It has mattered in other cases, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSP_Vision_Care https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSP_Vision_Care > In 2003 the Internal Revenue Serv

It has mattered in other cases, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSP_Vision_Care https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSP_Vision_Care > In 2003 the Internal Revenue Service revoked VSP's tax exempt status citing exclusionary, members-only practices, and high compensation to executives.[3] Or later in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSP_Vision_Care#Non-profit_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSP_Vision_Care#Non-profit_sta... > In 2005, a federal district judge in Sacramento, California found that VSP failed to prove that it was not organized for profit nor for the promotion of the greater social welfare, as is required of a 501(c)(4). Instead, the district court found, VSP operates much like a for-profit (with, for example, its executives getting bonuses tied to net income) and primarily for the benefit of its own member/subscribers, not for some greater social good and, thereafter, concluded it was not entitled to tax-exempt status under 501(c)(4).[16]