[Noisebridge-discuss] Block over email for noise pollution

[Jack Perkins]

Hi list,
Rather than reading the preceding 30,000 emails myself, would someone be
kind enough to summarize the progression from 'lets get a piano' to 'lets
consider the issues with interpreting tax code'? If you'd also be kind
enough to make a chart of 'who is willing to respond to what' that'd be
excellent.

Thank you in advance,
Jack

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Andy Isaacson <adi at hexapodia.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 11:08:50AM -0700, Ian Atha wrote:
> > Please refrain from making definitive interpretive statements of the
> > tax code on a public permanently-archived mailing lists unless you're
> > a registered tax professional :).
>
> Indeed, in my email I specifically avoided trying to interpret the tax
> code; that's the job of our lawyer (who we try to bother as little as
> possible) and our accountants (likewise).  We have a fairly simple
> process currently, which stays well within the bounds of legality, and I
> consider that a feature.
>
> Attempting to finesse the gray areas of legality is a waste of time and
> money, IMO, and while everyone is welcome to spend their time and money
> however they want, I have better things to do.  So I won't be responding
> to discussions of the form "well logically if the tax code says $FOO
> doesn't that mean $BAR?"  Tax law is not logical, hacking it is risky,
> and I don't want to bother.  This is not an area in which innovation is
> rewarded.
>
> -andy
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20100410/c05904a0/attachment-0003.html>