| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:45 AM Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 19-07-03 10:40:07, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:34 AM Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > 1. fix all back taxes (10 years) then refile, this would cost 9k more |
| 7 |
> > > for the back taxes alone (4 years was recently approved). |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > 2. close the foundation and reform / refile as a c3. Old foundation |
| 10 |
> > > donates all money to the new foundation. This is what was suggested for |
| 11 |
> > > us to do, would be cheaper and give us both a fresh start, and would |
| 12 |
> > > give us the best chance of attaining c3 status. |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > 3. Like 2, but with an umbrella (not something that's actively being |
| 15 |
> > > pursued). If we wish to go down this route, attaining (2) would likely |
| 16 |
> > > increase the chances of an umbrella taking us in. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > Seems like the simplest option would be to start with an umbrella |
| 19 |
> > (completely separate from everything to-date), operate with the |
| 20 |
> > umbrella for a little while to make sure we're happy, and then have |
| 21 |
> > the Foundation donate everything it has left after settling accounts |
| 22 |
> > to the umbrella. Why would we need to start a 501c3 just to dissolve |
| 23 |
> > it and donate it to the umbrella, when the umbrella is already going |
| 24 |
> > to be a 501c3? |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > 501c3s are not limited in receiving money only from other 501c3s. If |
| 27 |
> > anything they're more limited in who they can give their money to. |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> That's a fine option if we find a umbrella that would accept that 'order |
| 31 |
> of operations'. So far they seemed happier if our status was better |
| 32 |
> confirmed. It's possible that the 4 years that we are doing now to get |
| 33 |
> into a good state with the IRS would be enough. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I suspect that they're more concerned with being in good standing than |
| 36 |
501c3 status. They probably don't want to incur any liability if the |
| 37 |
IRS comes after them as some kind of successor in interest. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
This is also why I think that running side-by-side could be a cleaner |
| 40 |
solution. Then you can start up new operations under the new banner, |
| 41 |
start closing down old stuff, get the old checkbook register into a |
| 42 |
quiescent state, do the final paperwork to close things out, and then |
| 43 |
write a check for whatever is left on the balance sheet. If you don't |
| 44 |
do any large transfers during the transition period then you might |
| 45 |
also avoid any concerns about the new entity inheriting any IRS |
| 46 |
concerns. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
The cleanest solution would be basically an internal fork. I'm not |
| 49 |
necessarily suggesting this, but if things were really bad we could |
| 50 |
just all fork ourselves (everything is FOSS), come up with a new name, |
| 51 |
collect donations under the new name, and spin up all new activities |
| 52 |
under the new name with the new money. The old entity could spend |
| 53 |
down what it has and stop accepting donations. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
However, that isn't really necessary if we can get into compliance and |
| 56 |
people are willing to deal with us as-is, and going that route |
| 57 |
eliminates the risk of somebody coming after the new org for the |
| 58 |
remaining messes of the old one. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
And all of this is why I think it would be nice if we had an |
| 61 |
infra-less core. If Gentoo could withstand losing all its tangible |
| 62 |
assets all of this stuff would be less of a worry... |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
Rich |
Archives