IANAL, 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 shareholder

IANAL, 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.