I see that you did manage to convince AG.
But this conclusion directly contradicts the whitepaper from AFFT I quoted, and it contradicts the common understanding of everyone else I've talked with. It also begs the question of WHY HR25 needs any language with regard to NFP if they are treated just like any other individual consumer.
I'd much rather have Karen Walby's explanation of why her Consumption number includes those NFP expenditures.
But this conclusion directly contradicts the whitepaper from AFFT I quoted, and it contradicts the common understanding of everyone else I've talked with.I doesn't necessarily contradict the white paper. It depends on the definition of "business purposes." The AFT is the master of lies by omission.