Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Questions for Gentoo Council nominees: Gentoo Foundation - Treasurer Response!

[Matthew Thode]

On 19-07-03 10:59:25, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:45 AM Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > On 19-07-03 10:40:07, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:34 AM Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 1. fix all back taxes (10 years) then refile, this would cost 9k more
> > > > for the back taxes alone (4 years was recently approved).
> > > >
> > > > 2. close the foundation and reform / refile as a c3.  Old foundation
> > > > donates all money to the new foundation.  This is what was suggested for
> > > > us to do, would be cheaper and give us both a fresh start, and would
> > > > give us the best chance of attaining c3 status.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Like 2, but with an umbrella (not something that's actively being
> > > > pursued).  If we wish to go down this route, attaining (2) would likely
> > > > increase the chances of an umbrella taking us in.
> > >
> > > Seems like the simplest option would be to start with an umbrella
> > > (completely separate from everything to-date), operate with the
> > > umbrella for a little while to make sure we're happy, and then have
> > > the Foundation donate everything it has left after settling accounts
> > > to the umbrella.  Why would we need to start a 501c3 just to dissolve
> > > it and donate it to the umbrella, when the umbrella is already going
> > > to be a 501c3?
> > >
> > > 501c3s are not limited in receiving money only from other 501c3s.  If
> > > anything they're more limited in who they can give their money to.
> > >
> >
> > That's a fine option if we find a umbrella that would accept that 'order
> > of operations'.  So far they seemed happier if our status was better
> > confirmed.  It's possible that the 4 years that we are doing now to get
> > into a good state with the IRS would be enough.
>
> I suspect that they're more concerned with being in good standing than
> 501c3 status.  They probably don't want to incur any liability if the
> IRS comes after them as some kind of successor in interest.
>
> This is also why I think that running side-by-side could be a cleaner
> solution.  Then you can start up new operations under the new banner,
> start closing down old stuff, get the old checkbook register into a
> quiescent state, do the final paperwork to close things out, and then
> write a check for whatever is left on the balance sheet.  If you don't
> do any large transfers during the transition period then you might
> also avoid any concerns about the new entity inheriting any IRS
> concerns.
>
> The cleanest solution would be basically an internal fork.  I'm not
> necessarily suggesting this, but if things were really bad we could
> just all fork ourselves (everything is FOSS), come up with a new name,
> collect donations under the new name, and spin up all new activities
> under the new name with the new money.  The old entity could spend
> down what it has and stop accepting donations.
>
> However, that isn't really necessary if we can get into compliance and
> people are willing to deal with us as-is, and going that route
> eliminates the risk of somebody coming after the new org for the
> remaining messes of the old one.
>
> And all of this is why I think it would be nice if we had an
> infra-less core.  If Gentoo could withstand losing all its tangible
> assets all of this stuff would be less of a worry...
>

You keep on pushing an infraless core, which is a nice idea but should
not be tacked onto this.  This is about fixing the tax / legal
situation.  Once that's done we can move on to other things (like
infraless core).  Stating these things tends to drive these threads into
tagents.  If you wish to continue discussing the subject start a new
thread.  (I'm not against it, just want to stay focused)

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)