| 1 |
On 19-07-03 10:40:07, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:34 AM Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > 1. fix all back taxes (10 years) then refile, this would cost 9k more |
| 5 |
> > for the back taxes alone (4 years was recently approved). |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > 2. close the foundation and reform / refile as a c3. Old foundation |
| 8 |
> > donates all money to the new foundation. This is what was suggested for |
| 9 |
> > us to do, would be cheaper and give us both a fresh start, and would |
| 10 |
> > give us the best chance of attaining c3 status. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > 3. Like 2, but with an umbrella (not something that's actively being |
| 13 |
> > pursued). If we wish to go down this route, attaining (2) would likely |
| 14 |
> > increase the chances of an umbrella taking us in. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Seems like the simplest option would be to start with an umbrella |
| 17 |
> (completely separate from everything to-date), operate with the |
| 18 |
> umbrella for a little while to make sure we're happy, and then have |
| 19 |
> the Foundation donate everything it has left after settling accounts |
| 20 |
> to the umbrella. Why would we need to start a 501c3 just to dissolve |
| 21 |
> it and donate it to the umbrella, when the umbrella is already going |
| 22 |
> to be a 501c3? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> 501c3s are not limited in receiving money only from other 501c3s. If |
| 25 |
> anything they're more limited in who they can give their money to. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
That's a fine option if we find a umbrella that would accept that 'order |
| 29 |
of operations'. So far they seemed happier if our status was better |
| 30 |
confirmed. It's possible that the 4 years that we are doing now to get |
| 31 |
into a good state with the IRS would be enough. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives