doesn't say WHO gets the 100% tax deduction. But then I didn't read the whole original post.

Par for the course, and of course so is Marks response...

Matt

 

So you no longer control or have input in regards to vendors on NAM?

And I am the only one with a problem with PU and this site........don't think so. And I am not "flaming" you or the mods or this site. I am again just pointing out your support of a questionable vendor. You are aware of the fact that PU does not respond to any of these thread questioning their products or business practices, so why would you claim that this is the proper method for addressing members issues with PU?

You have again shown your colors Mark, with your continued support of PU and their deceptive practices.

 

I do agree that as a member, and a supporting member, at that, that it is disheartening to see PU make their false claims over and over with no repercussions. It's nice that "recommendations" have been made but it really makes no difference to a group of people that obviously don't care, as long as they are continued to be allowed to do what they do.

And as far as them not saying "who" gets the deduction...true...but the header on the announcement is "FREE CARBON FIBER". Also highly misleading.

 

that this isn't that much of a surprise to most members of NAM. I do find it odd that there is moderation of free content, and a hands off approach to those that have a financial link to the site. One would expect a higher standard for those that pay, as there is some relationship between the site and the vendor. One could argue that this would require MORE oversite, as the interests are linked now by the vendors fees.

Matt

 

I agree that IS confusing, Matt... the "PU issue" is really is the only thing that's consistently puzzled me about how NAM operates. Not that they continue to take money from PU ("binnis be binnis" and all that) but that they seem oblivius to the damage it does to their reputation amnd those of their OTHER customers 9the vendors).

I always wonder how all the VENDORS view this - after all, almost every single NAM Vendor I've dione business with has bee the very definition of "honorable" and "helpful"... with this glaring exception. Seems to me that a vendor like PU taints THEIR reputation as well, as it could easily cast doubt on the quality of all advertisers in the mind of a potential new customer. Luckily, I had experience with multiple other NAM vendors before learning of PU - I shudder to imagine if they'd been my first MINI speciailst buy. If I'd had Blackie's experience out of the gates, I don't find it hard to imagone leaving here never to return (and, hence, never click on the adverts that doubtless drive revenue to the site AND the advertisers).

But... maybe there's eomething about the NAM business model that's eluding me. I'm sure they have good reasons and it's not like I'm about to puff out my chest and boycot the site over this... but it is consistently dissapointing (shrug).

 

Nope, since day one posters have raised issues w/ PU marketing techniques. It actually brilliant they created a character from which they have built their products around giving them a unique quality.

Regarding the board, its a business. The board is not anyway shape or form endorsing any of the vendors. Anyone who wishes to sell and pays the vendors fee is a vendor.

Its up to us the community - to share our experiences on product and vendors.

 

I think Carol (et al.) is just naive enough to think that this is how the tax code works.

I really don't think the motive is ulterior, but rather blatantly uninformed in it's construction.

Either way it's irresponsible.

In light of Bryce's passing, I'm terribly sorry for the loss. It's a shame that this turn of events is now connected to that loss, in any way.

 

Just to update everyone, I PM'ed PU about the ad right after I read it on Saturday morning. I too am a CPA and the ad is clearly 100% INCORRECT. In several messages back and forth, where I both commended them for their generosity and explained the general requirements for charitable contributions and that this would only be a deduction for PU as a company, they continued to assert that the customer is entitled to the charitable contribution as a tax deduction. They even reference a law firm in Arizona that advised them on the matter, which I kinda doubt being the the promotion is costing them enough without the opinion of a $400/hr attorney. I left it with the statement:

"This is truly commendable. However, I am being persistant because I hope that your company also values being accurate in its advertising. Is this not true?"

Apparently not.

 

OMG...that is the FUNNIEST thing I've read today!

 

(Bowing) Thank you..thank you! I'm here every week!!!

 

 

Gosh... PU insisting that they've done due diligence by quoting the legal advice of some ill-documented, likely false 3rd party? Then refusing to admit that they might be wrong??? And THEN ignoring you when you ask them a point blank question???

I gotta admit - I never saw that one coming. I think it's a sign of the Apocalypse. Rilly...

 

Thanks; good job. I can't fault you on not taking action in the first place, once you gave your explanation and now you've done the right thing once you were made aware of the problem. May we assume if they don't comply you'll strike the ad entirely?

 

Jay:

Nice to know I'm not the only CPA driving a Mini. I’m also glad to hear I was not the only one who spotted this complete fraud and that you actually tried to make them see the light of day.

Had I been the one to go to PU over their false advertising they probably would have just ignored me and not replied after all I’ve been through with these clowns. So I’m glad it was you and that rather than do the right thing they further painted themselves into the corner they seem to love so much. In typical PU haughty tradition, they shot you down with a claim that they actually sought professional advice to support their position. GUARANTEED they are totally FOS about consulting anyone (and as you observed, the cost would have been a factor; any company so cheap as to use an employee's passing as a means to dump product would never spend on such advice). Maybe though they went to the same dude who was advising Wesley Snipes. Maybe they paid him in free PU parts or maybe it was just a bad batch of advice.

 

Well, if you had read the whole ad I think you would conclude there is NO mistaking that PU is advertising the buyer gets the deduction. Furthermore, you now have Jay indicating he gave PU a chance to admit to an "oops", but instead they chose to defend that the ad is correct in maintaining the buyer gets the deduction.

 

Blackie;
Thanks for the heads up:
"Nice try, but nothing will come of it. How come?

They know all about what is said about them here; they monitor the chit-chat and generally avoid stepping into any fray. How do I know?"
It drove me to do a little research around NAM. Outcome: I will never, ever purchase anything from PU. In fact, if I could recall my message to them, I would and I'd wash it off and apologize to it for sending to that place.
Since Mark seems unable or unwilling to do anything about them, the best we can do is to encourage normal market forces to work for us. Let everyone we can know about PU and it's history.
Dang! Wish there was a smiley for 'cross your fingers'.
-skip-

 

HAHA, what a great line. Poor PM, hopefully he/she is in a better place now.

 

What if we used the link provided by Mark to the new owners of NAM and politely requested PU's removal and ban from NAM. Maybe if enough e-mails fill their inbox something might happen. Probably not but worth a try?

 

The announcement has already been removed. I brought this up with Sam, Sam spoke with them yesterday, and their intent was:

1) Someone orders a wing
2) P/U donates that amount directly to the charity
3) Charity sends buyer of the wing a charitable donation statement

Since I'm not a tax CPA I have no idea if this is ok to do. That said Sam's understanding was that they would not benefit from the donation and that the customer would, in fact, benefit since they would have a statement that could use as donation proof for their taxes.

Regardless I removed the original announcement, have asked them to provide us a revised announcement if they want, and if it is more clear they can repost.

Mark

 

you shouldn't hypothosize about what's legal. What you're suggesting is tax fraud plain and simple. To get a deduction...

1) The money has to go DIRECTLY to the tax exempt organization. Can't go through third parties like that.
2) The deduction is only for the amount OVER what value you recieved as product in return. Since it's sold for retail, this is $0.
3) If PU wants to give the buyer the benefit of the tax deduction, they have to bundle. That is get payments from the customer DIRECTLY TO the charity (this is how many organizations get around donation limits to political camplaigns and the like), when they get the check to XYZ charity, they send the check on to the charity, and send the part to the customer as a thank you, but point #2 still holds, so the customer gets no deduction (unless PU wants to value the product at a lower amount, but since there's a retail price point, this isn't really legal either!)

But really, once again PU has done something that is not just slimey, but really is an encitement to tax fraud. Instead of having someone check out the details to see if they are soliciting business from the site you profit from by suggesting illegal behaviour, you GUESS about how it could be OK. There's a conflict here because NAM gets money from PU. One could make an arguement that NAM is now complicit in the fraud. Why do you put up with this craap? Have them change the wording.

"Regardless I removed the original announcement, have asked them to provide us a revised announcement if they want, and if it is more clear they can repost."

This is just BS. MAKE THEM CHANGE THE TEXT! They are soliciting business based on illegal practices. Why is it an option to do so for the vendor?


Matt

ps, I'm not a CPA or tax lawer, I've just been doing my own taxes for 28 years. This is pretty much clear black letter law, and anyone who does itimized charitable donation deductions should know it.

 

Matt.

Mark why don't you answer my question about whether or not you have any control over vendors on NAM?

 

Did you miss the part where Mark said

"I have no idea if this is legal...."

and

"...asked them to remove the ad...."?

You are correct in your analysis of what they can do, but in your apparent overzealousness to bash Mark/NAM in the process you are starting to sound like a couple of the other folks around here.

 

because I also read the part that said "if they want". That doesn't sound like a mandate, it sounds like an option. "I asked" instead of "I told" or "I directed" is pretty weak too.

"I don't know if this is illegal"... Find out! It's not hard. Just guessing is irresponsible for someone in Marks position.

Really, I like NAM and Mark, but am at a total loss why any organization would allow themselves to be complicit in this type of behaviour. It's not like the free content that we all post here to help the community. It's easy to argue that NAM isn't responsible for all the content, as it's user based. But they get PAID to post the PU and other vendor stuff. That creates the conflict and the requirement that there be a higher standard for content control. Now it's possible to argue that NAM is benefiting and condoning illegal behaviour so as to have a vendor generate revenue that contibutes to NAM income.

Am I one of the few that see this as a dangerous area for NAM to step into? While it's an extreme reach, this is the beginning of RICO infringment, where not all actors in a conspiricy have to fully participate in all aspects of the conspiricy. While I seriously doubt that any tax enforcement agency would bother with this small stuff, the fact that it's on the wrong side of the line is worrying.

Conceptually, I find it desturbing that there isn't a better vetting of vendor content, as the financial conflic of interest is so much more clear. It's not like we're talking about a huge number of adds or posts either, compared to the volume that the membership posts.

If that makes me a PITA whiner about NAM, so be it. I don't like it and I call it as I see it.

Matt

 

Read Matt's excellent response.

 

The message to P/U is that they need to figure this out with their tax person. I've been doing my taxes as well for 30 years and I still can't answer this question.

The underlying point here is that the members on NAM make up their own minds on where they want to spend their money and/or place their trust. If a vendor's marketing, products, support, etc. creates suspicion with you then don't buy from them. We've had a host of vendors over time on the site that have had serious problems...those vendors have either worked to resolve the problems or they are gone because no one purchased from them. It wasn't because I "deemed" them unworthy of being on the site. Judging who should be on the site as a vendor and who shouldn't is a double edged sword...either I get these types of complaints or I get censorship complaints. I would prefer to let members make their own conclusions on what they see from vendors rather than relying on me to make decisions for them. Is it too much to ask that members make up their own minds?