Let me categorically state that as a board member in my co-op I have access to anything and everything, except the waiting list for parking spaces. Why no view into the waiting list of parking spaces? Because parking is a sensitive issue and as board members we stay out of the way and never influence a resident’s position on the list.

Other than the above, we have access to everything.

By the way, we have a line of credit and every board member is aware of the terms of the line and when we draw down and when we repay it. In point of fact, we always repay the line of credit within our financial fiscal year and never carry a balance to the new fiscal year.

So in this case, suggest the following:
1. Phone call to the president.
2. Letter to the president copy to all board members.
3. Letter to the co-op attorney.
4. Letter to the holder of the directors and officers insurance, copy to the co-op attorney.

I agree with the Ted that you should first speak with the board pres to ask (again) for a copy of the loan agreement. If he/she says no, write a letter to the board pres, stating his/her previous refusal, and asking again to see the documents -- and cc the entire board, managing agent (and his/her boss), and the corp atty.

Our board recently increase its line of credit, and to do so the board had to vote in favor of it. Unless your l.o.c. was acquired without board approval, I can see no reason why the information should be withheld from the entire board. (And if it was acquired without board approval, well, then you definitely need to get the lawyer involved.)

Remember, too, that the board's attorney works for the ENTIRE board, not just the president. The board's atty, therefore, cannot withhold a corp document if a majority of the members ask for it.

-- a board treasurer

This is precisely what the lawyer has told me that I must get approval from the majority. In my case this will never happen as the majority will say no. What do I do then. I still maintain that I do not need board approval to get copies of documentation ehich we are all entitled to see. The latest objection from the secretary was that "her signature is all over these documents & I would forge her signature as I had done before in trying to access her business accounts". Of course this is false. Another issue with her at the moment.

There's the crux of the issue: a nonfunctioning board. If the secretary feels free to state that you have committed felonious fraud (which, I believe, is called "libel per se" and may be strong enough to sue over if she says it publicly), you have a board that cannot function.

I'm beginning to think that perhaps you should cut your losses and resign -- and not because the other members won't play fair.

If they won't let the board see this agreement, I wonder what else they're trying to get away with. Even assuming they're doing nothing illegal, any breach of fiduciary duty committed by a few members applies to all (I'm no lawyer; this is my interpretation). You don't want to be dragged down by something you fought against.

If I felt my board was not open, fair or acting on behalf of ALL shareholders, I seriously consider resigning. (This happened to my mother, when she served on a non-profit board (not a co-op); too many hints of impropriety and her lawyer advised her to resign in writing and destroy her personal notes.)

Good luck.

No board director should operate unilaterally or have power over any other director. Opinions will vary and "majority prevails" - but a majority can't refuse you access to what all directors are entitled. A board is a team of equals. The pres/secretary have certain specific duties, but if you are flatly denied the right to see/approve documents, know how an LOC/other finances are handled or have legitimate questions answered, your coop has a serious problem.

I disagree that you should resign. IF you can support your position as a fair, honest board director and are denied the right to act in that capacity, you do your coop a great disservice by walking away. The problem continues, maybe gets worse, and everyone may suffer consequences.

If coop matters are being mishandled and you get nowhere with the pres/secretary, manager or attorney, take this to the people who can effect change: the shareholders. Present the facts at an open meeting...ask questions and don't let the pres/secretary/attorney brush them off...encourage others to speak, get involved, run for the board. You will stir things up, but you can't avoid it if you want to get the board and the coop back on the right track.

If possible, get non-divisive board directors to stand with you and don't let emotions rule. Work with the shareholders and do it responsibly and professionally.

Problems don't go away if people who can help resolve them go away. You joined the board to improve your coop and to make a positive difference, didn't you? From what you've said, it doesn't sound like you will have a better chance to do that than now.

Very well said!

I have put my request for a copy in writing to President & all board members. The objections came from Secretary & president which are the only board members privileged to see these loan documents, although 2 minutes before the end of a board meeting I was passed the 200 page document to review. When I said I would have to copy it & or view it at my leisure, I was told NO.

I have written the attorney as well but no answer. By the way I do not expect an answer from the attorney as I have written him before in other issues & in speaking with him I was told that If the board does not give approval, I cannot see documentation. To further clarify, I have written our lawyer about 70,000 missing in our accounts & to date no response.

Why not go to the managing agent and view the documents? I feel something fishy is going on when a board member can't get copies of documents pertaining to the building they represent. Keep the pressure on! Don't give up.

We carpeted our halls 3 years ago. Get good quality, stain resistant carpet and not one that may be discontinued soon. Some buildings get carpet that's sectioned instead of one-piece (or buy an extra roll) in case they need to replace an area later. If you have old vinyl or wood baseboards, replace it with the carpet you get for the floors - creates a nice, finished look.

If you have hollow-sounding floors, carpet cuts down on noise. It also makes halls less barren looking and warmer, especially if they are large.

Carpeting just needs to be vacuumed. It takes less time and effort than maintaining wood/tile/linoleum. We also got a durable runner, like the one we put in the lobby in bad weather, to use when someone moves, gets a big delivery or does renovation work. It protects the carpet from being ripped/damaged by furniture legs, metal cabinets, etc.

We are also looking to replace our carpet at our mid-rise condo and wish to upgrade the carpet as well. I am hoping we don't have to make too many trade-offs beteen durability and aesthetics. I imagine many fine hotels change their carpets fairly frequently.

Does anyone have any recommendations where to start looking in the Westchester, NY area ? Thx

Hi Matt

We have carpet in our hallways and I wish we didn't. The super complains about all the stains he has to remove constantly: dog pee pee stains, people dropping liquid detergent and not reporting it right away, food stains, juice stains, and people who allow their garbage to leak on the way to the refuse room. On the floors with many dogs, the carpets have to be cleaned all the time and the cleaning process can wear out the carpets. Think about ease of cleaning a non-carpeted floor versus a carpeting one. I know it cuts down on the noise in the hallway, but I don't think it's worth the expense. Good luck with your decision.

the Solair is one of the city's "greenest" buildings and has very very durable carpeting the hallway made from recycled matierals. It hides the dirt brilliantly and was very well-priced. It is from Bentley Prince Street. 212 -463-0606.

The short answer is YES.

Don't count on getting much back, though... we aren't and we put a new roof on a couple of years ago (also pre-War co-op).

Also, count on a long delay in getting a ruling.

And the money comes in RE tax abatements, NOT in cash.

Good luck.

We've had Argo for about 4 years now, and are VERY satisfied with their service.

Our Managing Agent, Hedda Lennon, is well versed in nearly every aspect of co-op management; anything she doesn't know from direct, first-hand experience, she finds out and gets back to us immediately.

We've been through a roof replacement, hiring a new super (twice; the first left for a better paying position), storage cage installation, sewer pipe repairs.... you name it, we've been through it : )

I recommend Argo highly.

How does Argo handle internal conflict among shareholders?

Argo's been good at helping us figure out legal issues vis-a-vis Shareholder responsibilities for repairs, etc. -- we find if we then inform all parties involved in a dispute what their responsibilities are, they're much less likely to get "personal" with a conflict.

The Board in my building has made Shareholder communications a kind of "set piece" of our tenure. We interact clearly and often with Shareholders -- from elevator and bulletin board notices, to holiday parties that give everyone a chance to meet and mingle with neighbors, to a newsletter that keeps people informed. We've held informational meetings, too, when issues arise such as security problems.

You'd be surprised just how much a transparent Board can diffuse conflict, and how far the good feelings from a simple holiday party can stretch. Our building's residents consider one another as much friends as neighbors, and new Shareholders often comment that this atmosphere drew them to buy here.

Hope this helps....

Yes it did! Thanks!

I'd really caution against relying on recommendations made on a forum like this. You can get a highly recommended management company, but also get stuck with a disastrous management agent; we've been through this with a top-tier management company and the results were both costly and painful.

Interview the actual management agent you would be assigned and also ask for references and most importantly CALL ALL OF THEM. Ideally you want references for buildings using the proposed assigned agent for YOUR building. Then use your common sense. You should get a strong recommendation with some specific areas where the company does well, and other areas where it can do better. When you get too enthuasiastic a recommendation (e.g the company can do no wrong), put more weight into others. On the other hand, if you're seeing a lot of lukewarm "polite" recommendations, you might simply be seeing board members afraid if they convey the problems they're having they'll suffer the wrath of the management company.

We covered this topic a while back. Please check the archieves. Best of luck.

FN.

you can. maximum water usage efficiency, etc.
try Herculeus - and you CAN bargian. Nothing is set in stone.
Also, get them to renovate your laundry room before installing their machines. and you can ask for a intro. fee up front of about $5000.

as water usage. People in the coin laundry business will tell you that dryers are almost a loss leader adn the dryer the clothes are going in the less time they will be used

that is what I am advocating for our next move. A friend that is president of her broad said they did this with hgreat success.

If you own the machines you can change service contracts much more easily if the service is bad. you are also much more likely tot get the high efficiency washing machines. in the laundry business the money is in the washers because dryers are so inefficient but the good washing machines are more expensive and service companies are reluctant to put them in because of the initial cost and they don't usually care sine they don't pay for energy costs

Sorry - typo - "all the wholes" should be "all the HOLES"
Thank you.

Does the tenant who resides in between the two apartments have some kind of mental illness or can you reach out the other family members to see about them talking to him/her? How old is this tenant?

Under 30, she has been approached in person and through e-mail in a nice manner - no results.

It seems to me that you need 3 things:

1) Actual proof that the tenant is spraying chemicals into walls. If you can prove it is a willful, malicious act, it constitutes "objectionable conduct."

2) A solid paper trail of letters/e-mails to the tenant and the sponsor to show that you have tried to get the tenant to stop spraying + letters from residents complaining about this activity. Words mean nothing, especially if you had to take this to court. You need documentation in writing.

3) Advice from your co-op's attorney.

If the spraying is so offensive, you have to take action. Also, if this person is a renter in a sponsor's unit, you should throw this in the sponsor's lap. It should be his responsibility to make the renter stop spraying or to get the renter out if necessary. Your attorney should advise you on how to proceed with the sponsor on this.

If you want to resolve this, you have to be able to support your claims, be prepared to do something about it -- and do it. Otherwise, your only alternative is to live with it.

Thank you.

Verbal warnings are useless. Shareholders shall complain in writing. Your Board must start with Legal Notice sent to this person by your legal counsel, stating that person is in default for violation of Proprietary Lease and House Rules, with 30 (or whatever is in your documents) days to cure. If you have fines in your documents, Board can apply fines. If it's not cured, lease will be terminated (see your coop documents). It will take some time, but there is nothing special in this procedure.

Shareholders did complain numerous times, it was discussed by the Board, no decision or action is taken by the Board. The tenant in question is a renter (sponsor's apartment). And it is going on for almost a year, but nothing is being done.
No warning letters, no fines...

You really have my pity but the boards silence makes me wonder if perhaps all this ia imagination. Why will the other persecuted person not support you with his letters.
How many on your board? Someone should help you, it seems critical.If your rank is high you should have power.

Her letters were also submitted to the Management Company and the Board

Once again,why does the odor not affect the resident who sprays it (coughing,sneezing,headaches)

FN

If the odor is so bad (not that I am questioning you). Does the individual that sprays these chemicals have to wear some form of hazmat? protective clothing. These odors and the damage they are causing would certainly effect them as well. Coughing,sneezing, headaches, etc. Or are they immuned to such.

Fat Nickie

She is administering it through the punched holes in the hollow walls which can be patched so odor does not go into her place. This explanation was given to us by one of the police officers called in.

I have a few questions. What kind of "chemical substances" are being sprayed? Why is the tenant spraying them into two neighboring units - and do you know for a fact that he is spraying them into the units on purpose or is he using them in his own unit and the odor is filtering into the others?

The message said numerous calls were made to the police and NYC health dept. What did they say or do about this? Also, where were holes sealed - in the neighboring units or in the unit of the person doing the spraying?

Sorry for so many questions, but I'd like to understand this situation better before commenting. Thanks.

What kind of "chemical substances" are being sprayed?
We do not know that.
Why is the tenant spraying them into two neighboring units?
She does it whenever we are on the phone , and yes she does it on purpose 24/7 - she works from home.

"The message said numerous calls were made to the police and NYC health dept. What did they say or do about this?"
They said that the Management Company and Landlord should handle this dispute.
The holes were sealed in the neighboring units only because she will not let the super or anyone else in.

adc - usually you are so good but here you are being discourteous. I am disapointed by your tone. It is spiteful and mean. This is a billing / math question. do you evenreally understand what is being asked? our building has been billing over and above the rebate amount/. IS IT IS STANDARD, that shareholders receive a windfall and should not be billed for hte rentire rebate amount that appears on their mntnce bill?

Obviously, you did not understand the replies you got last year and you question. Now let's go to the answer:

1. Whether you get a check or a reduction of your taxes to be distributed among qualifying shareholders, the answer is the same.

Let's walk through the numbers and through the concept of maintenance:

Premise:

(1) Maintenance is the necessary income required to pay your aggregate expenses with some minor cream added to it and then divided by the number of shares.

(2) Among your expenses are taxes.

(3) The maintenance per share is a constant number for all the shareholders including the sponsor.

Now, the math. I'm going to use a simple example so that I don't have to pull my calculator:

I have 9 shareholders entitled to the abatement and 1 sponsor, all of the shareholders have the same amount of shares. (REAL SIMPLE!) The building receives $36,000 (in abatement or a check) to be distributed only to qualifying shareholders.

Well, don't have the money and need to do an assessment if I paid a reduced amount of taxes to NYC because of the abatement. OR I have the check from the city and now I would like to assess to retain the check in my coffers, but try to comply with the city in providing the abatement:

Now:

$36,000 / 9 shareholders who qualify = $ 4,000
$36,000 / 10 shareholders total = $ 3,600
Difference $ 400

Thus, the $400 difference resulting from the inclusion of the sponsor represents the abated tax amount that the sponsor was not entitled to receive through a reduced tax paid to NYC, OR the amount that the sponsor needs to pay to NYC by virtue of not being qualified for the abatement.

Bottomline: It is not a windfall to anyone. It means that the taxes paid from the shares owned by the sponsor were not abated by $400.

Hope this is easier to digest.

AdC

funny - it is pretty clear what the quesiton is - you dont get it at all. it has to do with how much you assess people for. read again. also - dont be patronizing and nasty - it does not help. you used to be much better.

The fact that you are assessing equally (shareholder or sponsor)no matter the amount that you plan to raise, means that every one pays their fair share. The sponsor would subsidize the shareholders if you were to assess it $2.00 per share and the rest of the shareholders are assessed $1.50.

Obviously, I don't know how to ïnterpret anymore and this is why I miss the boat! OR, perhaps the person who raises the question does not know what is talking about.

AdC

OK you are just not thinking. The sponsor does not get the tax credit. The shareholders do. got it so far?

so, when all are assesed, (for the same amount), the sponsor pays more because he does not have a credit on that same bill. His bill is higher to start with.

still with us?
so, when you divide the amount of the abatement itself (, say 40k, among all shareholders (inc sponsor) - there will be a surplus on non-sponsor bills for that month BECAUSE - pay attention, because he is footing a portion of this abatement and not getting credit for it. stop and think here please so it sinks in.

THE QUESTION IS - IS IT STANDARD TO ASSESS SHAREHOLDERS ( a) FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE ABATMENT divided among all shares OR,

(b) PAY ATTENTION, to assess based on THE CREDIT THAT APPREAS ON NON-SPONSOR SHAREHOLDER'S BILLS - RESULTING IN AN AMOUNT OF $$ LARGER THAN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE ABATEMENT?

do you see the difference?

To make it more to the point Mr. Einstien(???):

1. You paid NYC taxes $100,000 for 10 apartments (9 individual shareholders, 1 sponsor)

2. You got a check in the mail for $36,000 for 9 individual shareholders who qualify for the apartment.

3. The amount total amount paid by the building less abatement is $64,000.

NOW...

a. Taking the premise that all 10 apartments have the same amount of shares, each shareholder including the sponsor should pay $10,000. (10,000 X 10 = 100,000) DO we agree so far?

b. The reduction comes and only 9 shareholder qualify for the tax abatement or credit. So, each gets $36,000 / 9 = $4,000 credit per qualifying shareholder.

c. What is the tax allotment that each shareholder pays to NYC and will ultimately be declared through the IRS / State return forms?

(1) Figure this one out and you will tell me if the sponsor paid its fair share of taxes to NYC through maintenance. Of course, by virtue of not qualifying to this abatement, it does not get it. Yet, it may get it through other incentives (that you and I don't know it) available for corporate entities.

(2) It's okay to assess the sponsor for the $36,000 since the amount reduced the total amount of taxes the building paid and the sponsor is an integral component of the building. The difference represents the fair taxes it should pay; it IS NOT SUBSIDIZING anyone of paying more than you. You just happen to be a beneficiary of a NYC tax reduction program.

Finally, I may sound patronizing through my oversimplified examples, but you are not asking for opinion, you are forcing an opinion which does not merit further discussion.

Hope those who follow this conversation, a bit patronizing, a bit insulting have a better idea of the issues.

"Einstien's mother"

that each non-sponsor shahrolder does end up with a little bit of a credit after the assessment ($400). also pls confirm it is standard to base the assessment on the amount of the total abatement and not the amount of the credit that apears on each non-sponsor bill?

(1) Does the building get a check back from NYC for the abatement?

(2) Does the building retain the check in its coffers?

(3) Does the building assess shareholder to pay back the abatement while retaining the total amount of the abatement?

(5) Does the co-op pay the abated portion of your NYC tax burden?

Eintien's mother

totally imbecilic. the questions is simple: which is the more standard method off billing? AdC - have you gone brain dead? we are worried about you.

either you dont want to understand what is a very basic question - or you are just totally incapable of understanding what is being asked OR you do not know the answer.

Let me tell you, sponsors and management representatives know their numbers and their privileges better that you and I. They will rather see all the sharaeholders (incl. the sponsor)being assessed for the difference before they agree to pay the little return shareholders get back from the assessment. Why? Probably because of good accounting and reporting to the IRS.

The method of calculation gets you the same results, but the correct way is through asessment of the entire amount. (Now don''t tell me I have answered your question!):

To demonstrate that all routes lead you to Rome, I am calculating it both ways:

$36,000 / 10 shareholders = $3,600
$36,000 / 9 shareholders = $4,000

Difference = $400

The sponsor gets to pay the $3,600

Now, your original question also had the component of windfall for shareholders and sponsors paying a bit more. THIS IS BOGUS! The sponsor PAYS its fair share of taxes and is not giving each shareholder $400 as a hand-me-down. Otherwise, they would VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE it.

NOW... I''ll try to explain it once more. PLEASE KEEP AN OPEN MIND AND DON'T RUN YOUR MOUTH. ALTHOUGH INSULTING, IT SHOWS YOUR INABILITY TO ARGUE:


1. Your city tax invoice is already reduced, i.e., if your total tax bill were $100,000 without the abatement program, your NYC bill states pay me $64,000 (which you pay to NYC assessor) and you have the commission by NYC to distribute amoung 9 qualifying shareholders $36,000, which is the size of the abatement.

2. Well, each shareholder through maintenance including the sponsor is paying to NYC by way of management: $64000 / 10 shareholders = $6,400 instead of the full tax of $100,000. (remember: $36000 + 64000 = 100,000)

3. So you have 9 qualified shareholder and for $36,000 or $4,000. But, you do not have $36,000 (due to your budgeting) and you need an assessment to distribute the $36,000.

4. So you now assess for the entire abatement to all the shareholders, i.e., $36,000 / 10 = $3,600.

5. You return $4,000 back, and each shareholder gets $400 net.

6. What does this tell you? (and excuse my repetition)

A. Through the building NYC tax bill each shareholder including the sponsor paid $64,000/10 = $6,400.
C. Through assessment all shareholders paid $3,600.
D. Total amount paid for taxes by each shareholder:
$6,400 + $3,600 = $10,000!!!
E. You are returned $4,000. Your total tax paid to the city is $6,000, because you qualified for the abatement.
Since you paid through maintenance $6,400 - 400 (returned to you) = $6,000.
F. The sponsor does not get the abatement, so he pays the alloted total NYC tax value of the building:

$6,400 + $3,600 = $10,000.

Now you sit down with the NYC tax invoice and go through the motions of figuring the arithmetic out.

You'll get my point!

In a separate mailing I will clarify my questions.

AdC

Why I asked my questions?

I do not live in New York and there is no abatement; however, the principle is the same as numbers never fail us. I will respond to each question.

(1) Does the building get a check back from NYC for the abatement? (Again referring to my ridiculous example as it is regarded)

Say the NYC tax is $100,000 and you paid this amount. The city sends you a check for $36,000 and tells you to distribute to the 9 shareholders that you have.

In this case, you take the check and divide it by the 9 individuals and case closed. Every one gets the $4,000 and the tax ends up being $6,000 per head. $10,000 for the sponsor because that is the amount he needs to pay for taxes since it has no allowance. No need for assessment, no nothing.


(2) Does the building retain the check in its coffers?


(3) Does the building assess shareholder to pay back the abatement while retaining the total amount of the abatement?

(2) and (3) is a two step question. Again based on the fact that you paid the full amount and a check is returned, similar to your federal/state taxes in which you pay, and if you pay in excess you get a check.

If he building were to retain the check in its coffers, then assess each shareholder for the check, then everyone wlll be paying above and beyond $3,600. In this case there will be a windfall because the sponsor will have to foot $3,600 extra to take care of shareholders. However... (I will not confuse you any more). This is the only time in which a windfall can be conceived.

So, no more insults, no more explanations.

Good bye, but... get your NYC tax invoice sit down and try to make light out of it. It's the only SMART way out!

Ëinstien's mother; Eintein's tutor, etc.
a/k/a AdC

it has to do with HOW you base the assessment. do you or do you not get this?

here is what you do - you assess for the maount of the abatement divided among all shareholders. because the sponsor doe snot get the credit, the other shrholders are left with a credit - despite the assessment. call it what you will but some might call this a little nice windfall. or a tax break or whatever. adc you have gone completely bats and are terrible at addressing this. you also keep spitting out some example with numbers that is redundtant and doe not address the bais for billing. Please STOP and think the future - you used to be so wise before you went nuts.

Collect from the sponsor it share.

AdC

we know that. what we dont know is: is it standard to have a slight windfall on regular shareholder bills AFTER the assesment because the sponsor, in effect, is subsidizing the assessment?
- which should, ideally be for the total amount of the abatement spread among ALL shareholders -?

and, thus, NOT an assesment amount that equals the total of the abatement credit on non-sponsor maintaience bills. comprendo?

ie the abatement credit and assessment amount on regular shareholder bills should NOT be the same amount.

yes yes, we know: the sponsor, however, will just get an assessment without the credit. BUT there should be a windfall for shareholder because of this!!! RIGHT??????

Your statement:

and, thus, NOT an assesment amount that equals the total of the abatement credit on non-sponsor maintaience bills. comprendo?

Going to my example that got you so upset:

If you were to raise $36,000

$36,000 / 9 worthy shareholders = $4,000 a piece each
$36,000 / 10 shareholders incl. sponsor = $3,600 a piece each.

Difference = $ 400.

Now, the 10 shareholders raised $36,000, but you will return to 9 sharholders $4,000. So, the amount raised or returned to you by way of an abatement are not equal.

Being "nasty" again, $4,000 (returned) > $3,600 (assessed).

In other words, every shareholder including the sponsor is assessed $3,600 to raise $36,000. Worthy shareholders get back $4,000. So, the abatement amounted to $4,000, but only got back $400.

On the other side, the sponsor pays $3,600 but gets nothing back, i.e., does not get like the other shareholders $400 because is not qualified.

The bottomline is as follows: the co-op was short $36,000 in their taxes or wanted to collect money above and beyond to match the check, every one pays the same.

I know it's a bit confusing, but it would be easier to let the shareholders know that no distribution and request the sponsor to pay the $3,600, which divided by the 9 shasreholders happen to be $400 a piece.

As I mentioned in my example, the $400 or the $3,600 is not a contribution or a windfall, but the fair share of NYC taxes that the sponsor needs to pay since it's not qualified under the program.

Now... don't ask the same question next year!

AdC

firstly, you present a barely comprehensible example. It is a mess. secondly, , i did not get upset by any example of yours. I just was amazed that you did not understadn what i was saying. also your example is totally unclear and you fail to answer the question.
WHAT IS THE STANDARD WAY OF BILLING??? SEE LAST POSTING AND JUST ANSWER PLEASE. NOTE: FDNYC MUCH SHARPER THAN YOU - THEY GOT IT RIGHT AWAY.

what you are saying here is what i have said already. you are saying each non-sponsor sharheolder ends up with an extra $400 after all is sadi and done. This is a windfall.

got it? That is what I said from the start - but, somehow you still do not address the core of the question. what do you think my question is:


If you were to raise $36,000

$36,000 / 9 worthy shareholders = $4,000 a piece each
$36,000 / 10 shareholders incl. sponsor = $3,600 a piece each.

Difference = $ 400.

Now, the 10 shareholders raised $36,000, but you will return to 9 sharholders $4,000. So, the amount raised or returned to you by way of an abatement are not equal.

Being "nasty" again, $4,000 (returned) > $3,600 (assessed).

In other words, every shareholder including the sponsor is assessed $3,600 to raise $36,000. Worthy shareholders get back $4,000. So, the abatement amounted to $4,000, but only got back $400.

On the other side, the sponsor pays $3,600 but gets nothing back, i.e., does not get like the other shareholders $400 because is not qualified.

The bottomline is as follows: the co-op was short $36,000 in their taxes WHAT DOES THIS MEAN ADC? HOW CAN THEY BE SHIRT IN TAXES IF THEY ARE GETITNG A REBATE? or wanted to collect money above and beyond to match the check, every one pays the same. EVERYONE DOES NOT PAY THE SAME - YOU JUST SAID SO ABOVE.