1 |
On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 17:12 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 09:34 -0500, Matthew Thode wrote: |
3 |
> > On 19-07-03 09:08:14, Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:56 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > > > Are you aware if the fee is going to be the same if we |
6 |
> > > > go for proper non-profit? |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > Do you mean 501c3 by "proper non-profit?" Or some other tax-exempt status? |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > I think most around here have abandoned all hope of ever running our |
11 |
> > > own 501c3. A number don't even think we should try, and a 501c3 is |
12 |
> > > hard enough to get approved if you have a professional board all |
13 |
> > > towing the party line. If you get people making public statements |
14 |
> > > like we ought to be a trade association (which is non-exempt) it would |
15 |
> > > be even harder. |
16 |
> > > |
17 |
> > > However, I imagine most CPAs would charge more for a tax-exempt org as |
18 |
> > > there is MUCH more scrutiny on their operations. I'd also argue that |
19 |
> > > we would need to be spending more on compliance in general or |
20 |
> > > consulting ad-hoc with professionals to not run afoul of the law. |
21 |
> > > |
22 |
> > > If you meant a non-profit that isn't tax-exempt then I don't see why |
23 |
> > > their fees would be any different, but there really isn't any big tax |
24 |
> > > benefit to Gentoo to having one status or another as far as I can |
25 |
> > > tell. The IRS taxes non-profits the same as for-profit companies if |
26 |
> > > they aren't tax-exempt. It is the exempt status that comes with all |
27 |
> > > the rules and scrutiny. |
28 |
> > > |
29 |
> > > Usually in the US when people say "non-profit" they tend to mean a |
30 |
> > > tax-exempt status like 501c3, but these are of course not the only |
31 |
> > > sorts of non-profit companies. The US National Football League (the |
32 |
> > > kind where you usually don't hit the ball with your foot) is |
33 |
> > > non-profit, but definitely not tax-exempt, and I can only imagine what |
34 |
> > > their revenues are like. |
35 |
> > > |
36 |
> > |
37 |
> > The fees remain the same for a c3 (1500 per year). We've talked to the |
38 |
> > Accounting firm about our options in attaining c3 status. There are a |
39 |
> > couple of ways we could go about it. Filing fee remains the same (~1k |
40 |
> > iirc) for all options. |
41 |
> > |
42 |
> > 1. fix all back taxes (10 years) then refile, this would cost 9k more |
43 |
> > for the back taxes alone (4 years was recently approved). |
44 |
> > |
45 |
> |
46 |
> Plus $15000 in CPA fees, correct? Or do we assume a different fee for |
47 |
> that part? |
48 |
> |
49 |
|
50 |
Ok, Matthew corrected me on IRC. He meant $9k of CPA fees for |
51 |
the remaining 6 of 10 years. |
52 |
|
53 |
-- |
54 |
Best regards, |
55 |
Michał Górny |