Glenn Hagele in Violation of IRS Rules for Non-Profits
Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com
Jake Rivington
> http://www.lasikflap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=389
A nonprofit doesn't have to send forms 990 to you, but it does have to
"make them available" to you for "public inspection" in person if you
so request at a location of the nonprofit's chosing. But you have to go
there in person. If the nonprofit wishes to send them instead, then it
can request reasonable reimbursement for xeroxing. The only requirement
is to make them available in person.
Form 990s are posted publicly (usually on the State General Attorney's
website) for all nonprofits provided they are required to file with
that state. If a nonprofit makes less than $25,000 gross--average over
3 years--it is not required to file the Federal Form 990. The Form 990
is due 5.5 months after the end of the NPO's fiscal year. By the way,
it's not a return (since NPOs don't pay taxes), it's an informational
form. So get your facts straight before you start accusing someone of
non-compliance.
CRSQA's 2004 Form 990:
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/943/320/2004-943320288-019f9b42-9.pdf
It's possible that CRSQA wasn't required to file Form 990s prior to
2004 (since it's based on a three year average).
Glenn - USAEyes.org
but Hanson shows both reasons why it is false within his accusation.
The organization I founded is not a charitable organization. We are a
nonprofit, but we do not accept donations. We are not classified by
the IRS or the state of California the same as a charity and our
classification does not require making public our financial records.
The other point is that the letter Hanson posts on his website shows
very clearly that it was never received. Even if we were required to
provide financial information, we never received the request.
But let me tell you where full disclosure of financial information is
an absolute MUST...bankruptcy court. (Nice segueway, yes?)
Not revealing relevant facts to a federal court can be...well...a
federal crime. I really don't think that Brent Hanson of
LasikFraud.com committed an actual crime by giving the North Carolina
bankruptcy court a misspelling of creditor William Boothe's name or by
providing as the entire address "TX", but I'm not an attorney so I'm
really not sure. I am sure that Dr. Boothe will want to know how his
rights as a creditor could be so easily circumvented.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
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
charitable organization. Publication of all our books is not required
beyond the form you conveniently provided.
Jake Rivington
> Right you are Jake. Although we are a nonprofit, we are not a
> charitable organization. Publication of all our books is not required
> beyond the form you conveniently provided.
Information on all nonprofits is conveniently provided at the link
below.
Charitable Trusts - California Dept. of Justice - Office of the
Attorney General
http://partners.guidestar.org/partners/cadoj/index.jsp
It appears that CRSQA is listed as a charitable trust, both on the
Attorney General Website (above) and CRSQA's:
About CRSQA
Charitable-Educational Purpose
The purpose of CRSQA is to educate the United States public on the
efficacy of refractive surgery and the availability of qualified
refractive surgeons.
CRSQA is a non-profit public benefit organization and as such is
eligible for private donations and foundation grants exempt from state
and federal taxes.
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/about.htm
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Jake Rivington
> Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've correct the web page.
You removed your charitable/educational purpose and that donations are
tax deductible.
If you are a 501(c)6, a business or trade organization, how can you
possibly be a patient advocacy group? That's a blatent conflict of
interest. It looks like the "educational" stuff on your websites (even
if correct) is there to lure people into considering to do business
with your membership. It has nothing to do with you incorporation
status. So you have no educational purpose under the eyes of the
Federal Tax Code and your papers of incorporation. Advertising as a
patient advocacy group is misleading. You may want to run one, but you
cannot advertise that under CRSQA.
Also, with you as the sole paid employee with a hefty salary (I mean,
WOW for a NPO), it could be argued that CRSQA does business for your
sole benefit--esp. since you publicly state repeatedly that you don't
care if anyone choses a CRSQA doctor. That's inurement. What tangible
benefit is your org giving then besides your salary? You appear to be
in violation of several things, but not for not sending out 990s. You
list no officers or trustees on your 990. You are sole officer
financing $23,000 worth of travel!!!!!
What are the other expenses on line 43? $53,000? A company porsche
perhaps?
Glenn - USAEyes.org
I have a right to disagree with your characterization.
Jake Rivington
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> You certainly have a right to your opinion about our organization, as
> I have a right to disagree with your characterization.
It's not so much my opinion and characterization, but the legal
requirements for a nonprofit. A Board and a minimum of 3 officers is
required as a system of checks and balances to ensure that it's not for
one individual's benefit and that the officers receive reasonable
compensation for their services. Yet there are no other officers or
Board members listed on CRSQA's 2004 form 990. Is there an active
Board? As a nonprofit, CRSQA has public accountability.
What exactly do you disagree with?
Jake Rivington
publication:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf
501c6 is a business league that has no educational purpose and cannot
offer taxfree donations.
A business league is created to improve business conditions. It is not
pro-consumer. To say repeatedly that you don't care if someone choses a
CRSQA certified surgeon or not is counter to the function of a business
league. What do members get for their fees? Advertising for individual
members in return for fees is not evidence of bettering business
conditions. That's essentially what CRSQA does by providing a logo for
their websites.
Furthermore, no part of the earnings can benefit an individual member.
Why all the huge travel expenses of $24,000 for a single person, Glenn
Hagele, his high salary (over $70,000 for a nonprofit with an
employment base of 1) and what are the mysterious $51,000 of other
expenses? That's $150,000 of expenses on 3 lines. 50% of net income
pays for Glenn's salary and travel. Another 25% goes to some unnamed
other expense.
It's possible that Glenn has all good intentions to educate people on
Lasik and other refractive surgery issues, but to say that CRSQA is a
patient advocacy group is disengenuous. And to have the misleading
information on the USAeyes.org website for years about being an
educational/charitable org that accepts tax deductible donations is
outright misrepresentation.
Glenn genuinely likes to think of himself as a patient advocate. But
he's really an advocate to make Lasik into a better business with more
accountability. That's not a bad thing. Ultimately that will benefit
the consumer with "better business" practices--but that's not patient
advocacy. Patient advocacy doesn't work from the top down. I don't
think Glenn sees the difference.
"consider and choose with confidence"--CRSQA is all about marketing.
Just calling a spade a spade.
Jake Rivington
> IAnother 25% goes to some unnamed other expense.
>
I see the statement is attached for line 43, but not broken down. Do
you pay the $10,000 in rent to yourself since CRSQA's address is the
same as your home address? Do you also deduct that on your personal tax
returns schedule C as well? Looks suspiciously like an individual
member of CRSQA is benefitting monetarily from "renting" his house to
CRSQA. And why is insurance so expensive? $15,000???? Does that insure
you personally and parts of your house even when it is not being used
as a "business"?
The "Service Accomplishments" state the number of visitors to the
website. How does CRSQA justify $10,000 in rent for a web presence plus
$4000 in internet fees? What service accomplishment is that for the
business league designation from the 501c6 and the income from
certification fees? How has CRSQA improved business conditions?
If you are primarily interested in educating the public, you need to
change your status to a 501c3 and then the certification fees need to
be declared as UBI (Unrelated Business Income) and you need to pay tax
on them (UBIT). Your expenses and "accomplishments" are related to the
educational purpose of the website. Your organization cannot be both,
and you cannot benefit personally. I highly recommend you consult a NPO
lawyer ASAP--esp. since you are throwing around accusations onto other
people who have failed to file forms correctly.
Something about glass houses comes to mind....
Glenn - USAEyes.org
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/trustees.htm
I will check with our attorney to see if there is something lacking in
our filings and get it rectified immediately if there is.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
details of our accounting beyond what is required under law.
Jake Rivington
> As has already been stated, we are not going to discuss or disclose
> details of our accounting beyond what is required under law.
Why are the Trustees on a website, but not on the 990?
Kind of like Booth in TX, no? Oops. Forgot to fill in the form
completely?
That glass house thing again.
The reason 990s are publicly posted is so that the general public can
examine them and monitor their activities. We are, after all,
esentially covering your taxes by CRSQA seeking exemption. It's our
right to be assured that no individual is benefitting or playing the
system. NPOs, can and do, get audited because the general public
notices discrepancies in the 990s. If you were a regular for profit
business, no one would care. But CRSQA has received a special tax
exempt status and must abide by the regulations by which it was granted
such status--
On the suface it appears you are collecting hundreds of thousands of
dollars in certification fees and funnelling 3/4s of that into a
salary, travel, rent and insurance for yourself. It may to be to your
benefit to convince the public (and the IRS) otherwise.
Todd Rich
(snip)
> Why are the Trustees on a website, but not on the 990?
> Kind of like Booth in TX, no? Oops. Forgot to fill in the form
> completely?
> That glass house thing again.
at all is here on alt.lasik-eyes.
For somebody who seems fairly savvy about the net it is strange you don't
show up before now. Are you Brent or Eye? The style is a little closer
to Eye.
Todd Rich
Doublechecking the posting IP according to Google, it is coming from
Earthlink in NY. Ariel Berschadsky then?
Jake Rivington
> Interesting...Searching google, the only place "Jake Rivington" shows up
> at all is here on alt.lasik-eyes.
>
> For somebody who seems fairly savvy about the net it is strange you don't
> show up before now. Are you Brent or Eye? The style is a little closer
> to Eye.
What difference does it make who I am and that Google doesn't spit back
anything about me? Anyway, why do you think I'm savvy about "the net"?
Perhaps I'm an IRS EO auditor or a NPO lawyer or the ED of a
notforprofit watchdog group for 501c compliance. I've been reading this
newsgroup to get information on lasik. I'm only pointing out facts that
are public record. I didn't bring up the topic of CRSQA's financial
statements, I'm only responding to what I saw on CRSQA's Form 990 when
someone asked to see them. I happen to believe in public accountability
and am an activist in this area.
Regardless of Glenn's apparent good intentions to help lasik patients,
his org's public informational Form 990 raises some important questions
about its 501c6 status, its income in relation to a repeatedly stated
educational mission, and his personal benefits from this financial
arrangement. You should care about this because if you are an American
taxpayer or business owner--you can see that his org makes over
$202,000 tax free--and from this tax free income, he not only pays
himself a very nice salary and travel, but apparently $10,000 in rent
as well. You, as a tax payer, should be comfortable with this
arrangement. If not, question it.
Most nonprofit orgs provide annual reports and accountability for
expenditures. CRSQA refuses to do so beyond a minimum requirement.
Almost 75% of CRSQA's gross income of $202,000 goes into Glenn's
salary, his travel, and rent to himself. That means 25% is left for
program expenses. Do you think that is right for a nonprofit agency
theorectically formed for the public good? Do you know any for profit
business that spend 25% of gross receipts on travel and 50% of gross
receipts on a single employee? Don't you think the balance of $44,000
should be funnelled back into programs that directly benefit the
public?
Perhaps Glenn would like to post Form 1024 (application for
exemption--which can be requested directly from the IRS using Form
4506-A http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506a.pdf) to show that CRSQA is
indeed fulfilling its original stated mission that got it tax exempt
status in the first place.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
<jakeri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Perhaps I'm an IRS EO auditor or a NPO lawyer or the ED of a
>notforprofit watchdog group for 501c compliance.
If you were any of these things you would not be making such
statements in this forum.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
organization is in compliance with all regulatory filings, however I
am neither an accountant nor am I an attorney. We rely on these
professionals to provide such services.
As I have already stated, I will question our attorney on the points
you have raised and if something has not been filed appropriately, it
will be swiftly rectified. In the interim, a listing of our governing
Board of Trustees is at
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/trustees.htm
Jake Rivington
> Todd Rich <to...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Interesting...Searching google, the only place "Jake Rivington" shows up
> > at all is here on alt.lasik-eyes.
Showing up on Google means that you're qualified to participate?
ROTFLMAO. surprised that there isn't someone named Jake Rivington who
shows up on Google. It seems like a plausible name to me. Just for the
record, Rivington isn't my last name, just a nickname. There are 3
Jakes in my gangJake Rivington, Jake Stanton, and Jake Ludlow. We all
live around the corner from each other ....met at this bar on Stanton
where we like to hang out.Perhaps you can figure out where that is?
I'll give you a hint. It's in NY. Try Google maps and you'll find me.
Does that make you feel better? Anyways, i like Rivington better than
my real last name i'm a marked man b/c I'm related to someone who just
about everyone knows and has strong opinions about. always gets in the
way.
Most people call me Jake, but that'll be Mr. Jake to you. just a Jake
looking for info on lasik and ran into some interesting stuff about a
nonprofit that promotes itself here. as I said before, i'm someone
interested in nonprofit compliance. but i haven't revealed anything
here that wasn't accessible to the public already.
So Todd Rich, you're a harpist and blacksmith? Cool. Kudos to google.
Jake Rivington
> As Executive Director it is my responsibility to affirm that our
> organization is in compliance with all regulatory filings, however I
> am neither an accountant nor am I an attorney. We rely on these
> professionals to provide such services.
>
> As I have already stated, I will question our attorney on the points
> you have raised and if something has not been filed appropriately, it
> will be swiftly rectified. In the interim, a listing of our governing
> Board of Trustees is at
> http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/trustees.htm
Democracy at work :)
Hope it al gets cleared up
crsqa's informational sites have been helpful to answer questions.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
LasikInfoCenter.com?
This is interesting. Take a look at the header of recent postings from
Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com. The return address is
"admini...@LasikCourt.com" Now try to go to
http://www.LasikCourt.com and see what happens. It forwards you to
attorney Ariel Berschadsky's LasikInfoCenter.com website. A check of
the registrar of record shows that Ariel Berschadsky is the owner of
LasikCourt.com,
(http://www.glennhagele.com/brenthanson/RegistrarLasikCourt.pdf and
yet here is Brent Hanson presenting himself as the administrator of
the website.
Ariel Berschadsky (sometimes misspelled as Bershadsky) is the New York
attorney who claims to be a copyright specialist, but published over
100 articles on his website and I could not find one instance where he
actually had permission from the owner of the articles. He also hid
his ownership of the malpractice generating website for years.
Potential clients using his "malpractice attorney referral service"
wouldn't know they are being referred by and to the same person. After
an investigation by the New York State Bar Association (who declined
to act), Berschadsky took down almost all the articles. See
http://www.glennhagele.com/arielberschadsky/
If Hanson is administrator the LasikInfoCenter.com website and
Berschadsky is the owner, is Hanson getting paid by Berschadsky? On
his bankruptcy application Hanson said he was unemployed with zero
income.
http://glennhagele.com/brenthanson/hanson-bankruptcy-initial-filing.pdf
This could be another of those, "Oops, I guess I forgot" deals. I
suppose that Hanson could be volunteering his services to Berschadsky,
but who knows with those two. Then again, perhaps Berschadsky is just
saying he is the owner of LasikCourt.com and it is actually one of
Hanson's assets that he failed to list on his bankruptcy application.
This sounds like another one of those interesting situations the
bankruptcy court may find interesting.
thats...@yahoo.com
Jake Rivington wrote:
> Just calling a spade a spade.
Jake,
If you are thoroughly versed in nonprofit spades, perhaps you can
answer the question of whether nonprofit status under California code
23701(d) is compatible with nonprofit status under federal 501(c)(6).
Ragnar
that gobbledegook is often irrelevant. For instance.. I am involved
in something involving red tape that should have been taken care of in
5 minutes.. and could be taken care of in five minutes.. yet has gone
on for over 3 years now - and I am told it could take another 5 years.
What is ironic is that the main person involved will probably die of
old age before then.
On 28 Apr 2006 07:50:07 -0700, "Jake Rivington"
thats...@yahoo.com
Glenn - USAEyes.org
<jakeri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jake,
I'm pleased that you found the information at http://www.USAEyes.org
helpful, and I have news that I'm sure you will be glad to see.
According to our CPA it was not necessary to publish a list of our
trustees in the cited filing for a technical reason. Well, it seems to
me rather silly to publish our Board of Trustees on our website and
not provide the information in official filings - technicalities
notwithstanding. The recently submitted filing for 2005 does have a
list of our trustees and they continue to be listed on our website at
the link noted above.
I hope this resolves your concerns.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification
Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Board of Trustees on our website. We have in the past as a courtesy,
but that courtesy has been abused recently so at the request of our
trustees the list has been removed. No decision has been made if it
will return on our website.
Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com
http://www.lasikflap.com/crsqa
http://www.lasikfraud.com/news/archives/cat_glenn_hagele_usaeyes_crsqa.html
http://www.lasikfraud.com/newsfeeds/0410.php
http://www.tlcpatients.com/0410.php
http://www.lasikinfocenter.net/Webpages/Questionable%20Organizations%20Webpage.htm
Glenn - USAEyes.org
the multiple lawsuits brought against him, a federal fraud
investigation, and his attempt to escape responsibility for his acts
with bankruptcy.
Hanson continued to defame William Boothe, MD even after agreeing with
the court to stop, was found in contempt and sentenced to 540 days in
jail.
Hanson published a letter containing "information" about me that he
knows to be false.
Hanson failed to list all his assets to the court when he filed for
bankruptcy.
Hanson failed to provide the correct contact information of Dr. Boothe
when he filed bankruptcy, Boothe could not be properly notified to
protect his rights as a creditor.