3 ms·

Well, I don't think the Foundation would need to transfer 245k to the Corporation. From what I understand, the Google search deal was done with the Corporation.

Well, I don't think the Foundation would need to transfer 245k to the Corporation. From what I understand, the Google search deal was done with the Corporation. So the cash transfer is rather Corp -> Found. Instead, it would be enough for the Foundation to give the Corporation a better deal on their various trademarks. This is published in their financial statement for 2018 [0]. I'm not an accountant nor am I familiar with US Tax law, but from what I understand they received $6M in donations (contributions line) and spent $33M on "programs" (other than software development, which gets its own line). So the difference must have come from somewhere. Apparently the various trademarks are owned by the Foundation. The Corp has to pay royalties to use them. It's not clear how much, but I don't see why the Foundation wouldn't be allowed to set its own rate and / or give discounts. Internal cash flows are omitted from the consolidated report, though. What I gather from this is that basically the Foundation is getting most of its money from the Corporation. The Corp. being mainly concerned with Firefox, it could be argued that the Foundation gets money thanks to Firefox. I can see how people who want to support the browser may take an issue with the Foundation's other, non browser-related activities. Especially when it's clear that they do so to the detriment of the browser (by firing people in order to focus on other pursuits). [0] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-fdn-2018-short-form-final-0926.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-fdn-201...

p49k 6y ago
I'm not a tax attorney, but I know that there are serious restrictions on how two companies (non profit or otherwise) owned by the same people or entities are allowed to use them to benefit each other. Those restrictions exist for obvious reasons: being able to easily shift around money can lead to all kinds of tax evasion and other corruption. And I'm also fairly certain that suddenly renegotiating a licensing agreement in which the obvious purpose is to secure more revenue for the Corporation at the expense of the Foundation would be considered self-dealing, and there would be severe penalties, the least of which being the loss of tax-exempt status for the Foundation. Being controlled by the same entity does not mean that they are allowed to shift assets and money around or spend their own resources resolving each others' financial issues, and doing something sneaky like trying to hide such transfers as part of a trademark licensing renegotiation would not pass a smell test. > Especially when it's clear that they do so to the detriment of the browser (by firing people in order to focus on other pursuits) How disingenuous and trollish to put this at the end of your post. In the reply to an argument explaining that the Foundation is a separate entity with its own charter acting independently, you simply ignore the argument and say the same thing over again instead of addressing it.

p49k 6y ago

I'm not a tax attorney, but I know that there are serious restrictions on how two companies (non profit or otherwise) owned by the same people or entities are allowed to use them to benefit each other. Those restrictions exist for obvious reasons: being able to easily shift around money can lead to all kinds of tax evasion and other corruption. And I'm also fairly certain that suddenly renegotiating a licensing agreement in which the obvious purpose is to secure more revenue for the Corporation at the expense of the Foundation would be considered self-dealing, and there would be severe penalties, the least of which being the loss of tax-exempt status for the Foundation. Being controlled by the same entity does not mean that they are allowed to shift assets and money around or spend their own resources resolving each others' financial issues, and doing something sneaky like trying to hide such transfers as part of a trademark licensing renegotiation would not pass a smell test. > Especially when it's clear that they do so to the detriment of the browser (by firing people in order to focus on other pursuits) How disingenuous and trollish to put this at the end of your post. In the reply to an argument explaining that the Foundation is a separate entity with its own charter acting independently, you simply ignore the argument and say the same thing over again instead of addressing it.