President's HOA Dues waived?

No, usually somewhere in the CC&Rs will be the statement that the Board will serve without compensation.

If dues are waived for individuals on a Board, then it must be reported as income to the IRS and to their respective states (if applicable).

Daniel, I don't care what your other officers want to call themselves, or what "duties" they did, if your governing documents specify that the board positions are non-compensatory, then what was done was illegal, not to mention unethical, and that you didn't mind has no bearing on the issue.

It also makes no difference if a property management company "costs" more than waived assessments.

A resident/member volunteers for the position on the board, and with that comes the work that the board member is expected to do, uncompensated.

If the board member does not want to do that without "fees," then he/she should step down.

KatL,

It's usually best not to waive assessments on anyone (fines, interest, late penalties are at the discretion of the Board). Most Association documents require annual or special assessments to be applied equally to each lot. Waiving an assessment for one and not another opens the Association up to litigation - mainly because of the perception it can create with the membership.

That said, I could find nothing in Alabama law that would prevent compensation to members of the Board. Therefore, it would be up to the language in your governing documents as to if it is allowed or not.

If compensation is allowed, it should be fully disclosed and payed as an expense to the Association (as Steve suggested) and not as a waiver of assessments.

Tim

I can read just fine. Daniel needs to write more clearly, and also take his own advice to read more carefully.

First, you do not make it clear at all that your first HOA did NOT have a no compensation clause. What you wrote was very vague in that regard. I read it a couple of times and it was not clear at all.

Which is why *I* wrote my response as follows:

"Daniel, I don't care what your other officers want to call themselves, or what "duties" they did, if your governing documents specify that the board positions are non-compensatory, then what was done was illegal, not to mention unethical, and that you didn't mind has no bearing on the issue."

So, as you can see, I purposely qualified my comment with *IF* . . . .

You're welcome. . . . .

I'm not "HIDING" behind it. It's completely paramount to my post.

On the other hand, your initial post was so vague it was not possible to determine if the first instance you were referring to involved a non-compensation clause.

Hence, my IF. . ..

Your own posts lacks civility by accusing me of having reading problems.

You dish it out, but you can't take it when it's posted right back to you.

My "accusations" are completely on target and not baseless.

Please read my post again: IF...... THEN.

Stop hiding behind your own lack of reading skills.

Or did you just want to jump at a chance to poke me?

Ad hominem, much?

Don't forget your contribution to the "hijacking."

The fact is your direct reply to ME was an attempt to take a slap at me, and was not helpful to either the original poster or others who may read this thread for important information regarding waiving HOA board member dues. And you slap was not only unwarranted, but WAAAAAY off target.

My entire point in posting the reply that I did regarding the *IF* you are so hinky about was a direct result of your own vague and ambiguous response and advice regarding waiving the assessments of officers/directors.

Someone reading it who did not already know the little tidbit in your own head as you were writing it, but that you failed to clarify point-blank in writing the post (that the HOA did not have a non-compensation clause) could be disastrous to someone who felt they, too, would only need to have the officer/director do some "bookkeeping," then maybe another do some "project management", then the OTHER board member give a thumbs up saying "s'okay, by me."

Without specific clarification that such a scenario would only apply in a very narrow circumstance (no non-compensation clause in the documents), an HOA neophyte might get themselves into deep doo-doo because of it.

That's why I posted my response the way I did. It was not directed TO YOU, it was directed to OTHERS who may have read your material and either be confused or not be aware of what they actually don't know. (and that is they cannot simply waive dues if their documents specify no compensation for directors/officers).

The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT part of my reply, then, was the *IF* -- and I was very specific in the way I phrased it so that people could not think they can have any wiggle room on the non-compensation IF THEIR DOCUMENTS CONTAIN A NO COMPENSATION CLAUSE.

Period.

My post above ended addressing that issue and that issue only.

Your post began as an attempted slap-shot at me personally.

Then you decided to slap me around a second time claiming my *IF* was something to "hide" behind. Which, frankly, doesn't make any sense, either.

The other posters in this thread also contributed very important material and advice regarding the waiving of fees, whether there is a non-compensation clause or not, such as it would or should be counted as income and reported to the IRS, or if the documents required that ALL lots carry the SAME rate of assessment, and offered suggestions to do such a thing cleanly, if the individual's documents allow for it.

These posts and threads aren't games for many people. We may have light-hearted fun from time to time between some of the more senior (in time posting, not necessarily age), but we always have to be careful of what we say when we are imparting advice.

I admit that sometimes I am guilty of not providing enough clarification or jumping to conclusions based on faulty information, or simply interpreting something the wrong way.

But this thread wasn't "hijacked" until YOU wanted to get PERSONAL with ME. Own it.

[IMG]http://i43.tinypic.com/wqwqkn.jpg[/IMG]