Laserfiche WebLink
Page 4. <br /> The Fund' s initial motivation to increase limits for Real <br /> Estate Operators was appropriate, but dial not go far enough <br /> for businesses which own and operate, rathekr than simply <br /> manage property owned by others . Our business function, the <br /> Real Estate Owner/Operator vs, the Reals Estate Management <br /> firm (businesses which manage only for 'la fe'e and do not <br /> include rental incomes as part of their gross receipts ) are <br /> vastly different fiscal businesses with' gross receipts which <br /> are not comparable. The result was that thke Fund <br /> misunderstood the nature and structurellof our business which <br /> resulted in our unfairly finding ourseives ;�in a restrictive <br /> $3 , 000,000/3 year limit category. (Ple'asekeep in mind that <br /> we are truly a small business with twolifulip-time employees (a <br /> couple resident manager) , less than 101par-`-time employees <br /> and an unsalaried owner whose net income in 1991 from <br /> working full-time in the subject bus.inelss was $55, 543 . ) <br /> In the Division' s response to our second appeal , they <br /> E addressed the latter issue differently,') contradicting the <br /> Fund' s initial response. The Division lin their response <br /> misquoted the Code (see below) in an apparent attempt to walk <br /> around the issue of the "error" acknowliedge�d by the Fund in <br /> our initial appeal to the Staff. The Divisrion states that it <br /> believes: "the category Business Services , If Elsewhere <br /> Classified (NEC) with a limitation of $3 .014 best fits your <br /> real estate leasing business" . This statement introduces a <br /> third category since the Fund had initially, stated they <br /> believed we actually belonged in "Mise'! Services , Not <br /> Elsewhere Classified (NEC) with a $1 . 114 limit. " The <br /> administrative confusion concerning what category properly <br /> describes our buiness therefore has increased each step in <br /> the appeal process. <br /> We believe that the solution to this confusion is to create <br /> an appropriate category for our type of business with a much <br /> higher annual receipts limit which would then more accurately <br /> reflect the specific characteristics ofi, our..small business . <br /> We have repeatedly requested that this �ibe done . (See Exibit r <br /> D, our 7-22-92 appeal, in which we sugg'estjthat given the <br /> existing "automobile leasing" (Services; x.a. ) category which <br /> more closely parallels our type of business that a more <br /> realistic and fair annual receipts Iimlt would exceed the <br /> $5 . 6M maximum for the automobile leasing category) . The <br /> Division response has been to state that the OSMB regulations <br /> allow them no leeway- in this matter since the Fund must be <br /> governed by OSMB criteria, and they even state that "OSMB has <br /> i{ <br /> �1 <br /> i� <br /> h <br /> F <br /> iE <br />