1 |
On 19-07-03 09:08:14, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:56 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > |
4 |
> > Are you aware if the fee is going to be the same if we |
5 |
> > go for proper non-profit? |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Do you mean 501c3 by "proper non-profit?" Or some other tax-exempt status? |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I think most around here have abandoned all hope of ever running our |
10 |
> own 501c3. A number don't even think we should try, and a 501c3 is |
11 |
> hard enough to get approved if you have a professional board all |
12 |
> towing the party line. If you get people making public statements |
13 |
> like we ought to be a trade association (which is non-exempt) it would |
14 |
> be even harder. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> However, I imagine most CPAs would charge more for a tax-exempt org as |
17 |
> there is MUCH more scrutiny on their operations. I'd also argue that |
18 |
> we would need to be spending more on compliance in general or |
19 |
> consulting ad-hoc with professionals to not run afoul of the law. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> If you meant a non-profit that isn't tax-exempt then I don't see why |
22 |
> their fees would be any different, but there really isn't any big tax |
23 |
> benefit to Gentoo to having one status or another as far as I can |
24 |
> tell. The IRS taxes non-profits the same as for-profit companies if |
25 |
> they aren't tax-exempt. It is the exempt status that comes with all |
26 |
> the rules and scrutiny. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> Usually in the US when people say "non-profit" they tend to mean a |
29 |
> tax-exempt status like 501c3, but these are of course not the only |
30 |
> sorts of non-profit companies. The US National Football League (the |
31 |
> kind where you usually don't hit the ball with your foot) is |
32 |
> non-profit, but definitely not tax-exempt, and I can only imagine what |
33 |
> their revenues are like. |
34 |
> |
35 |
|
36 |
The fees remain the same for a c3 (1500 per year). We've talked to the |
37 |
Accounting firm about our options in attaining c3 status. There are a |
38 |
couple of ways we could go about it. Filing fee remains the same (~1k |
39 |
iirc) for all options. |
40 |
|
41 |
1. fix all back taxes (10 years) then refile, this would cost 9k more |
42 |
for the back taxes alone (4 years was recently approved). |
43 |
|
44 |
2. close the foundation and reform / refile as a c3. Old foundation |
45 |
donates all money to the new foundation. This is what was suggested for |
46 |
us to do, would be cheaper and give us both a fresh start, and would |
47 |
give us the best chance of attaining c3 status. |
48 |
|
49 |
3. Like 2, but with an umbrella (not something that's actively being |
50 |
pursued). If we wish to go down this route, attaining (2) would likely |
51 |
increase the chances of an umbrella taking us in. |
52 |
|
53 |
|
54 |
Personally I like option 2 or possibly 3 (depending on details). |
55 |
|
56 |
-- |
57 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |