@axo1989 , one minute you are an expert in engineering, one minute you are an expert in accounting. That is quite the skill set.
@crymeanaudioriver I thought I was replying to @cd318 so my mistake. I’m not so interested in your aggressive communication style so don’t expect an extended discussion. I’ve given you enough to go on, you can figure out what material interest means and how it may apply in this context perhaps, if you are sufficiently curious. The number and scope of gifts to ASR certainly crosses the usual thresholds for declaration in the regulatory sector that I have experience in.
If ASR / Amir were to start selling the devices, than you could claim it was a gift. The same would be true if the devices started being used as entertainment devices within his home and others. It is almost a given the suppliers are providing these units as non-commercial samples for evaluation, not intended for resales. Companies provide samples for evaluation to other companies all the time. The company sending marked as an expense, the receiving company does not mark as a gift. As ASR sells nothing, markets nothing, it would be a hard stretch to consider the units sent as "input" to their end product. It could even be argued that what Amir is doing is a "stress" test and hence the units are unusable after.
Of course at the end of the day, like most of what you have wrote, there is a lot of conjecture with a goal of discrediting.
My style is not aggressive, it is accurate. If someone is making claims that are false, or not supported by available information, then I am raising that as an issue. If someone is doing that with the goal of discrediting another individual, then they should not expect soft treatment. Would you prefer I used the wording potentially libelous?