forums

Being Investigated Again

Miami's response to this *** wipe senator.
****-outta-here-throw.gif
 
Advertisement
scrantoncane said:
To

To be fair, it has nothing to do with being a private school - it has everything to do with being a 501c3 as recognized by the IRS (which most states then follow suit).

But the point remains the same - this is a guy looking to grab a headline, probably at the request of some disgruntled donor/fan.

I’m not an expert on 501c3 law, but if all other salaries at UM are in line with the rest of the market, and so is Mario’s, then there is nothing to see here.

To clarify why: the premise is a 501c3 is an entity that is exempt from paying most taxes (income, real estate, etc). If you don’t meet all the statutory requirements, you lose your tax exempt status. Those requirements include paying fair value for everything. In this case, that means Mario’s salary. The non-profit status must be for a public use, and must directly serve the interest of the non-profit.

For example, in my hometown, there is a fight over a local university that owns a bunch of land that they are not currently using for educational purposes, yet they still have tax exempt status and aren’t paying real estate taxes on that land. The county is taking them to court, because only land that is being used for the charitable purpose is exempt from tax.

Sorry if jumbled, typing from my phone.
Click to expand...


Just to clarify, the 501(c)(3) status only exempts an entity from INCOME tax. It is true that CHURCHES do not pay property taxes, but most other not-for-profits DO pay various forms of property tax, even if a local ordinance reduces or eliminates property taxation.

I just wanted to clarify, as 501(c)(3) status is a federal (IRS) rule, while other forms of taxation (property, sales) are handled on a local level, and may often depend on the specific usage of the property rather than the overall US income tax treatment.

Still a valid conversation to have. I raised the "public/private" distinction not from a strictly legal standpoint, but because the hot air spewed by the politician guy had to do with "protecting taxpayers". Which, of course, is really not "his job" as a US-level legislator when property tax is a local law.

Didn't mean to bore anyone to tears, just wanted to illuminate that the politician guy is full of crap with his cited justification and "concern" for taxpayers.
 
Politicians! What a joke. They should stick to what they know best ”nothing”. It’s ok to pander sports betting on a national level which eventually will have severe consequences for many people, the integrity of sports events and their outcome is many times questionable. but lets look into Miami and what they pay their coaches.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Just to clarify, the 501(c)(3) status only exempts an entity from INCOME tax. It is true that CHURCHES do not pay property taxes, but most other not-for-profits DO pay various forms of property tax, even if a local ordinance reduces or eliminates property taxation.

I just wanted to clarify, as 501(c)(3) status is a federal (IRS) rule, while other forms of taxation (property, sales) are handled on a local level, and may often depend on the specific usage of the property rather than the overall US income tax treatment.

Still a valid conversation to have. I raised the "public/private" distinction not from a strictly legal standpoint, but because the hot air spewed by the politician guy had to do with "protecting taxpayers". Which, of course, is really not "his job" as a US-level legislator when property tax is a local law.

Didn't mean to bore anyone to tears, just wanted to illuminate that the politician guy is full of crap with his cited justification and "concern" for taxpayers.
Click to expand...
My personal knowledge, which is limited to Pennsylvania, is that an entity also has to request tax exemption from the state. A prerequisite to asking the state is having 501c3 approval from the IRS.

Once you have that state exemption, in PA you don’t pay real estate taxes for land being used for tax exempt purposes (churches, as you said; but also education, rehab centers, community centers like basketball courts, etc).

Could very well be different in Florida, and I defer to you guys that practice there. I have no idea at all about Fla non-profits.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
I'm curious as to what the "tax breaks" and "subsidies" are, in general.

Is it a "tax break" for a not-for-profit to not pay income taxes, or is that tax POLICY? Look, it's a "tax break" when oil companies get special tax treatment that is not accorded to other types of energy companies, but I hardly think it is a "tax break" to not collect income taxes from ALL of the not-for-profit entities. Which most US universities have been since their founding dates.

This guy is a nut trying to make headlines.
Click to expand...
Maybe someone more dialed into this can comment.


Here is the issue...

The University of Miami is exempt from the payment of Florida sales and use tax on real property rented, transient rental property rented, tangible personal property purchased or rented, or services purchased. A copy of the University of Miami’s Consumer’s Certificate of Exemption issued pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statues may be found here.

Im sure any of you accountants and lawyers can chime in on the ways of which anyone can abuse these things. Not even universities, think religious institutions as well.

In the end that line means a lot of lost money for government for all universities not just the most recent ones listed. His play here is simple. If you can afford this, why cant you afford that? Its not a stretch to play on the emotions of people to connect this. Not saying I agree. Nuance is always the sacrifice of emotion. But hes going to sell this as an systemwide failure of government and this is money that needs to go them to divest into social support.

Its a tried and true playbook.

Hopefully it dies a horrible death.
 
Is this guy... Challenged? Most of the schools listed are public institutions. Does this lawmaker know he doesn't need to send a letter to the president's to obtain contract info. Does he know how public employment works...

I wonder what he'll do when he realizes he can find contract information on most coaches significantly easier. I bet he doesn't know that, while among the highest paid, these are not all together rare contracts.

Can these guys be forced to hire at least some aids or lawyers that know how things work when they take office?

Is his plan to hope the school presidents point him to the correct channels to get that information or not respond at all. Just so he can manufacture a perception that schools are hiding something to advance his agenda?
 
If politcians have this much free time they should be required to get part-time jobs doing real work. And stop billing the taxpayers so much.
 
Advertisement
Cribby said:
Miami is a private school. A politician sticking his nose anywhere like this is ironic, as they’re all paid off by Pharma, Tech and oil companies. On top of insider trading and all their other sleazy behaviors. This is the definition of rich.
Click to expand...
He evidently wants to get paid off by universities too.
 
AtlAtty said:
If politcians have this much free time they should be required to get part-time jobs doing real work. And stop billing the taxpayers so much.
Click to expand...
They are billing you to watch the show. All of them. Its 90% theater and 10% governance. Nobody actually wants to be successful because that would mean you attained your goal and there isnt anything left to do.

The object is to create issues, create sides, and keep getting everyone to tune into the fight. If there is not fight, there are no sides, which means there is no money, which means there is no job.
 
nikkoum said:
Maybe someone more dialed into this can comment.


Here is the issue...

The University of Miami is exempt from the payment of Florida sales and use tax on real property rented, transient rental property rented, tangible personal property purchased or rented, or services purchased. A copy of the University of Miami’s Consumer’s Certificate of Exemption issued pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statues may be found here.

Im sure any of you accountants and lawyers can chime in on the ways of which anyone can abuse these things. Not even universities, think religious institutions as well.

In the end that line means a lot of lost money for government for all universities not just the most recent ones listed. His play here is simple. If you can afford this, why cant you afford that? Its not a stretch to play on the emotions of people to connect this. Not saying I agree. Nuance is always the sacrifice of emotion. But hes going to sell this as an systemwide failure of government and this is money that needs to go them to divest into social support.

Its a tried and true playbook.

Hopefully it dies a horrible death.
Click to expand...


Again, has NOTHING to do with "if you can afford this, why can't you afford that". Nobody is means-testing here.

Additionally, you continue to ignore the fed/state differences that I have outlined. The politician is a federal-level politician (US House of Representatives), representing New Jersey. Not Michigan or Louisiana or Florida.

And it should go without saying that if this guy wants to eliminate the tens of millions paid to coaches at a couple of schools, then I'm sure he won't have an issue with foregoing hundreds of million in REVENUE to these institutions. Sure, makes complete sense...

This is just the Revenge of the Rutgers 1000. Google it.
 
Advertisement
Colleges must pay taxes on properties and income not directly related to the educational mission of the school. For example, dorms are tax exempt but shopping plazas and apartments, not part of the housing pool, are not. Why should the entire enterprise of college football, which is fundamentally no different than pro football, not be subject the same tax treatment?
 
nikkoum said:
They are billing you to watch the show. All of them. Its 90% theater and 10% governance. Nobody actually wants to be successful because that would mean you attained your goal and there isnt anything left to do.

The object is to create issues, create sides, and keep getting everyone to tune into the fight. If there is not fight, there are no sides, which means there is no money, which means there is no job.
Click to expand...
Too true, and a very sad statement it is about the political complex which churns money for politicians, consultants, lobbyists, campaign mamangers, TV stations, articles, etc…..
Eisenhower told us to be wary of the military industrial complex. This is no different.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Again, has NOTHING to do with "if you can afford this, why can't you afford that". Nobody is means-testing here.

Additionally, you continue to ignore the fed/state differences that I have outlined. The politician is a federal-level politician (US House of Representatives), representing New Jersey. Not Michigan or Louisiana or Florida.

And it should go without saying that if this guy wants to eliminate the tens of millions paid to coaches at a couple of schools, then I'm sure he won't have an issue with foregoing hundreds of million in REVENUE to these institutions. Sure, makes complete sense...

This is just the Revenge of the Rutgers 1000. Google it.
Click to expand...
Couple of things man. 1 take it down a notch. 2. im not ignoring anything i was just responding to what i thought was your ask with what i found on UM's councils page that answered your question. Anything you wrote after my comment i didnt see until after i posted. Its not real time. 3. What I was saying about what i thought he was doing; was about a politician playing political games. Not something that needs to meet a legal standard/code.

We good?
 
Advertisement
swampcougar1 said:
Why just these 3? Has no basis whatsoever. Hard to prove fair market value is not what the market is willing to pay. This is a waste of tax players dollars. That is what needs to be investigated
Click to expand...
must be a Texas A&M to ignore the fact that Jimbo is the one who reset the market
 
SPAMM said:
Colleges must pay taxes on properties and income not directly related to the educational mission of the school. For example, dorms are tax exempt but shopping plazas and apartments, not part of the housing pool, are not. Why should the entire enterprise of college football, which is fundamentally no different than pro football, not be subject the same tax treatment?
Click to expand...
You should see what Nova Southeastern has done with this right here. Buy a shopping plaza and stick a classroom in it. Use a certain percentage for commercial. off to the races.
 
nikkoum said:
Maybe someone more dialed into this can comment.


Here is the issue...

The University of Miami is exempt from the payment of Florida sales and use tax on real property rented, transient rental property rented, tangible personal property purchased or rented, or services purchased. A copy of the University of Miami’s Consumer’s Certificate of Exemption issued pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statues may be found here.

Im sure any of you accountants and lawyers can chime in on the ways of which anyone can abuse these things. Not even universities, think religious institutions as well.

In the end that line means a lot of lost money for government for all universities not just the most recent ones listed. His play here is simple. If you can afford this, why cant you afford that? Its not a stretch to play on the emotions of people to connect this. Not saying I agree. Nuance is always the sacrifice of emotion. But hes going to sell this as an systemwide failure of government and this is money that needs to go them to divest into social support.

Its a tried and true playbook.

Hopefully it dies a horrible death.
Click to expand...
Yes but…Alabama? Oregon? Are they mentioned?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top