4 ms·
I don’t think the nonprofit does, the majority owned subsidiary does. It is not a terrible setup if you need funding to get off the ground but also want to be
by rileymat2 3y ago
I don’t think the nonprofit does, the majority owned subsidiary does.
It is not a terrible setup if you need funding to get off the ground but also want to be able to operate the nonprofit on a stream of income being thrown off by the for profit subsidiary going forward.
- staunton 3y agoIt's a setup that in practice usually ends up equivalent to the nonprofit not existing in the first place. Seems like this happened here, too.
- signatoremo 3y agoWhat does existing mean here? That the nonprofit part ceases to exist? Or not effective? Can you name some examples of such failed setup?
- dboreham 3y agoI know everyone nods when this is said, but is a non-profit owning a for profit entity actually a thing? Isn't the profit motive a thing that taints the transitive closure?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hiatus 3y agoYes, it's a relatively recent development. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/newmans-philanthropic-exception-now-law-will-consequences/ https://nonprofitquarterly.org/newmans-philanthropic-excepti...
- maleldil 3y agoIf this format is recent, how does Mozilla (which is considerably older) and fit into this?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]