On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Ray Saintonge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anthony wrote: >> "We determined that you are a public charity under the Code section(s) >> listed in the heading of this letter [i.e. 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)]." >> >> I still have no opinion on what to call it. And I'll admit that despite the >> fact that I said "charity" was a less precise term above (which I said >> because it doesn't seem to have a legal definition), I can also see an >> argument that it's a more precise term (I guess it's more precise, but less >> well defined, although "non-profit" actually isn't legally defined under >> Florida law either AFAIK, the actual law uses the phrase "corporation not >> for profit"). > > "Not for profit" is more precise than "non-profit". By implying some > kind of intent it excludes those corporations that are non-profit only > by virtue of poor management. > > I would generally view "charities" as a broad subset of not-for-profit > organizations, and education is properly a charitable purpose.
Most jurisdictions (including the US Federal Gov) don't draw any legal distinction between "not-for-profit" and "non-profit" organizations, and usually choose to use only one term or the other exclusively. In those few places that do try to draw a legal distinction, my impression has been that "not-for-profit" is actually more expansive (fewer requirements) than "non-profit", and not more precise as you suggest. I've never heard anyone try to refer to badly managed for-profit corporation as "non-profit". That would clearly be an incorrect description if you mean the legal meaning "non-profit", which is based on the intended purpose of the organization and not merely the presence or absence of profits. -Robert Rohde -Robert Rohde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
