No subject

Peter Rauch peterr at VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU
Mon Jan 30 11:22:46 CST 1995

>Date:         Mon, 30 Jan 1995 13:38:34 GMT
>From: Daniel Janzen <djanzen at SAS.UPENN.EDU>

>     To complicate matters, one must point out that if you begin to charge,
>then you convert all the grantors and donators who paid for this collection
>and its development over the past decades into venture capital investors
>and stockholders, albeit not necessarily with that in mind.  Your fee
>schedules then had perhaps to plan on returning some appropriate portion of
>your income to them as a return on their investment (and some portion to
>the IRS as well)?

Not necessarily, even though that may be one trend evolving from the
"bio-mining" and related activities of today.

There is no reason to assume that everyone (person, agency, salary, etc)
who supported the amassing of collections expected (naively) that all
future costs have been already paid for by their past contributions.

Nor is it necessary to assume, even if they _did_ expect some kind of
payoff (otherwise, what's the point of amassing the collections in the
first place?), that the payoff must be in the form of a proportion of
the fees collected for future information services. The payoff could
come in the form of publications of value to society (e.g. a popular
field guide to the Dragonflies of West Nowhere, or scientific papers),
other products of various utility, conservation activities based on
results of studies of collections materials, etc.

And, there is no reason to assume that a fee is set such that it not only
recovers expenses of the immediate information service, but also in some
sense "makes a profit" owed to the "shareholders" as payment _in kind_.

In any case, I agree with Dan that expenses should be identified and
accounted for.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list