:::Dave - the whole WP:NOR thing does take awhile to figure out.  I like to think of it this way - in journalism, you often try to pull together Facts to help the reader draw a conclusion.  You report Fact A, Fact B, and Fact C, and leave it to the reader to formulate an opinion based upon that.  That methodology is part of what "Original Research" is in Wikipedia.  Biographies on Living Persons, especially, are treated somewhat gingerly to avoid legal issues, and to be fair to individuals, who do change over time. 

 :::Reporting what is on someone's IRS forms as income is typically not 'notable' for wikipedia purposes.  If you think this specific information should be included, finding a primary verifiable source that can also be considered 'notable' is a good start.  It *seems* like you're reporting the subject's salary as a ways of suggesting (without saying so) that the subject made too much money off of CRI.  Simply reporting the financial data leaves a lot open for interpretation, which is not really encyclopedic.  The data, itself, doesn't identify what portion the "significant reimbursement" entailed, and isn't an actual PRIMARY verifiable source with factual or analytical reporting.  There is no interpretive content in the source, and its linkage to the article isn't obvious w/o 'original research'. 

 :::Also, please leave the main article alone until some sort of agreement is reached on what/if to include.  Thanks -)