Pages Navigation Menu

ON-LINE MAGAZINE & WEB SITE - SCROLL DOWN FOR NEWS

☛ Pot sweetened for aged events?

Posted by on Sep 15, 2012 in TO THE EDITOR | 0 comments

IS THE POT SWEETENED MORE FOR AGED EVENTS?

Dear Editor,

June 15, 2012

Just a thought….as I read the ‘adopted’ recommendations from the convention, they now take 50 horses to the semi’s. I believe it was 40 before, or paid thru 40 places. Another 10 places paid at $4000 each – WOW another $40,000 out to one NCHA produced event. I think a reasonable amount might be your entry fee back, but seriously, that’s better odds than at a weekend show (most classes 1 money for every 4 horses, but lower percentages to lower end) The 2012 Summer Spect. was better percentage than that in the NP, paying the 40 places.

Some weekend affiliates are struggling to break even on shows, with paid (mandatory certified) secretary, paid (mandatory certified) videographer, 8% to NCHA, $2 per cut to Nat’l Finals fee ( that now goes to Reno again???) I’m not sure some weekend cutters realize just how many places get paid at those major events. I feel NCHA (Executive Board) is trying to sweeten the pot more for the aged event group, and forgot the weekend cutter.

But of course, in case of repercussions, I prefer to remain anonymous ~

Thanks~ vg

Read More

☛ Description of a “Set Precedent”

Posted by on Sep 4, 2012 in BREAKING NEWS, RICK'S CORNER, TO THE EDITOR | 0 comments

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

WHAT IS THE DESCRIPTION OF A “SET PRECEDENT”

 Sept. 4, 2012

Glory Ann,

Since the release of your news article I have received myriad inquires asking for an analysis that provides further information on my last article, as well as a expanded information process.  More specifically, SET PRECEDENT and Trainer-issued earnings checks.

Therefore please accept the following:  (First):  When a corporation or organization establishes a normal manner in conducting business on a regular basis thus A SET PRECEDENT is established. It does not matter, in this instance for clarification purposes, whether such business manner is legal or not it’s still establishes A SET PRECEDENT or an established way of conducting business by a corporation.

Differentiation between the two is critical when such actions are identified as unorthodox or defined as illegal business practices. Its under this veil, a corporation subjects itself to a host of criminal and civil liability factors due to this SET PRECEDENT business practices thus placing same on a path of self destruction; and

(Second):  As this addendum relates to horse earnings checks being made payable to Horse Trainers I offer the following:  A Horse Owner is the (ONLY) rightful and lawful recipient and payee of all horse earning checks issued by the Horse Organization or (Payer/Issuer),except when such horse owner specifically and legally appoints a (nominee/middleman) recipient as an Agent by executed legal doctrine.

At no time, with specificity, does a Horse Organization or a Horse Trainer have the authority or binding legal power to supersede the lawful rights of an owner by arbitrarily appointing a (nominee/middleman) as the recipient of horse earnings checks or funds won during an equine competition that actually belong to another. With this over reach of authority such horse organization subjects its self to liability by using this unorthodox SET PRECEDENT business practice.

It’s imperative to note, all IRS 1099 reporting doctrine must be followed during and exchange of earned income by the Issuer and the Payee or recipient. Period.

Submitted with respect

Rick Dennis
Wind River Company LLC

Read More

☛ Legal implications regarding 1099s

Posted by on Sep 2, 2012 in BREAKING NEWS, RICK'S CORNER, TO THE EDITOR | 0 comments

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR OWNERS, TRAINERS AND ASSOCIATIONS REGARDING RECEIPT OF 1099

Sept. 2, 2012
Glory Ann,
Heretofore, you have had commentaries from two purported attorneys representing two separate Cutting Horse Organizations offering conjectural opinions on the actual
powers endowed to a Horse Trainer in representing the horse owner in his/her absence. In fact, same represents Horse Trainers are empowered with actual implied
and automatic authority to act as an actual legal Agent for such horse owners(s) by virtue of their trade name, e.g., Horse Trainer.

For the Record, each purported attorney suggests a Horse Trainer is cloaked with absolute authority to legally act in the owner(s) behalf in each ones absence. Therefore, it should be noted the actual definition of (AGENT) in commercial business is defined as follows:  With specificity, (“AGENT IN LAW) – In commercial law, is a person authorized to act on the behalf of another, (called the principal), to create a legal relationship with a third party.

In the absence of a fully executed POWER OF ATTORNEY specifically authorizing the above, by legal definition, a Horse Trainers actual authority is limited in scope of authority by virtue of this definition and absence of the executed legal document between the party(s).

Also, For the Record, please be advised of the following:  More specifically, when a corporation operates and continues to operate under a same set of guidelines a (SET PRECEDENT) is established, i.e., by definition (“Something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or analogous kind.”).

Therefore, if it’s an established business practice for such horse organization to operate in such a repetitive  manner, quite simply a precedent is established by operating in the same and usual customary business manner, e.g., providing horse owners earnings checks in the name of the Horse Trainer and not the owner(s).  Each purported attorney represents this is the usual and customary business practice of each separate horse organization named therein.  Thus, (A SET PRECEDENT) of a usual and customary business practice has been established by each entity.

Effectually, such a precedent could be argued the horse organization utilizing (A SET PRECEDENT) in its normal course of business, I.e., providing owner checks to Horse Trainers, is also establishing another set (SET PRECEDENT)  which would endow
and designate, by such set precedent, the Horse Trainer as (NOMINEE/MIDDLEMAN) for the horse owner(s) thus enacting the established IRS 1099 reporting doctrine set
forth in the IRS (nominee/middleman) provision of the federal tax code FOR REPORTING EARNED INCOME.

As the IRS TAX CODE STATES – Each nominee/middleman must register with the IRS as well as providing the name and tax identification for each owner named therein.
Click for IRS 1099 tax law>>

Essentially, this requires the Horse Trainer or (nominee/middleman) to be in possession of all relevant tax identification information relative to each owner(s) to include, but not limited to name, address, social security number or tax identification number, W4 information, etc.  actually, this horse trainer is in possession of the most private and guarded information available for an individual.

My question is, where’s the security to insure safe keeping and prevention of identify theft.  Is it in his/her barn for ease of access by anyone or in a file cabinet in his residence which also offers ease of access.  We all know horse training facilities, especially, in the border states are subject to being infiltrated by illegals and other transients.

Thus, it’s argued that a corporation utilizing such an unorthodox accounting method is virtually guaranteeing the absolute security of owner tax information, all rules of the Federal Tax Code 1099 reporting requirements, as same applies to reportable income, will be adhered to by its utilization of the (nominee/middleman), i.e. Horse Trainer/Horse Owner(s) check issuance, and the rightful and legal owner of such funds will receive full ownership of same from the (nominee/middleman) or Horse Trainer, as well as the Horse Trainer is legally in the U.S.

Notwithstanding, such an unorthodox accounting method subjects the horse owner(s) with the liability of the Horse Trainer complying with all Federal and State tax laws and that such individuals accounting records are legal, accurate, up to date and legally filed on an annual basis.

A non-profit corporation is compelled to operate within the full and absolute letter of the laws of the state it’s organized in, as well as the United States Criminal/Civil Code or in certain circumstances of impropriety the Officers and Directors of same are open to culpable liability and the protective veil of the corporation can be pierced.

Further, it’s not out of the realm of possibility when improprieties are found for a 501c  Corporation to lose its coveted nonprofit status.  As previously stated, and
as a Risk Analysis Expert, it’s incumbent on and advantageous for corporations to perform a Risk Analysis and a Forensic Audit to insure complete legal compliance of daily business practices, as well as insuring complete transparency. Transparency is especially essential with non-profit organizations.

For simplicity, accuracy legality and security my posture remains the same. Horse Earnings Checks should be issued directly from the Horse Organization (PAYER) to the rightful and legal owner (HORSE OWNER(S).  The horse owner can then issue the Horse Trainers portion of such earnings and this accounting method keeps the accounting records clean, accurate and legal.

In closing, perhaps both purported attorneys, as well as each Horse Organization should rethink their opinions and established (SET PRECEDENT) business practices.

Submitted with respect:

Rick Dennis, CPP
Wind River Company L.L.C.
Managing Member


Read More

☛ Rick Dennis response to 1099 letter

Posted by on Aug 31, 2012 in RICK'S CORNER, TO THE EDITOR | 0 comments

RICK DENNIS RESPONSE TO LETTER REGARDING 1099

Aug. 31, 2012
Glory Ann,
I am in receipt of a copy of Mr. Brown’s correspondence containing his statements and assertions pertaining to a news article published in a prior issue of your online
Magazine: Allaboutcutting.com.

First, and for the record, Mr. Brown asserts he is the attorney of record mentioned in the news article. Second, Mr. Brown’s assertion is without validation or verification due to the fact I have never personally visited with or spoken to him about any matter concerning the American Cutting Horse Association, much less the news article herein. Furthermore, for the record I have never met or spoke with Mr.Brown on any occasion. Therefore, I have no binding knowledge of who he is.
Period.

Second, Mr. Brown includes in his commentary, additional assertions stating he completely disagrees with all of my stated assertions in the news article, listing a litany of purported uncorroborated grievances and denials that at this point only he can validate as authentic and factual.

For the record my rebuttal is as follows:
1. Correspondence was scribed, by me, and forwarded not only to the American Cutting Horse Association but also to Mr. Bobby Bouget; Branch, Louisiana, delineating a list of grievances with specificity. Such correspondence addressed several grievances and/or complaints against both parties both separately and jointly. The American Cutting Horse Association after which (ACHA) received theirs and Mr. Bouget refused his certified mail.

Notwithstanding, and pursuant to the ACHA’S receipt of same, I was telephonically contacted and informed, by an employee of the ACHA, both letters were openly read at an ACHA Board of Directors meeting, copies provided to each Board Member, subsequently assigned to an unnamed attorney, also a Board Member, and a resolution on the matter would be forthcoming.

Pursuant to same, I received a phone call from the same ACHA employee who provided me with the following detail, More specifically, said ACHA employee stated with specificity,”the attorney assigned to your case completely agrees with you, he quit the board and I have been charged, by the board, to set the record straight.” Since the record has been set straight and I’m in possession of the requested documents and other items it seems the ACHA employee provided factual information and not hypothetical uncorroborated assertions as provided by Mr. Brown’s correspondence.

2. For the record, let me correct Mr. Brown’s statement pertaining to waiting 7 years to bring this to the attention of the ACHA. Let me state clearly and unequivocally, I entered into a written binding contract with the ACHA pertaining to donated Stallion breedings for this organization’s Youth Scholarship Program. I fulfilled my portion of the contract and the ACHA failed to fulfill their scribed and stated portion of the contract.

Thereafter, I contacted the ACHA requesting my tax information each succeeding year thereafter. ACHA failed in it’s fiduciary obligation to provide me with this contractural information until 7 years later and only after receiving my demand for same. Therefore, a breech of contract exists between the parties. It’s not my job to perform theirs or run an over sight committee to insure contract compliance.

Furthermore, it’s my full intention of amending my tax returns at the end of the year with this accounting bill being passed by me to the rightful parties due to this issue and breech of contract and failure to fulfill fiduciary obligations.

3. Mr. Brown challenges my authenticity in reporting the factual transpiring events at the 2005 ACHA World Show. My statement of fact has previously been reported but for the record let me reiterate without being redundant:

a. I personally attended this event. I transported my horse to this event. I paid all relative charges for this horse. I originally entered up as the exhibitor on this horse. At the last minute, I succumbed to Mr. Bouget’s
request. While present, I furnished the show secretary with all applicable information necessary to provide me with this horse’s earnings check. At no time did any Officer, Director, Contractor or Employee of the ACHA have the approval or authority to exceed my explicit instructions in providing this check to Bouget nor did the exhibitor have such authority to request.

b. Since 6 years passed and I was never informed of the existence of this check, either by the issuer or Bouget, I can only surmise and take the posture the funds were stolen. Period. It was only after I made light of my intention of proceeding with possible prosecution with the US Attorneys Office, as well as the Texas Attorney Generals Office against both parties, was this check made available to me by the ACHA. I find Mr. Brown’s statement of statue of limitations expiration incredulous since he is an attorney he should be well versed on the subject matter and be aware of the revised statue of limitations on specific criminal offenses by the court entering into Federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Brown should also be aware of and know the definition of culpable liability as this law pertains to Officers and Directors of Corporations.

4. I completely disagree with Mr. Browns referral to the apparent authority owners cloak trainers with. As previously stated, in the absence of a fully executed Power of Attorney, a Trainer’s scope of legal and binding authority is limited and does not supersede the legal and rightful authority of the horse owner. Both Mr. Tynes and Mr. Brown assert Horse Trainers are endowed with super and mystical powers adorned to their trade name, i.e., Horse Trainer, which is simply not true, e.g., let that
horse kick an individual at a show and see who bears the burden of the liability: the horse owner or the trainer.

5. As for reporting horse earnings, I have simply and previously stated the correct manner in reporting horse earnings earned during equine competition, i.e., Horse
Earnings can and should be issued to horse owners. Period. However, since both Attorneys are in favor of Trainers receiving horse-earning checks, I have taken the liberty of researching the IRS doctrine for same and reported as follows:

a. 2012 General Instructions For Certain Information Returns (Forms 1097, 1098, 1099, 3291, 3222, 5498, and W2G.) Nominee/middleman Return. Generally, if you receive a form 1099 for amounts that actually belong to another person, you are considered a nominee recipient. You must file a Form 1099 with the IRS (the same type of Form 1099 you received) for each of the owners, showing the amounts allocable to each. File the new Form 1099 with the Form 1096 with the Internal Revenue Service Center in your area. On each new Form 1099, list, yourself as the “payer” and the other owner as the “recipient”. On Form 1096 list yourself as “Filer”.

b. Any deviation in the above is circumventing established IRS earned-income reporting requirements. Any deviation from 1099 reporting doctrine subjects each issuer to providing false and erroneous tax reporting information, as well as failure to follow same. If a rule is implemented to use more than one earned income reporting requirements then such rule should also specifically delineate the manner and charges the recipient is endowed with, e.g., explicit record keeping for compliance and where appropriate, the issuance of Form 1099.

6. In closing, it should be noted that a 501c Non Profit can lose its coveted status for failure to adhere to, operate and comply within the full letter of the
law. Period.

Also, Mr. Brown asserts this was an oversight by the ACHA. For the record, Mr. Brown, a purported and alleged ACHA board member, should be fully aware it’s a
common and well-established practice of the ACHA to provide horse-earnings checks to the Trainers instead of the rightful owners of these funds and/or the horse owners.

An ACHA show secretary I interviewed stated it’s the manner, means and established common practice by which the ACHA instructs it’s show secretaries to disseminate horse-earnings checks after a competition event. Same also stated it’s a common practice with the NCHA and she was taught by the NCHA to disseminate horse earnings checks in this manner.

Therefore, this willful and deliberate act committed by the ACHA in conjunction with Bouget joins both parties in complete liability for the recovery of assets, as well
as all related costs to include, but not limited to, e.g., court costs, attorneys fees, accountant fees, etc. Quite simply, if the check would have not been sent to
Bouget it couldn’t have been stolen. If the ACHA would have fulfilled its contractural obligation, I wouldn’t have to amend my tax returns. Period. It took 7 years on the part of ACHA to rectify this situation. Clearly a stall. Period.

Mr. Brown, as an attorney you should also be aware of the definition of theft. Louisiana revised statute (LA RS 14:67 Subpart C, BY MISAPPROPRIATION WITHOUT VIOLENCE), part A: Theft is the misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs to another, either without the consent of the other to the misappropriation or taking, or by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations. An intent to
deprive the other permanently of whatever may be the subject of the misappropriation
is essential.

When such theft and/or criminal act occurs and the US Mail is used to perpetuate the
Crime (Mail Fraud) and when a Federal Bank is used to perpetuate the crime (Bank Fraud). Period.

Final Analysis: ACHA mailed this check, via, US Mail to Bouget from Texas to Louisiana without the knowledge or consent of the rightful owner, Bouget deposited this check into his bank account without an endorsement to specifically conceal the identity of the depositor and has never informed me to date of the existence of this check which clearly states Bouget’s intentions after 7 years.

In an abundance of caution, perhaps Mr. Brown should rethink his position on this
matter.

More specifically, Mr. Brown should ascertain and support the relevant facts in this case and not disseminate his personal conjecture which is simply designed to confuse the issue and offer excuses in his commentary.

The facts are the facts and are supported by an overwhelming abundance of credible documented evidence. Relevant Documented Facts do not change. Period.

Respectfully Submitted
Rick Dennis
Wind River Company LLC

Editor’s Note:
Click below for a copy sent to me by Mr. Dennis regarding the Internal Revenue Service’s rules on 1099s. The particular rule mentioned by Mr. Dennis is on page 2, Column 1, A. Who Must File, “Nominee/middleman returns”
Click here for IRS 1099 instructions>>

Read More

☛ Lawyer responds to Dennis on 1099s

Posted by on Aug 31, 2012 in TO THE EDITOR | 1 comment

ACHA BOARD MEMBER AND LAWYER RESPONDS TO RICK DENNIS ON 1099 SUBJECT

Aug. 31, 2012
Dear Editor,
I am writing this correspondence to correct several statements in the August 13, 2012 article “Does It Make Any Difference Who The Check Is Made Out To.”

I am the board member and the “lawyer” that reviewed the letter by Mr. Dennis sent to the ACHA. I do not and did not agree with Mr. Dennis’ conclusions contained
in the letter, nor do I agree with the statements he made in your article and his response to Mr. Tynes. I did not state to the board I felt he was correct and I did not resign from the board after the review was made. In fact, I am proud to have been re-elected for another term.

I state now emphatically that all the directors of the ACHA are honorable and dedicated people that are donating time throughout the year, totally without compensation, for the simple pleasure of the cutting horse endeavor. To make the statement that I or anyone on the board felt there was civil or criminal liability on the part of the association or any of the directors is preposterous.

In my opinion, the response sent in by Mr. Tynes correctly states the law regarding the apparent authority owners cloak trainers with. Clearly, if an owner directs the show personnel to issue the winnings to the owner, this is the procedure that should be followed. However, in the absence of such direction, the show is on solid ground following the instructions of the trainer/agent.

In Mr. Dennis’ case, he stated he was present at the show in question. If this is true, he should have informed the management how he wanted the check to have been made out and no misunderstanding would have occurred. Waiting seven years to inform anyone of the perceived mistake after the show secretary has passed away, all of the officers and directors at the time are no longer in office, and the statute of limitations to seek recourse has long since expired only magnifies the lack of communication that apparently existed.

I applaud the suggested rule change by Mr. Tynes. A rule requiring the winnings be paid only to the rider unless requested otherwise at the time of entry will clarify any confusion on the part of show management, owners, and trainers. I am confident the directors of the ACHA will give careful consideration to proposed rule changes in this regard and act accordingly. The ACHA does strive to promote cutting horses as a competitive sport by providing a setting that can be enjoyed by its membership. If a rule change is appropriate to enhance a fun and enjoyable experience by all involved, action will be taken.

Joe F. Brown, Jr.
San Antonio, Texas

Read More

☛ Letter on Amateur Proposal

Posted by on Jul 21, 2012 in TO THE EDITOR | 3 comments

LETTER TO THE EDITOR REGARDING LIFETIME AMATEUR PROPOSAL

July 21, 2012

Glory Ann
I don’t have much time to puruse articles etc. so forgive me if this has already been covered. I guess I need to vent and I know you will understand what I am saying. I just read something the other day that some people at the NCHA convention were proposing; that it would be a good idea to create a lifetime amateur division. My head wanted to explode!

Their rational for supporting a “ permanent amateur” was their clients get discouraged etc. when they have to move up to the NP division.. Well cry me a damned river. They completely ignore the fact there is a $50K limit for a reason, that reason being that people getting into the business will have a more level playing field on which to compete.

The people promoting the idea are well established trainers who must have wealthy amateurs who don’t ride all that well. Boo Hoo I say once you have won 50K you have 50K in experience. Period. Now you need to go play in the bigger pond a give the new people a chance. I wouldn’t be opposed to an intermediate NP division but to set up a special protected status for the leisurely wealthy clients, so they can compete against all other newness, indefinitely, is just insulting. Lets just set up a special olympics division for these people!

The simple fact these people proposing this weren’t run out of the building for even suggesting the idea gives me pause as to whether there is any future for this business long term.

This is crony capitalism groupthink. Hmmm wonder where I have seen this before? In my “gubbermunt?”

Anonymous
Not an amateur card holder
(Please do not use my name… this is a hot one)

Read More