Karl, Good thoughts. I agree with all.
I suppose the reason for my long writing was to say that 501(3)(?) status should not be feared, the process is predictable, and I think you will find the IRS actually will assist in the process. In any event, requires a good non-profit / tax lawyer to evaluate and explain the consequences. But getting the status is easy. Gene [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wednesday, September 22, 2004, 5:49:25 PM, Karl wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Gene Gaines wrote: >> ISOC is non-profit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, incorporated in the >> District of Columbia. >> >> I suggest it would be a serious mistake for the IETF not to >> obtain the same status. > There are many kinds of 501(c) exemptions. They all come with different > kinds of chains that impose limits on what the organization can do and > impose affirmative duties. Simply jumping into one category without > understanding the nature and form of those chains could lead to a kind of > organizational buyer's remorse. > Whether one considers the application process easy (or hard), fast (or > slow), or the IRS to be capricious (or not), it isn't something to be > undertaken lightly or without understanding the ramifications. The IRS is > one of the world's great bureaucracies; I know attorneys whose entire > practice is focused on just small parts of the US tax code and small parts > of that bureacracy. > The choice of Federal excemption also may have impact on the liability (or > rather on the limitation of liability) of unpaid Directors and officers > both on the basis of State laws that recognize certain protections for > certain 501 categories (and not for others) and also under Federal laws > that may provide some protection for volunteer (unpaid) directors under > some circumstances. > Many have, of course, navigated the maze and been happy with the results. > And some entities, after having experienced life as a 501(c)(3) have > discovered the limitations too binding and have changed their status. > The IETF ought to move forward with knowledge and understanding. It ought > not go forward blindly and with say 501(c)(3) or bust without knowing > fully what that means and implies. > The same goes for chosing the state of incorporation and the form under > that state's laws. > (There is, of course, the option of creating several different legally > cognizable entities, each shrink-wrapped with its own choice of > jurisdiction and form. But that could lead to a situation in which there > is not one IETF but several that drift in divergent directions.) > I'm not arguing against the 501(c)(3) status - I have neither an opinion > nor enough knowledge to make an informed choice. I'm merely noting that > the issue is complex and involves hard choices that ought to be made with > knowledge of the tradeoffs. > --karl-- > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
