of a complete and habitual lack of integrity?
"I, Glenn Hagele, consciously choose to masquerade CRSQA as a public
charity because if the public knew and understood that CRSQA is really
just a trade organization, established to market and promote refractive
surgeons/surgery, my credibility as an unbiased source of information
about refractive surgery would be diddly-squat."
If you have nothing to hide, Glenn, then tell the truth, here and on
your web site. Remove the BS about being a public charity and cut to
the chase: CRSQA is a trade organization benefitting refractive
surgeons, not a public benefit organization.
.......................................................
CRSQA benefits CRSQA surgeons and Glenn Hagele. Period.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-31, 11:53 am |
| I hide nothing. We are what we are. We do what we do. Nothing less
and nothing more.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| serebel 2005-01-31, 11:53 am |
|
C'mon Xeno,
move on, this horse has been beaten to death, in other words, I'm now
looking forward to Sandy's next diatribe.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-31, 11:54 am |
| Now THAT is a bad outcome.
8^)
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| johnmdoe123@yahoo.com 2005-01-31, 11:54 am |
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> If anybody has a problem with the fact that we are a 501(c)6 rather
> than a 501(c)3, then they should not use the services we provide.
Beautiful. What could be more fair than that. And HOW CAN ANYBODY KNOW
WHETHER THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT when you REFUSE TO PUT THAT
INFORMATION ON YOUR WEBSITE.
Go on. I dare you. Put that one little sentence you just said ON YOUR
WEBSITE. They are your own words. Surely you are not ashamed of them.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-31, 11:54 am |
| Exctly what sentence do you think needs to be added?
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| johnmdoe123@yahoo.com 2005-01-31, 11:54 am |
|
Glenn - USAEyes. org wrote:
> Exctly what sentence do you think needs to be added?
First, try re-reading the post.
Next, if you continue to be "confused" about what it means, here is the
sentence quoted and referred to in that post:
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> If anybody has a problem with the fact that we are a 501(c=AD)6 rather
> than a 501(c)3, then they should not use the services we p=ADrovide.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-31, 11:54 am |
| It is a simple question. Exactly what sentence do you think needs to
be added to our website?
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| Glenn - USAEyes. org wrote:
> It is a simple question. Exactly what sentence do you think needs to
> be added to our website?
>
............................................................................................
How about a simple statement of fact-the truth, for instance?
"CRSQA is a tax-exempt, non-profit, 501(c)(6) trade organization, whose
purpose and activities are directed to the improvement of business
conditions of the refractive surgery industry."
............................................................................................
CRSQA represents CRSQA surgeons and Glenn Hagele. Period.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-02-01, 2:46 pm |
| Let me rephrase: Exactly what sentence do you think needs to be added
to our website that would be accurate?
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| johnmdoe123@yahoo.com 2005-02-01, 2:46 pm |
|
xeno wrote:
> Glenn - USAEyes. org wrote:
to[vbcol=seagreen]
>
..=2E.......................................................................=
..=2E................
>
> How about a simple statement of fact-the truth, for instance?
>
> "CRSQA is a tax-exempt, non-profit, 501(c)(6) trade organization,
whose
> purpose and activities are directed to the improvement of business
> conditions of the refractive surgery industry."
>
>
..=2E.......................................................................=
..=2E................
> CRSQA represents CRSQA surgeons and Glenn Hagele. Period.
Xeno,
That's clearly too simple and factual for Glenn's taste. Why aim so
high?
I would have been content with Glenn's own sentence, WHICH I QUOTED
BACK TO HIM TWICE, in a way that nothing but an inanimate object could
have failed to understand, and which I repeat YET again below. However,
it is his prerogative to simply keep playing games. After all, that is
his core expertise. It sure ain't LASIK, tax law or regulatory affairs.
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> If anybody has a problem with the fact that we are a 501(c=AD)6 rather
> than a 501(c)3, then they should not use the services we p=ADrovide.
| |
| Pimp in a Pimpmobile 2005-02-01, 2:46 pm |
| Let me rephrase:
Exactly what sentence about my tax status would be so consistent with
my own goals as to convey absolutely no relevant or useful information
whatsoever?
Kisses
Pimp in a Pimpmobile
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Prevention
email to pimp in a pimpmobile at yahoo dot com
http://www.501(c)(6)doesntmeanathing.com
http://www.trustmeimapatientadvocate.com
I am not a 501(c)(3) public charity.
| |
|
| On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:53:13 -0500, xeno wrote
(in article <1107193993.511570.129450@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> ):
> "CRSQA is a tax-exempt, non-profit, 501(c)(6) trade organization, whose
> purpose and activities are directed to the improvement of business conditions
> of the refractive surgery industry."
Glenn, this is a valid concern. The problem doesn't lie in what CRSQA does,
but in how you represent it. There is a fundamental conflict between being a
trade organization and a patient/consumer advocacy group. This needs to be
explained clearly, not merely rationalized, in order for CRSQA to be
legitimately *for* patients. CRSQA needs to document, make public and
distribute its patient advocacy campaigns and show how they have primarily
helped patients--as a missive and as a financial priority. One could argue
that better business conditions would "trickle down" and help ensure future
patients better and more reliable outcomes, but that is not advocacy on
behalf of the patient. It's an incidental benefit.
--
~RT
________________________________________________
Hogwasher, Premier News and Mail for OS X
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.../hogwasher.html
________________________________________________
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-02-01, 2:46 pm |
| The apparent assumption is that every organization that achieves a
501(c)6 status is a trade organization and that only a trade
organization can achieve 501(c)6 status. CRSQA is not a trade
organization, however we also do not solicit tax-deductible
contributions. Our funding comes from certification fees. Since we
are not soliciting donations there is no need for us to be a 501(c)3.
A 501(c)6 classification suits our needs and our funding structure
fine. If we were a 501(c)3, we would be required to file all the
extra forms as if we were receiving tax-deductible donations. This
would be a lot of unnecessary paperwork.
Whether we are a 501(c)3 or a 501(c)6 is inconsequential and has no
practical effect on the services we provide. We will continue to do
what it is we do as we have done it since our inception. It is,
however, a technicality that lesser people seem to want to use in an
attempt to confuse the issue and try their darndest to make CRSQA look
bad. This is the equivalent of making a big issue of off-label use of
an FDA approved device, as if it is something wrong.
As for the illegitimacy of whether or not CRSQA is "for" patients, I
submit the past five years of services we have provided as ample
evidence of that fact.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-02-01, 2:46 pm |
| >As for the illegitimacy of whether or not CRSQA is "for" patients, I
>submit the past five years of services we have provided as ample
>evidence of that fact.
ROFL at myself.
I need to pay more attention to my spell checker. Rather than
selecting "legitimacy", I clicked on "illegitimacy" and made the exact
opposite of the point I wanted. Ah well. It will be something for
all the anti-LASIK loonies to jump on with childish glee.
8^)
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| Oh, HELLO! I accidentally replied earlier to Glenn, himself...I doubt
very much he'll post it so, to the best of my recollection, and upon
reflection:
No assumption. The IRS does not deem it inconsequential. According to
the IRS statute:
"IRC 501(c)(6) provides for exemption of business leagues, chambers of
commerce, real estate boards, boards of trade, and professional
football leagues (whether or not administering a pension fund for
football players), which are not organized for profit and no part of
the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private
shareholder or individual."
As CRSQA is neither a chamber of commerce, a real estate board, a board
of trade, nor a professional football league, that leaves only business
league, also referred to as a "trade organization." All of the above
may qualify for 501(c)(6) status.
Certainly the documentation originally filed will contain the wording
applicable to a 501(c)(3) public benefit organization, since that is
the exemption originally sought by CRSQA, and which the IRS twice
denied, subsequently classifiying it as a 501(c)(6), or business
league. That wording is meaningless in light of the IRS 501(c)(6)
determination of CRSQA's status.
We are not debating the merits of either classification, but WHY YOU
REFUSE TO STATE YOUR TRUE, ACTUAL TAX-EXEMPT STATUS (according to the
IRS) ON YOUR WEB SITE, attempting instead to mislead the public into
thinking CRSQA is what it is NOT, a public benefit organization.
To borrow from the bard, "that which we call a business league/ By any
other name would smell as foul" and "Something is rotten in the state
of California."
.............................................................................................
CRSQA represents CRSQA surgeons and Glenn Hagele. Period.
.............................................................................................
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> The apparent assumption is that every organization that achieves a
> 501(c)6 status is a trade organization and that only a trade
> organization can achieve 501(c)6 status. CRSQA is not a trade
> organization, however we also do not solicit tax-deductible
> contributions. Our funding comes from certification fees. Since we
> are not soliciting donations there is no need for us to be a 501(c)3.
> A 501(c)6 classification suits our needs and our funding structure
> fine. If we were a 501(c)3, we would be required to file all the
> extra forms as if we were receiving tax-deductible donations. This
> would be a lot of unnecessary paperwork.
>
> Whether we are a 501(c)3 or a 501(c)6 is inconsequential and has no
> practical effect on the services we provide. We will continue to do
> what it is we do as we have done it since our inception. It is,
> however, a technicality that lesser people seem to want to use in an
> attempt to confuse the issue and try their darndest to make CRSQA
look
> bad. This is the equivalent of making a big issue of off-label use
of
> an FDA approved device, as if it is something wrong.
>
> As for the illegitimacy of whether or not CRSQA is "for" patients, I
> submit the past five years of services we have provided as ample
> evidence of that fact.
>
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-02-01, 2:46 pm |
| It is inconsequential to us in regard to the way we are funded and the
services we provide. For us, it does not make any difference if we
are a 501(c)3 or a 501(c)6, except there is a lot less paperwork with
a 501(c)6. I like less paperwork.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| Glenn,
No one asked you if you liked paperwork.
No one asked you how much paperwork either status entailed.
No one asked you about your funding.
No one asked you to debate the pros and cons of one status over the
other.
What you HAVE been asked, repeatedly, is why you have chosen to make NO
mention on your official web site about your true tax-exempt status as
a 501(c)(6) business league/trade organization, but choose, instead, to
deliberately mislead the public by stating that CRSQA is a public
benefit organzation, which it is not. You have yet to answer that
question.
Maybe that's too much for you to comprehend all at once. Let's break it
down into more basic terms, so that you can just shake your head for no
or nod for yes. (Shaking your head from side to side means "no."
Nodding your head up and down means "yes." Got that?)
1. Does CRSQA qualify under IRC 501(c)(3) as a charitable
organization?* Yes or no?
*(The exempt purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) are
charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for
public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports
competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. The
term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and
includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged;
advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection
or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the
burdens of government; lessening of neighborhood tensions; elimination
of prejudice and discrimination; defense of human and civil rights
secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile
delinquency.)
Answer: NO (let the record show that he's shaking his head from side to
side)
2. Does CRSQA qualify under IRC 501(c)(6) as a business league, chamber
of commerce, real estate board, board of trade, or professional
football league (whether or not administering a pension fund for
football players)?** Yes or no?
**(Reg. 1.501(c)(6)-l defines a business league as an association of
persons having a common business interest, whose purpose is to promote
the common business interest and not to engage in a regular business of
a kind ordinarily carried on for profit. Its activities are directed to
the improvement of business conditions of one or more lines of business
rather than the performance of particular services for individual
persons.)
Answer: YES (let the record show that he's nodding his head up and
down)
3. Do you state anywhere on your web site that CRSQA is a 501(c)(6)
business league engaged in the promotion of refractive
surgeons/surgery? Yes or no?
Answer: NO (let the record show that he's shaking his head from side to
side)
4. Do you state anywhere on your site that you are a nonprofit,
patient/consumer health organization,
the purpose of which is to educate the United States public on the
efficacy of refractive surgery and the availability of qualified
refractive surgeons, and that CRSQA is a non-profit public benefit
corporation? Yes or no?
Answer: YES (let the record show that he's nodding his head up and
down)
Now that we know that you can shake your head and nod, please explain:
1) why you deliberately attempt to mislead the public, by claiming on
your web site to be a public benefit corporation, when the IRS has
twice determined that CRSQA is a business league and NOT a public
benefit organzation?
2) why you do not disclose on your site that you ARE a business league
established to benefit the interests of refractive surgeons/surgery?
...........................................................................................
CRSQA represents CRSQA surgeons and Glenn Hagele. Period.
...........................................................................................
Glenn - USAEyes. org wrote:
> It is inconsequential to us in regard to the way we are funded and
the
> services we provide. For us, it does not make any difference if we
> are a 501(c)3 or a 501(c)6, except there is a lot less paperwork with
> a 501(c)6. I like less paperwork.
>
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-02-01, 2:46 pm |
| That's quite enough. Ask your questions again and again if you like.
I have already responded completely and honestly and I shall not
respond again.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> That's quite enough. Ask your questions again and again if you like.
> I have already responded completely and honestly and I shall not
> respond again.
>
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.
Glen, I think you should change your little disclaimer at the bottom to
read "I have no credibility whatsoever".
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-03-19, 6:22 pm |
| If you have a problem with the information I provide, then by all
means ignore it.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
|
| |
|
|