Miscellaneous desk
< June 13	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 14

banking requirements

By law, are there any requirements an individual must meet to start a federally chartered bank holding company? And what States allow accounting firms to be incorporated; and do you need to be a CPA to start one? --LastLived 04:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find an answer to your first question, but assuming your question pertains to the United States, the Comptroller of the Currency should be able to answer your question. See this page for a list of contacts. As for your second question (or set of questions), again if you are asking about the United States, there are 50 different answers to your question(s), since this varies from state to state. My guess, however, is that every state allows accounting firms to incorporate. Also, I would think that a non-accountant could own or incorporate an accounting firm in most if not all states. Of course, he or she would need to employ CPAs in order to win any business. Confirming this by checking the law codes and regulations of all 50 states would take many hundreds of hours and is not the sort of research project Reference Desk volunteers are prepared to undertake. For a definitive answer to this question, you would need to hire lawyers licensed to practice in each state. Marco polo (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was assuming that the bank was in the United States. I asked the accounting questions because I have a college accounting textbook a few years back that says "some" states allow incorporation. I mostly see these firms as LLPs, although for legal reasons this doesn't look very wise.--LastLived 20:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think every state allows incorporation. Banks are a totally different animal though, although I think every state allows banks too, but they have special rules. Shadowjams (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does running/walking relate to raising money for charity?

Call me dim, but I don't understand the thinking behind all these 5k 10k walks and fun runs to raise money for cancer research or what have you.

What does the actual running/walking have to do with raising money? I mean... can't you just as easily raise money and preach your cause without actually walking 5 miles in a silly, noncompetitive race? Would people somehow be less inclined to donate if they knew you were sitting on your sofa the day of the race, or if there were no race in the first place?

I'm all for raising money for charity, but I fail to understand this fundraising technique.--69.114.214.58 (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems successful whether or not you understand it! I suppose that if someone puts in months of training and effort to a good cause, rather than simply knocking on doors in their local area, people feel more encouraged/obliged to cough up some money. (Incidentally, why is it a "silly" race?) ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 18:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it doesn't make much sense, but that's the way people are. People are more willing to donate if you put some hard work in in some unrelated way. People are strange like that. --Tango (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is that there is an element of exchange in sponsorship: "you run 5,000 metres and I'll give you 1p per metre". There are many, many other ways to raise money, which include such non-strenuous things like leaving collecting boxes in pubs, or sponsored silences. Stopping complete strangers in the street and asking them to give you money is quite tightly controlled in the UK: you need a licence from your local authority to do this. If there are, say 30,000 people running a marathon, it would be impractical for each runner to get a licence from the local authority, so it's easier (and more cost effective) to organise an event which is subject to different rules. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easier to publicise, and lots of good photographs as well. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in support of such "sponsorship for effort" methods, we mustn't forget the positive effect that the runners/swimmers/climbers/parachutists/whatever will have on the spectating/bystanding public, whose attention will be very effectively drawn to the charitable cause concerned, when they may otherwise have been ignorant of it. And I would be surprised if the accompanying race/event marshals were not equipped with brightly coloured and highly visible collecting cans/buckets that would allow those same spectators to make their own spontaneous contributions. Finally, there is also the great feeling a participant will have at demonstrating his/her dedication to the cause and having achieved the stated objective in support of it. 92.30.43.250 (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I understand your problem. If people are prepared to support a charity, why should whatever they give depend on the efforts of an unrelated 3rd party, particularly where those efforts have nothing to do with whatever the charity is all about. It's a bit like "I'll leave you half of my estate in my will, but only if the Aussies beat the Kiwis in the cricket test that year". But compare your reactions to "I'll run up to 5,000 metres and you give me 1 cent a metre for charity" and "I'll sit on the couch watching TV for up to 8 hours and you give me 5 cents a minute for charity". The TV option has you forking out a maximum of $24 compared to $50 under the running option, but there's still no way you're ever going to agree to the TV option, even if it is for charity. Anyone can sit on their butt all day long, and it just seems wrong to reward this in any way. Running takes some effort, though, and it's a generally healthy thing to do, and that warrants some recognition, so people will generally be much more kindly disposed to supporting a charity via this means. It's artificial but that's called human nature. Same with lamington/cookies/chocolate drives - people will buy these if the proceeds are for charity, even if they had no intention of buying those goods without that incentive. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of "Run for the zoo/run for the childrens' home 5k events charge the runners a substantial sum, he net after expenses going to the good cause. They are often underwritten by business (whose ads are printed on the tshirts runners receive). I have participated in several of these. Not all rely on people getting pledges from sponsors. Werll known marathons often are fully booked quite early, and would-be runners then have to approach the charity which has a big block of entries to join their "team" and give them money to have the right to train with the team and and run in the event. I find it annoying when some young person wants me to pledge $1o to a good cause in exchange for which they will walk in a circle for hours around a track. Let them mow my grass, wash my windows or wash my car in exchange for a gift to the charity. Edison (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to wash 40 people's windows at once. It is easy to get 40 people to pay you for the same walking. Googlemeister (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly you could think of better ways to do this - for example, there are groups where people get together at weekends to build homes for deserving people. That's a more direct way to help than running - but if you could get sponsorship for doing the building then you'd be helping out in two ways at once. So clearly, people who go in for this kind of thing could get better bang for their efforts. I suspect that the people who do these events are doing the event for fun and "paying" for the privilege of running by collecting sponsorship. These are people who probably wouldn't enjoy pounding nails and mixing cement in their free time. But it would be good if the organizers were to put a bit more thought into their events to get this kind of double-payback. SteveBaker (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

accounting regulation

Many European accounting firms specialize in audit, tax, and financial advisory services. H&R Block's 10-K reports that by regulation they cannot offer audit services. Is this pursuant solely to their registered State of Missouri, or is this rule nationwide? And I'm curous, but does the IRS ever outsource audit work to accounting firms? Thanks. :-)--LastLived 21:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of H&R Block's business model, which specializes in tax rather than audit services. H&R Block is not registered as an auditor with the PCAOB. Other accounting firms, with different business models, offer tax as well as audit services. John M Baker (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]