3 ms·
If the only restrictions on nonprofits are what profits are returned to the owners, if The company is wholly owned by a non-profit what can it do that it couldn
by esrauch 10y ago
If the only restrictions on nonprofits are what profits are returned to the owners, if The company is wholly owned by a non-profit what can it do that it couldn't if it wasn't itself a non-profit?
- moron4hire 10y agoThat's literally why the Corporation exists. It's a sham to be able to do whatever they want and still maintain the perception that Mozilla is a non-profit.
- Manishearth 10y agoIANAL, and I'm hazy on the details, but I think this lets the for-profit one hold on to more money (but also be taxed more?). There still aren't any shareholders (unless you count the Foundation as one). Basically, there are limits to what a non profit can do and still be a non profit (keeping a larger cash reserve is one of them iirc) Legally keeping the revenue generating business seperate (and having that revenue feed back to the nonprofit) as a for-profit, taxed organization, is useful. It seems to be a common pattern. Googling "501(c)(3) for profit subsidiary" gives a bunch of links explaining the reasons why many choose to do this.