OT: PayPal
aasb...@aol.com
the past week, it has been a one-way account; they will accept money
but we can't access it. PayPal is sitting on $900 of our money.
On September 25, they institiuted new rules for non-profits. They need
a canceled check, a mission statement and an IRS letter of
determination of non-profit status. Oh, and it must not be over 6
months old.
Well, that letter of determination isn't issued every 6 months; it is
a one time thing. Our association has been in existance since 1929.
We have faxed the material we have and now must wait for a
determination review.
Anyone else been through this BS?
N Morrison
> Anyone else been through this BS?
It's fairly typical of PayPal. They have the mental acuity of moss.
After dealing wth them for a while you'll beg for an interview with
one of Sarah Palin's death panels.
Harold and Susan Vordos
<aasb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:n2jdc5lv8b8ei3en1...@4ax.com...
If I live to be 1,000 years old, I'll never understand how intelligent
people can allow others to deal with their finances. Paypal sucks,
always has, and always will.
There are other ways to conduct business. Why allow those morons to control
your money?
Harold
Wes
>On September 25, they institiuted new rules for non-profits. They need
>a canceled check, a mission statement and an IRS letter of
>determination of non-profit status. Oh, and it must not be over 6
>months old.
Did they warn you of an impending change so that you could find other methods of securing
payment like say, send me a check?
Wes
Mark Rand
wrote:
>If I live to be 1,000 years old, I'll never understand how intelligent
>people can allow others to deal with their finances. Paypal sucks,
>always has, and always will.
>
>There are other ways to conduct business. Why allow those morons to control
>your money?
>
>Harold
>
Because an international escrow service is the best way for many people and
organisations to do business with each other. Without it, you have very little
redress in a person to person transaction that goes wrong other than going
through the courts.
Mark Rand
RTFM
Robert Swinney
Bob Swinney
"Harold and Susan Vordos" <vor...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:sKExm.2993$cW....@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
Doug White
news:ccjec51sg69qispmj...@4ax.com:
You are under the mistaken impression that PayPal will provide ANY
redress if things go wrong. I don't know of anyone who has had a problem
that got any satisfaction from them. I got stiffed on an eBay deal, and
they just threw their hands in the air, after giving me the run around
for weeks. Fortunately, I try hard not to keep a balance, and I pay for
things using a charge card. I complained to the charge card folks, and
they refunded my money in short order.
Doug White
Bob La Londe
news:eeGxm.59774$5K7....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
On-line donations and payments require some form of internet gateway. A
credit card processor limits payments to credit cards only of course. The
big thing though is they keep draining your account for fees every month
whether you use their services or not. I suspect a non-profit may have
months where they do a lot of traffic and its worth it, and then several
months where nothing happens.
Also there is the difference of this.
Please get out your check book. (if you have one)
Write it out by hand.
Put it in an envelope.
Address the envelope... correctly.
Find a stamp.
Drop the whole thing off at a post box.
or
Click this button.
I suspect that last part makes a big difference in donations.
Tim Wescott
Paypal is a _bank_*, that provides services to credit card merchants and
happens to integrate them into a web service.
It's the credit card companies that provide the international escrow
service.
You can get the credit card merchant part from your local bank (and find
out that many of Paypal's stupidities are just passed on from the credit
card companies), and you can get shopping cart web services from a myriad
of other customers. Then you can struggle with integrating them
yourself, oh joy.
But it may be easier than dealing with PayPal...
* Whatever claims to the contrary they may make.
Mark Rand
>Mark Rand <ra...@internettie.co.uk> wrote in
>news:ccjec51sg69qispmj...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:23:36 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
>> <vor...@tds.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If I live to be 1,000 years old, I'll never understand how intelligent
>>>people can allow others to deal with their finances. Paypal sucks,
>>>always has, and always will.
>>>
>>>There are other ways to conduct business. Why allow those morons to
>>>control your money?
>>>
>>>Harold
>>
>> Because an international escrow service is the best way for many
>> people and organisations to do business with each other. Without it,
>> you have very little redress in a person to person transaction that
>> goes wrong other than going through the courts.
>
>You are under the mistaken impression that PayPal will provide ANY
>redress if things go wrong. I don't know of anyone who has had a problem
>that got any satisfaction from them.
I did. Twice :-|
Mark Rand
RTFM
Larry Jaques
<ra...@internettie.co.uk> scrawled the following:
I have, once. I got back the funds I requested when the brand new
Chiwanese cutoff saw died on the first cut. It took 2 weeks, but
Paypal put the money back in my account on the cutoff date, as
specified.
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
SteveB
"Mark Rand" <ra...@internettie.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ccjec51sg69qispmj...@4ax.com...
And the OP was upset because an "international escrow service" was asking
him for an IRS determination of the legality of his organization? Just how
involved do you think PayPal wants to be with NPO's and any other person who
questions their requirements. That makes as much sense as telling your
banker you don't have to provide no steenkeeng identification!
MHO YMMV
Steve
SteveB
If you allowed yourself to get into this position, you need to do EXACTLY
the following:
Cancel your non-profit organization. Wait for any and all money to come
back, and then distribute it according to the laws in your state. Never do
this again.
If you are that misinformed to misplace that much money people have given
you in good faith, then you have no business being in control of a
non-profit organization. If, tomorrow, someone asks for an accounting of
your funds, what are you going to say about the "frozen" money? People do
have the legal right to ask for an accounting of the money at the present
time, and your history before making the decision to donate. How would YOU
look at this as an outsider, or a potential contributor? And you're
kvetching about a letter of determination from the IRS that someone asks you
for before they will even handle your money? What's up with that? Sounds
to me like PayPal is doing their homework before getting involved in a ton
of money laundering schemes.
This advice is free and worth ten times what it costs.
Steve
Bob La Londe
news:o99lp6-...@news.infowest.com...
So you think that if you don't have a law degree and a degree in accounting
you should never do anything or try anything? Come on Steve.
By the way, I have three Paypal accounts for different things, and I have
run across some strange situations with them. I have the advantage of
having an attorney who is also a CPA, and a phone call from him usually gets
things sorted out when some organization gets stupid with my money. Yeah
that phone call costs me a couple hundred bucks, but I don't usually have to
deal with some organization trying to force their policy down my throat like
it's the law.
Paypal however is a force in and of itself. Not a great way to handle
money, but the only alternative for some applications.
I suspect PayPal policy in this case has nothing to do with the law, but is
about collecting fees and holding money. They offer non-profits fee free
transactions. (or atleast they used to.)
SteveB
"Bob La Londe" <nos...@nospam.no> wrote in message
news:ha95l0$1b7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I have quite a bit of experience with 501 C3 NPOs. I have even done work
with John Walsh. I did absorb some things during those three years working
with a major missing child organization.
For this person to NOW come in and ask about a very basic
component/requirement/law of the organization is a reflection of
inexperience or oversight. To have any question about IRS requirements
makes as much sense as insulting your barber before a haircut. This is why
NPOs use professional grant writers.
Were I to be approached by this person or organization, because of this
situation, and the way it was handled, I would not contribute to them. But,
apparently, they have enough donors and know what they're doing so well that
they ask advice in Usenet newsgroups.
"Doing things and trying things"? Why does the name Bernard Madoff come to
mind? Plus endless scandals recently of charities having limousines and
expensive dinners and travels? I'm all FOR doing things and trying things.
In fact, if you'd like to contact me and pony up some money, I have lots of
ideas that are sure fire winners, and will make a lot of money.
No, I'm not a lawyer. But I did not just fall off the turnip truck, either.
Steve
Bob La Londe
Apparently.
He didn't say it was a C3. There is a difference, and I have had some
experience with non-profits myself. Both charitable (C3) and
non-charitable. If it were me with a simple small non-profit like maybe a
political lobbying organization I would have just contracted a member to
handle the PayPal and paid the fees. Could that be considered as
mismanagement of funds. Maybe, but it would be a stretch. They would have
had to pay fees if they used a credit card processor or a clearing house.
Just say the word PayPal to anybody with long term experience doing business
on the Internet and they would understand.
You are obviously sensitive on this issue, and I can understand your ire,
but comparing it to Madoff's schemes is really over reacting.
aasb...@aol.com
wrote:
>
>And the OP was upset because an "international escrow service" was asking
>him for an IRS determination of the legality of his organization? Just how
>involved do you think PayPal wants to be with NPO's and any other person who
>questions their requirements. That makes as much sense as telling your
>banker you don't have to provide no steenkeeng identification!
>
>MHO YMMV
>
>Steve
>
Read again Steve. If they had totally blocked the account until the
documents were received, we wouldn't be having this converstion.
My rant was because it is one way. They accept funds but deny access
to them.
Your other post suggested dissoving the corporation. Not gonna happen.
It has been in existance since 1929.
aasb...@aol.com
wrote:
>
>Apparently.
>
>He didn't say it was a C3. There is a difference, and I have had some
>experience with non-profits myself. Both charitable (C3) and
>non-charitable. If it were me with a simple small non-profit like maybe a
>political lobbying organization I would have just contracted a member to
>handle the PayPal and paid the fees. Could that be considered as
>mismanagement of funds. Maybe, but it would be a stretch. They would have
>had to pay fees if they used a credit card processor or a clearing house.
>Just say the word PayPal to anybody with long term experience doing business
>on the Internet and they would understand.
>
>You are obviously sensitive on this issue, and I can understand your ire,
>but comparing it to Madoff's schemes is really over reacting.
It is a C 5 Agricutural organization. Livestock pedigree registry.
There are no donations. Charges are for record keeping/searches and
paper work.
It will work out. The freeze came as I tried to transfer funds at the
end of our fiscal year. My post was to find out if anyone had been
through one the reviews andl how long it took. Just a bump in the
road.
Steve, don't worry yourself with it anymore if it upsets you so much.
SteveB
<aasb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:sbpic5hppplt0sq9n...@4ax.com...
What I said was that if you had this little experience and knowledge about
how the thing runs that you should dissolve it. Has anyone else had this
problem, or is it only you? Maybe it's time to let someone run it who knows
these things.
Steve
SteveB
<aasb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:m2qic517dlqu2de09...@4ax.com...
I won't and it doesn't. You were just complaining about something that was
of your own doing.
My experience WAS with 501C3's. Fat golfers who'd donate $1,000 for a day
of golf, get a round of golf at $400 per round golf course, a free bag full
of shirts, balls, and other expensive items, a sumptuously catered lunch,
lots of backslapping, and about $50 actually going to the charity. Major
contributors pulled out, and last I heard, it was doing a lot better, and
getting more money to the actual cause.
I had a 501C3, and the more I found out about their workings, the dirtier I
felt. Finally dissolved it.
Good luck with yours, and study a bit more in the future.
Steve
Bob La Londe
I can commiserate with you, but people in general do not just make blind
donations. People feed their own greed or participate in charity events to
have fun and feel good about it. There has to be a balance, but altruism by
itself does not work.
Here is an example. I have seen this happen in two different organizations.
Both decent organizations.
They started a 50/50 drawing at their meetings. A 50/50 is where people buy
raffle tickets for cash and the cash gets split 50/50. Half goes to the
raffle winner and half goes to the organization. Never mind the legality in
various jurisdictions. It is what it is. At a meeting somebody won the
50/50 raffle and then donated their winnings back. At the next meeting not
to be outdone the next winner did the same thing. In both cases the average
gross was a couple hundred dollars. Sometimes as much as $500 rarely less
than $250.
Sounds good right? Sounds like a nice altruistic approach is working.
At the third meeting (not 4th or 5th) the gross dropped to around $100, and
the winner donated their money back. By the 6th or 7th meeting the gross
dropped to under $50. That's gross, not payout. At one meeting where there
were guests somebody leaned over to the guests and whispered to them after
they bought 50/50 tickets that it was customary to donate back your
winnings. At the very next meeting the gross was $10. Now I don't know
about you, but its clear to me that trying to railroad altruism down
people's throats does not work.
I would much rather have half of $500 than all of $10, but I guess that's
just me. Heck, I'ld rather have 10% of $500 than all of $10. I tried to
point out how the problem started as a purely intelligent argument, and had
people sneer down their noses saying, "Well, if YOU want to keep the money
if you win you can, but I'm not going to keep the money." Both
organizations same results.
All of nothing is not better than part of something.
I've seen similar things occur in several organizations.
Greed pays. Altruism and greed pays. Cooperative greed pays (Beautiful
Mind). Cooperative greed and altruism pays. Pure altruism fails.
Back to my 50/50 example. You might argue that those people must not have
been very smart or some people are like that. Maybe. One group was a
Rotary International chapter. Supposedly all successful business owners and
managers. Supposedly should all have a basic grasp of economics or at least
be able to see an economic trend when it bites them on the nose. the other
was a chapter of ABATE (a motorcycle rights lobbying organization). A
totally different cross section of society from tramp bikers to lawyers and
doctors and everybody in between.
Anyway, you have to give people something to get them to participate. You
can't make them feel guilty about taking it either. They might even agree
with you out loud. They just won't play, and they won't even say anything
to you about it. They just won't play. Instead you have to make them feel
good about playing your charity game and lucky if they win something.
Of course... in a true altruistic sense the winners who started the problem
in the 50/50 drawings would not have donated the money back in front of
everybody. Instead they would have quietly handed the money to the
treasurer after the meeting was over instead of seeking recognition by doing
it in front of everybody.
Steve, I am sour on some organizations myself, but I try to understand how
it works and look at the BIG picture. There are some organizations I no
longer support. You ever read a flier that says, "Some proceeds go to XYZ
Charity," and wonder what that means? In almost no case is 100% of the
gross going to XYZ. In a few cases all of the net may go to XYZ. In the
case above the organization putting on the event with, "Some proceeds go to
XYZ Charity," on their flier they are putting on a fund raiser for their own
organization, and donating a portion of the net to XYZ Charity. How much?
Could be .01 percent or it could be more, but you have no way of knowing and
they didn't lie to you about it.
Like most things in life worth worrying about education and cognition is the
key. Most people don't want to waste their time on either so they just do
the things they enjoy and or get a sense of satisfaction from. You plan an
event where they have fun, have a chance of feeding their own greed, and
make a little money for your organization or charity and it will be
successful and grow. If it does not do all 3 of those things it will fail.
Bob La Londe
www.YumaBassMan.com
SteveB
"Bob La Londe" <nos...@nospam.no> wrote in message
news:had8gp$akt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I know that even an organization that a small percentage of the gross goes
to the cause is one that provides more than zero, and that's a good thing.
I have just seen a lot of instances, like you quoted, where it was done in a
manner to gain status and networking gains, rather than an anonymous donor
thing. So many of these give so nearly zero to the cause, I am amazed that
they still keep their status, which takes us to the original point and OP.
The IRS has to have some rules and guidelines, or everyone would be in the
biz, I know for mine, the IRS requirements were the biggest hurdle, next to
grant writing requests.
I am still involved with City of Hope, and that one works fer me. (winds my
clock, isn't my employee) ;-) We are long time friends with the head
poohbah muckymuck, and help in various small supportive roles. I still give
to local charities and organizations that I know help the community, and do
work for the Scouts on their canoe trailers and such, and give a couple of
bucks to the bum on the street once in a while. But holy crap, if you ever
get on someone's list, or give to the telemarketers, it's like spreading
birdseed all over your property, they come a swooping in.
Steve
Wes
>Also there is the difference of this.
>
>Please get out your check book. (if you have one)
>Write it out by hand.
>Put it in an envelope.
>Address the envelope... correctly.
>Find a stamp.
>Drop the whole thing off at a post box.
I understand your point. I tend to use my debit card to send money to the Salvation Army
and other charities.
Still, I haven't recieved an answer to my question, was the 'victim' forwarned?
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
aasb...@aol.com
>"Bob La Londe" <nos...@nospam.no> wrote:
>
>>Also there is the difference of this.
>>
>>Please get out your check book. (if you have one)
>>Write it out by hand.
>>Put it in an envelope.
>>Address the envelope... correctly.
>>Find a stamp.
>>Drop the whole thing off at a post box.
>
>
>I understand your point. I tend to use my debit card to send money to the Salvation Army
>and other charities.
>
>Still, I haven't recieved an answer to my question, was the 'victim' forwarned?
>
>Wes
No. When I tried to do the end of month transfer is when I found out
about it. The account has been restored today. So it took 5 days to
send the info and them to do their review.
Larry Jaques
scrawled the following:
So, what was their story once you presented facts to them?
P.S: If I were you, I'd start doing transfers to your bank on a weekly
basis. It doesn't take long and it would severely limit your loss if
they stick their heads up their asses again. PayPal is very handy, so
I don't urge people away from it. If they step on their appendages
too hard, the PTBs in the banking industry will swat 'em.
Wes
>>I understand your point. I tend to use my debit card to send money to the Salvation Army
>>and other charities.
>>
>>Still, I haven't recieved an answer to my question, was the 'victim' forwarned?
>>
>>Wes
>
>No. When I tried to do the end of month transfer is when I found out
>about it. The account has been restored today. So it took 5 days to
>send the info and them to do their review.
I'm glad you got it resolved but bad on Paypal for not warning you prior to freezing your
funds.
Wes
Larry Jaques
<clu...@lycos.com> scrawled the following:
I wonder if it was the amount of the funds which triggered an
audit-like storm at PayPal for poor, um, (Andy?)
--
For me, pragmatism is not enough. Nor is that fashionable word "consensus."
To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs,
principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one
believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very
issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement
on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under
the banner "I stand for consensus"?
--Margaret Thatcher (in a 1981 speech)
LJ sez: It's a good thing we have concensus on the case of Anthropogenic
Global Warming (kumbaya), isn't it?