4 ms·

So some entities call themselves "nonprofit" but are shady enterprises. By calling themselves "nonprofit" they get some relaxation like tax breaks. They enjoy p

So some entities call themselves "nonprofit" but are shady enterprises. By calling themselves "nonprofit" they get some relaxation like tax breaks. They enjoy public trust. After all they are in business for higher purposes. Are they? In Switzerland there's the "Stiftungsaufsicht". That's a supervision office for trusts. Does the USA and its states know such institutes? The IRS should be really interested in not granting tax breaks to profit-oriented organizations masquerading as nonprofits.

nsajko 2y ago
> some entities call themselves "nonprofit" but are shady enterprises Aren't most?
- geysersam 2y ago
  Why would you think that?
  - nsajko 2y ago
    The very concept is abusable. Tax benefits, funding, etc. attract abuse.
    - twic 2y ago
      You're making a claim about the world. It's better to support such claims with evidence, rather than your feelings.
wahern 2y ago
In the US charitable trusts are usually supervised by state attorneys general, roughly similar to how foundations are overseen in Europe, IIUC.[1][2] But the non-profits discussed in this article aren't trusts, but charitable corporations. Similar to this, I believe: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinn%C3%BCtzige_GmbH https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinn%C3%BCtzige_GmbH Their treatment is much closer to regular business entities in terms of scrutiny of administration and expenditures, so long as expenditures nominally serve the charitable purpose, and it's really only the taxing authority who cares one way or another. [1] I'm relying on https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung [2] In practice oversight of charitable trusts is minimal unless someone complains and there are resources to investigate. As is typical in common law jurisdictions, the rule is ask for forgiveness, not permission. Charitable trusts are typically only scrutinized when a beneficiary complains, AFAIU. Anyhow, at least in the US charitable trusts are basically just a large pile of assets with an administrator who writes checks to charitable corporations, so there's not much to oversee and illicit self-dealing is relatively less common.
- 1oooqooq 2y ago
  1. donate money to widely known corrupt ngo 2. now you're beneficiary, sue. 3. ??? 4. profit
- _nalply 2y ago
  Thanks, insightful, especially TIL that there's a fuzzy area between nonprofit and for-profit organizations, by the way I realized that this is true for Switzerland, too.

nsajko 2y ago

> some entities call themselves "nonprofit" but are shady enterprises Aren't most?

geysersam 2y ago
Why would you think that?
- nsajko 2y ago
  The very concept is abusable. Tax benefits, funding, etc. attract abuse.
  - twic 2y ago
    You're making a claim about the world. It's better to support such claims with evidence, rather than your feelings.

wahern 2y ago

In the US charitable trusts are usually supervised by state attorneys general, roughly similar to how foundations are overseen in Europe, IIUC.[1][2] But the non-profits discussed in this article aren't trusts, but charitable corporations. Similar to this, I believe: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinn%C3%BCtzige_GmbH https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinn%C3%BCtzige_GmbH Their treatment is much closer to regular business entities in terms of scrutiny of administration and expenditures, so long as expenditures nominally serve the charitable purpose, and it's really only the taxing authority who cares one way or another. [1] I'm relying on https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung [2] In practice oversight of charitable trusts is minimal unless someone complains and there are resources to investigate. As is typical in common law jurisdictions, the rule is ask for forgiveness, not permission. Charitable trusts are typically only scrutinized when a beneficiary complains, AFAIU. Anyhow, at least in the US charitable trusts are basically just a large pile of assets with an administrator who writes checks to charitable corporations, so there's not much to oversee and illicit self-dealing is relatively less common.

1oooqooq 2y ago
1. donate money to widely known corrupt ngo 2. now you're beneficiary, sue. 3. ??? 4. profit
_nalply 2y ago
Thanks, insightful, especially TIL that there's a fuzzy area between nonprofit and for-profit organizations, by the way I realized that this is true for Switzerland, too.