Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    There may be some disagreement over which specific expenses qualify to be deducted from gross revenue when calculating "income"; a scholarship foundation evaluating you for need-based aid may not necessarily agree with the IRS on the relevance of every aspect of your family's occupational expenses, and different countries have different rules for the specifics when income evaluation is related to taxation. But the concept of deducting occupational expenses from gross revenue when computing income is widely accepted.
    Last edited by 18.99s; 08-22-2019 at 12:36 AM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #13
    Quote Originally Posted by 18.99s View Post
    They referred to "income tax statements" on the next-to-last page.
    The say "verifiable by income tax statements", which is not quite the same as requiring that income tax returns be attached. It seems to me that the concept of taxable income (whcih excludes deductions) is well-established in U.S. tax law. If that's what they meant, it would have been easy enough to ask for that. Instead, they simply referred to sources of income and support. Not the same.
    Last edited by tandfman; 08-22-2019 at 03:30 AM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #14
    Quote Originally Posted by tandfman View Post
    The say "verifiable by income tax statements", which is not quite the same as requiring that income tax returns be attached.
    Perhaps they ask for tax returns only after narrowing down the applicants to a short list. It still means the athlete has to state their income and be prepared to provide their tax returns upon request (or equivalent, such as a tax transcript printed by the IRS).
    It seems to me that the concept of taxable income (whcih excludes deductions) is well-established in U.S. tax law. If that's what they meant, it would have been easy enough to ask for that.
    They probably didn't mean taxable income, because that has non-occupational deductions such as mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
    Instead, they simply referred to sources of income and support. Not the same.
    Correct, not the same as taxable income (for the reason I stated above), but also not the same as gross revenue.

    If somebody owned a small shop that had $200K in sales, it would be absurd to say their income from the shop is equal to $200K, without subtracting the cost of goods sold, the rent they paid for the shop, and wages paid to employees.

    They do specifically ask about prize money, travel money, and shoe/apparel company stipends though, so they are interested in gross track & field revenue to some extent, but I doubt that would be the basis for deciding who meets the under-$50K threshold without considering coaching and agent expenses.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #15
    I don't think we really disagree. I have every reason to believe that the people at the Foundation are intelligent, have good common sense, and are honestly trying to determine whether individual athletes really need the grant money. I'm sure they take all of the relevant factors into account.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #16
    Quote Originally Posted by spikes007 View Post
    The most amazing thing about this article is that I know the writer personally. He was one of my first students when I was a graduate assistant at UNC. He was a sports writer for Daily Tar Heel back then.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •