3 ms·

CZI is an LLC funded by 99% of the Zuckerbergs' FB shares[1]. Isn't the domain transfer effectively just an admin exercise? [1] https://www.reuters.com/article

by lmc 5y ago

CZI is an LLC funded by 99% of the Zuckerbergs' FB shares[1]. Isn't the domain transfer effectively just an admin exercise? [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-markzuckerberg-baby-idUSKBN0TK5UG20151202 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-markzuckerberg-baby-idUSK...

mike_d 5y ago
If CZI were a non-profit they would have lost that status with this transaction. Per the IRS: "activities should not serve the private interests, or private benefit, of any individual or organization more than insubstantially." They may have exploited the generally held assumption of being a public benefit organization to gain an advantage in the sale of the domain. For example if the Gates Foundation approached me about one of my domains and it later ended up in the hands of Microsoft, I'd be quite upset.
- jefftk 5y ago
  The Gates foundation is a 501c3, not an LLC.
  - mike_d 5y ago
    Exactly?
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  Absolutely false on the loss of status. Folks quoting law here on HN tend to ironically be wrong about how things work. If you can afford some lawyers this is routinely done at varying degrees of morality and fairness.
  - KennyBlanken 5y ago
    Acquiring a major asset with a 501c3's funds and then selling it to a director or officer below market value is very clearly private inurement and absolutely should result in their "charity" getting its status revoked. If you have evidence otherwise, present it.
    - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
      Have you presented any evidence whatsoever? None? Ahh. Very illuminating! Let's be crystal clear here. While theoretical options exist for a charity to have its status revoked, in practice the IRS has not been able to use this authority except in the most narrow circumstances. For example, a director of a hospital chain buys property for below market value, and the minutes say - "property worth $100M, to scam the IRS we will sell it for $1M". That's as clear cut as you can get it. The problem was - the blowback political and public impact in shutting down a major university, a hospital chain, the AARP, the NYSE, the animal shelter etc was just too high for the IRS to exercise this "death penalty" option. In theory the rule existed, but in practice it wasn't usable. This is an issue generally with nonprofits, even when they do wrong, it can be very hard to go after them for political and other reasons. Steven Miller, acting commissioner of the entire IRS, lost his job pointing out that many tea party groups were political in nature. As a result, the IRS came to a solution, called intermediate sanctions under Section 4958. This is actually a great solution. The insider who cheated the public is the one who has to pay in contrast to your demands that an entire nonprofit be shut down and thousands lose their jobs, and all the harm closing a hospital might cause. They still claim they can revoke status and they can (maybe). But in practice even in blatent cases, this is rare / very unlikely because you punish the public relying on the charity, the employees etc, and revoking the status does nothing to get the $ back from the person who got the sweetheart deal. You can read about it on the IRS's website if you care to: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/intermediate-sanctions https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... Separately, plenty of nonprofits sell major assets to related for profits or even turn into for-profits. And as I said, if you hire some attorney's and are not complete idiots, the IRS generally does not act, even when things get pretty close to the line. I'm noticing more and more of a sort of "reddit" style of comment on HN. Very strong held, demanding, providing no evidence or speaking pretty clearly without any profession or other background in a field. It's eye rolling frankly. If anything, insider deals have unfortunately been increasing pretty dramatically in the last 5 years because IRS enforcement staffing for things like exempt entities, especially after tea party issues, has fallen through the floor. So right now we have horrible abuses occurring (syndicated conservation easements come to mind as a total scam in my book). Remember, the IRS is something like a year behind even getting to their tax exempt mail. Check the notice here for period after which they may not have even looked at anything. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-organization-search https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-organiz...

by lmc 5y ago

mike_d 5y ago

If CZI were a non-profit they would have lost that status with this transaction. Per the IRS: "activities should not serve the private interests, or private benefit, of any individual or organization more than insubstantially." They may have exploited the generally held assumption of being a public benefit organization to gain an advantage in the sale of the domain. For example if the Gates Foundation approached me about one of my domains and it later ended up in the hands of Microsoft, I'd be quite upset.

jefftk 5y ago
The Gates foundation is a 501c3, not an LLC.
- mike_d 5y ago
  Exactly?
whoknowswhat11 5y ago
Absolutely false on the loss of status. Folks quoting law here on HN tend to ironically be wrong about how things work. If you can afford some lawyers this is routinely done at varying degrees of morality and fairness.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  Acquiring a major asset with a 501c3's funds and then selling it to a director or officer below market value is very clearly private inurement and absolutely should result in their "charity" getting its status revoked. If you have evidence otherwise, present it.
  - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
    Have you presented any evidence whatsoever? None? Ahh. Very illuminating! Let's be crystal clear here. While theoretical options exist for a charity to have its status revoked, in practice the IRS has not been able to use this authority except in the most narrow circumstances. For example, a director of a hospital chain buys property for below market value, and the minutes say - "property worth $100M, to scam the IRS we will sell it for $1M". That's as clear cut as you can get it. The problem was - the blowback political and public impact in shutting down a major university, a hospital chain, the AARP, the NYSE, the animal shelter etc was just too high for the IRS to exercise this "death penalty" option. In theory the rule existed, but in practice it wasn't usable. This is an issue generally with nonprofits, even when they do wrong, it can be very hard to go after them for political and other reasons. Steven Miller, acting commissioner of the entire IRS, lost his job pointing out that many tea party groups were political in nature. As a result, the IRS came to a solution, called intermediate sanctions under Section 4958. This is actually a great solution. The insider who cheated the public is the one who has to pay in contrast to your demands that an entire nonprofit be shut down and thousands lose their jobs, and all the harm closing a hospital might cause. They still claim they can revoke status and they can (maybe). But in practice even in blatent cases, this is rare / very unlikely because you punish the public relying on the charity, the employees etc, and revoking the status does nothing to get the $ back from the person who got the sweetheart deal. You can read about it on the IRS's website if you care to: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/intermediate-sanctions https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... Separately, plenty of nonprofits sell major assets to related for profits or even turn into for-profits. And as I said, if you hire some attorney's and are not complete idiots, the IRS generally does not act, even when things get pretty close to the line. I'm noticing more and more of a sort of "reddit" style of comment on HN. Very strong held, demanding, providing no evidence or speaking pretty clearly without any profession or other background in a field. It's eye rolling frankly. If anything, insider deals have unfortunately been increasing pretty dramatically in the last 5 years because IRS enforcement staffing for things like exempt entities, especially after tea party issues, has fallen through the floor. So right now we have horrible abuses occurring (syndicated conservation easements come to mind as a total scam in my book). Remember, the IRS is something like a year behind even getting to their tax exempt mail. Check the notice here for period after which they may not have even looked at anything. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-organization-search https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-organiz...