Talk:Nonprofit organization/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Nonprofit organization. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Update Canada Section

Section under Canada states that laws are set to be changed in Winter of 2011. This time has passed. Did the laws get changed? How? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.219.163 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Canada's not-for-profit Act has been in effect from October 10th 2011 and is still currently in effect. Ontario's not-for-profit Act is predicted to be in effect starting July 1st of 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsong248 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

global tax law

Isis, you have made the article Americo-centric, it would be better to separate US-stuff from the general text. Patrick 17:07 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

Agreed, non-profits exist worldwide - sbwoodside@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.16.125 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 23 August 2004

Added entries on the legal aspects of non-profit organisations in Europe. It's far from being neutral and globalised - pelasgian 30 Nov 2004, 14:27 (GMT+2) pelasgian@hotmail.com

example list

The list should be moved to a separate article. --Joy [shallot] 10:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Status

Can non-profits have shareholders? I don't think they can, but the article directly implies this. --James 22:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

OK i just went ahead and changed that and fixed a few other details. I removed a line and a half that went into unnecessary detail about Wikipedia. Although we all love Wikipedia, that line and a half really didn't advance the explanation of the topic at hand. --James 22:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Non-profits in the

United States can have shareholders (take, for example, a non-profit cooperative business or housing cooperative. They depend on shareholders). I am not sure about globally... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.123.55 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 29 July 2005

In Australia, non-profit organizations cannot have shareholders. They can have members. They don't have owners. The difference is fundamental to the nature of a not-for-profit entity. Can someone who knows about comparative law explain if the US has a significantly different approach to non-profits? - Richardcavell 10:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This might be nitpicking, but Webster's says "nonprofit" should be spelled with no hyphen. thoughtclaw

The IRS requires that, for exempt organizations, "none of the earnings of the organization may inure to any private shareholder or individual."[1] The "owners" of a nonprofit are the members of its board of directors. Board members do generally attend meetings, have voting rights, and exercise ultimate control over the organization, like business shareholders. Shareholder makes the distinction between shareholders and stakeholders. Zadeez 05:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Legal nonprofit expert Bruce Hopkins has written several legal guides for nonprofit organizations and has noted (to my recollection) that there are a few US state statues that allow for shareholders in nonprofit organizations. However, those shares are strictly limited in number and scope. So, for example, there may be only one share to be held by the board in its entirety or that the share is nondistributive of any profits generated by the organization. In such cases, I think business incorporation law was poorly adapted to a different purpose by perserving the concept of "share ownership" within an organization while gutting any effect it may have on goverance. It would have been wiser for such states to simply have adopted some version of the model nonprofit organization law that many states observe. eia1957

Is there actually any evidence for the opening sentence of the Examples section: "The largest Non-Profit Organization in the U.S. is the United States Federal Government...?" It stikes me as inaccurate. Uptothejob (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but it depends on how you define non-profit organizations as a group. One way is to define them as all organizations that are outside of the public and commercial sectors, i.e. organisations that are not making a profit, but also not government agencies. Alternatively you can define them as all organizations which don't make a profit in the stict commercial sense, and in that case you have to include all public governmental and other bodies as non-profit organizations. In the UK, when discussing the "not for profit sector" and "not for profit organisations", we wouldn't generally include government bodies. It might be extremely helpful for this page to decide on one or the other definition. TamaraStaples (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Can Non-profits have shareholders? Yes. All jurisdictions that allow non-profit companies, do so. In fact most require there to be shareholder(s) in a non-profit company. A company is just one of many legal structure available for non-profits to incorporate under in many countries. In some common law countries, like Australia, in fact, a non-profit company was the main way to legally incorporate prior to the relatively recent invention (since 1970s in most cases) of association laws. So the comment above that non-profits in Australia can't have shareholders is wrong. It depends on how they are incorporated. 203.109.208.252 (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move

I suggest that this article be retitled 'not for profit' and that all the synonyms, including 'non-profit' be redirected there. - Richardcavell 09:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this suggested move. Where I come fdrom they are formally called 'non-profit organisations', so I do not see why the article should be changed to 'not for profit'--Clawed 20:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Any other opinions on this? Where I come from (Victoria, Australia) they are formally called 'not for profit' and the semantic difference does have genuine meaning, since it helps elaborate that it is *not* an organization that fails to make a profit, but one for which the distribution of assets to owners is illegal. - Richardcavell 10:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonprofit is not a particularily useful name, since it only differentiates a NPO from the private sector, but does not differentiate from the state. Perhaps nonprofit and not-for-profit could both redirect to third-sector organization (or some other equally accurate, but less academic, phrase)? - Crigaux 20:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-profit is much more common (in the US at least), and easily wins a google fight[2]. I think whoever made "not for profit" redirect here was correct! -MrFizyx 15:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A Google fight doesn't necessarily make it the correct choice. If nonprofit is a synonym for 501(c) organization, then it should redirect to the 501(c) page, and rename this page to Not for profit. It appears to me that this is the case; that nonprofit can be isolated as a US dialect word, which doesn't hold the same meaning throughout the English-speaking world. Which would win? Google-fight or OED-fight? :-) --Rfsmit 21:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not put a hyphen in the word nonprofit!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmoobvaaj (talk • contribs) 17:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

need to ask a CPA

I was told once that non-profit and not-for-profit are different statuses in the U.S.A. I was given this information from a credible source (someone who handled bookkeeping for a not-for-profit I worked for). I was confused when I saw that link to not-for-profit directed me to the non-profit page. Perhaps someone should ask a CPA for clarification regarding U.S. tax laws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.35.221 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 April 2006

No difference. (I work for a nonprofit that provides this type of information to other nonprofits.) I've heard this idea before...I think the confusion arises from the classification of charitable nonprofits vs. other categories of IRS 501(c) exempt orgs such as political organizations, business or neighborhood associations, etc. Zadeez 05:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I think editor Zadeez hit the nail on the head. I've had to give the same sort of explanation from time to time when a client or co-practitioner forgets that the mere fact that your organization is a "non-profit" or "not-for-profit" does not mean that it's a "charitable" organization for purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 170 or 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). Yours, Famspear 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote an article on this topic a few years ago (2000) and referenced it when I updated the topic on Wikipedia. A few months after my update, someone erased the reference but kept the content change I made thus prompting the request for a citation. So, I re-inserted the citation reference again today and hopefully it will stay there. The article itself is *not* available for free online because it is copyrighted material with the publisher; however, copies of it can be obtained through a variety of sources (such as Amazon.com). And no, I do not receive any royalties based on your purchase. eia1957

Misspelled

"Nonprofit" is the correct spelling. Compound words created by combining prefixes with root words do not take a hyphen except under very limited circumstances.

The two most common exceptions are when the root word is Capitalized (e.g., un-American, but unusual), and when the prefix ends in the same vowel that the root word begins with, in which case the hyphen divides the two identical vowels (and then not always, e.g., cooperate). A third exception, less common, is when there the compound word is spelt the same as another word but should be pronounced differently (e.g., recreate, re-create).

If for some perverse reason the hyphen is insisted upon, then the term should be "not-for-profit." Else the misspelling should be eliminated and the article should be headed "Nonprofit. . . " with misspelled uses redirected to the proper spelling.

Hey, please sign your posts!

I could live with "Nonprofit," however, right or wrong usage of words like non-profit and non-partisan are just as common as their non-hyphenated, ... err nonhyphenated spellings. -MrFizyx 15:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's misspelled. I agree with the argument that the correct term for this is "nonprofit." All other spellings should be referred to nonprofit. Misspelled is misspelled. The most commonly misspelled word in the English language is "separate." This word, by comparision, is misspelled far more often than nonprofit. Shall Wikipedia resort now to accepting the "common" misspelled form of "seperate?" I think not. signed: Mark Mason 28 March 2008.

The OED has 'non-profit.' It is not a misspelling. It also offers examples of 'non-profit' used in our sense from American, British, and Australian publications - with the earliest offered quotation from American Economic Review (1921) & the latest from California City Sports (1996). Interestingly the OED also has entries for 'not-for-profit' and 'for-profit' (both of later provenance) but no entry for 'nonprofit.' Nor is 'nonprofit' listed as an alternative spelling. By writing this - to anticipate - I mean neither to insinuate the superiority of the OED nor its lexicographical authority but rather to correct the opinions expressed above. A counterpoison. Respectfully, -Ioannis-94.66.81.3 (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The OED is in the minority among dictionaries. More dictionaries list nonprofit alone (or first). All the style books I could get ahold of recommend no hyphen with the prefix non (except in rare special cases). One (Garner's) even went so far as to call the hyphenated non-profit "always ill-advised." — $wgUser 17:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-profit organization → Nonprofit organization — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Per reasons listed above (and in at least two other sections on this page). I tried to move it myself but it's protected for some reason. — $wgUser 18:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Public Trust

The assets of a nonprofit organization are held in the public trust, and must be used for the purposes set out in the organization's documents. As such, the assets are not owned by the board, individually or collectively. Instead they are held by them to be administered and used for a public good, e.g. charitable, religious or educational activities.

merge Not-for-profit corporation?

While most "not-for-profit" terms redirect here, the above has been a separate article for some time (and has been unedited for a month). I don't know the legal distictions between the terms, but I was wondering if some who do know a bit could weigh in as to whether or not these should be different articles. At the very least it would be nice if this articles would explain the difference. -MrFizyx 17:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't "not-for-profit"s differ from "non-profit"s in that some profit is acceptable in a "not-for-profit" even if that is not the stated goal. Most organizations could not survived if they played a zero-sum game. Cougarbate (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In certain jurisdictions, at least, not-for-profit is distinguished from non-profit with regard to tax-exempt donations. So there is a legal difference. Marcus The box (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A non-profit organization need not be incorporated. Most ad hoc civic organizations would fall into this category. It's important that not-for-profit corporation be maintained as a separate article to contrast it with the other forms of incorporation and business organization. Frappyjohn (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge with NGO

As with NPOC, David Bornstein in Massive Change says that NPOs and NGOs are American and European names for the same thing (and proposes citizen sector organizations as a neutral alternative), so I'm proposing a merge. If this isn't precisely true, could we at least have much heavier cross-referencing? --Vagary 19:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I really can not say to what extent the terms are synonymous. My immediate reaction is to jump on the very description of "non-governmental"; since most organisations are not governmental, that seems to me as a very funny description! and I guess that would go for most Europeans. If the merge should be done, it takes someone knowledgeble in both terms to perform it. // Habj 22:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I realise now that most of the talk is done at Talk:Non-governmental organization#Merge with NPO. Let's keep the reminder of the discussion there... // Habj 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Layman - Ease of Use Recommendation

If you merge the not for profit page with non-governmental page, then poor sods like me won't be able to find the 21st century meaning of not-for-profit definition. Not for profit is about collaboration, focus and membership, not tax, governance or charity.

I'm adding these comments to the above unsigned post: The above point is valid, that nonprofits should speak in words understandable to the public, the use of *any* terms that the nonprofit thinks appropriate flies in the face of three aspects of the realpolitic -- (1) governments determine what legal terminology applies to organizations that ask for tax privileges and method of operation (2) common usage of terms by the public of terms already in common reference are easily applied as long as they are adequately explained (3) the introduction of new terms confounds the ability of the public to understand what nonprofits can do, do well and should not do at all. There is an understandable preference of some nonprofits for certain terms over others, that is their choice, however it does not add to clarity in accountability or governance. Eia1957 (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)eia1957

State Regulation, possible additions

In the U.S., not-for-profit and federal tax exemption are two separate statuses. Typically, incorporation as a not-for-profit is done under state government. In recent news reports of "investigations" of not-for-profits, the state attorney general has been responsible for studying either malfeasance or adherence to the charter of a not-for-profit.

Some topics for possible further inclusion:

Performing arts, museums, hospitals, direct financial charity
Earned income vs. unearned income
Operating expenses as percent of budget
Outside fundraising vs. development departments
Boards of Directors, duties, expectations
- Donor contracts (e.g. Avery Fisher Hall, Barnes Foundation)
IRS Form 990
Government support vs. private support
Self-dealing and other mismanagement
- United Way
- Red Cross
Executive compensation
- New York Stock Exchange example
Conversion to for-profit
- Blue Cross/Blue Shields in many states
- New York Stock Exchange Stagehand 11:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What about government etc

In the UK "Not for Profit" is widely used (e.g. look at any recruitment agency) to include the whole of government, local government etc. If this usage doesn't work in the US at least there has to be a UK usage section --BozMo talk 10:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Non-profit organization" is a US term; elsewhere, such as in the UK, the term "charity" is more widely used than in the US and there is a broad overlap (but not a correspondence) between the two. This article needs to disentangle these issues and not be so US-focused.

Paying Owners

I understand that as a non profit, the owners cannot profit from the income of the organization...however, can they be paid as an expense of the organization or can they be reimbursed for what they put into it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.189.179 (talk • contribs) (on 14 June 2007).

In a true non-profit organization, there are no "owners." People who work for the organization can be compensated for services performed, but compensation probably has to be "reasonable" - whatever that means. Famspear 20:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is surely one of abuse of status. A small commercial company with a small number of active shareholders might, for purely presentational reasons, want to be seen as non-profit. A hospital say. This may make purchasers more inclined to buy from this type of source. But the owners may just arrange matters so that they still make money from the venture for example, by selling the hospital to the orginal shareholders and leasing it back from them on terms favourable to the original shareholders. In this way, profits from the health care business are effectively siphoned into the lease contract and the hospital itself appears to be non-profit. I'm not sure what can prevent such abuse.--Tom (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Link Spam

I have put this article up for semi-protection due to link spamming. I've cleared the spam, so im gonna remove the template. Warrush 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem too bad at present but the site wide link to this page in footers makes it high traffic and attractive to spammers. --BozMo talk 08:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to add a link to the page to BoardSource (boardsource.org), which is a nonprofit that helps other nonprofits to build effective boards. Seems like a natural fit to me. I am not quite sure why it would have gotten rejected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiptester (talk • contribs).

Boardsource doesn't meet our guidelines because it's not a website that is about nonprofit organizations. It provides useful information for nonprofits and people who would like to serve on boards, but that's not what our external links section is for. We're not a portal or listing service, and many good links are not appropriate for our articles. See our external link guidelines for more detail about what's appropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Rather than having a separate page of information that should be listed here, the article Nonprofit corporation should be brought into this page as a type of NPO. – Freechild (BoomCha) 23:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've flagged both the present article and Not-for-profit corporation and would suggest the main merger discussion should be on Talk:Not-for-profit corporation.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger discussion

NPO and NFP's are entirely two different things. NPO is a Federal Tax issue, NFP Corporations are state disignations. The articles should be separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.11.114 (talk • contribs) 6:34, 29 June 2007 "not-for-profit" is better off without its own entry; rather, it is a U.S. slang term sometimes used to refer to nonprofit organizations, but the words "not-for-profit" do not appear in statutes, such as the various U.S. state's nonprofit corporation acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.90.100 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 9 July 2007

Many organizations exist that do turn a profit but merely give the profits to the employees, whether this is non profit or not for profit, it is definitely not volunteer work. (discussion moved from Talk:nonprofit to Talk:Non-profit organization#Merger discussion--Dwarf Kirlston 20:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

These two should not be mergbed as they are far different from each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.183.122 (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Organization Creation

Hi um I was wondering how in the hell do you Get a Unoffical NonProfit Organization, Offically and Legally Called a Nonprofit Organization?--Wikiloli (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Nonprofit" vs. "non-profit"

I'm wondering why the article uses the hyphen in the title - "nonprofit" (without the hyphen) is an accepted dictionary-defined word.[3][4] Is there a reason for this? BWH76 (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

See #Misspelled. — $wgUser 17:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

External References

I would like to include the external link to www.greatergoodsa.co.za as the article does not give reference to the NPO sector in South Africa which is growing and needs to be noted here. GreaterGood SA is a notable NPO that assists smaller NPO's by leveling the playing field. Does anyone have any objections to adding this external link? Experience the gift (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding well referenced content to the article about the state of non-profits in South Africa could be a great addition - but an external link is not the way to improve coverage. The site while good in its own context does not meet the needs of an encyclopedia. It's a "social marketplace" not a source of encyclopedic information about the subject of non-profit organizations. It does not appear to meet our guidelines. -- SiobhanHansa 13:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Simpler than the page suggests at the moment?

I had a rather simplistic view of Nonprofit organizations until I read this page. I thought that it was any organization that didn't make a profit. That is, any surplus money created by the organization would be further invested in the organization rather than be distributed to shareholders etc or indeed anyone else. Considered globally I thought that they could be of any legal structure, and active in any sphere of activity. Unless it is restricted to a particular country is there anything more to say? There are lots of interesting nonprofit organizations that could be mentioned. TamaraStaples (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the page suffers a lot from people writing about specific instances as though they applied globally and then others coming in and adding more detail to try to cover other specific instances. In general I think your summary is pretty spot on. But as an encyclopedia article rather than a dictionary we need to go further than a definition. Ideally I'd see the article explaining some of the history about how and why the concept came about and how it is seen by different significant people/groups today. I'm not sure that mention of specific nonprofits is particularly useful unless doing so will illustrate a point in the article for most general readers. -- SiobhanHansa 16:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning specific nonprofits might not be particularly useful as people will continuously try to add in their particular favourite charity. It might be useful to add a few things about groups of non profits in particular countries. For example, I only recently found out that there are at least eight categories of non profit organization in the US of which only one is philanthropic (charitable); the others including educational establishments (including zoos and symphony orchestras for example) and agricultural and labour organizations (see //pe.usps.com/) TamaraStaples (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The hyphen

Assuming that the consensus is to call it "nonprofit" instead of "not-for-profit" (a decision I wholly agree with), the title should NOT say "non-profit", but rather "nonprofit", as attested here (American Heritage Dictionary), here (Merriam-Webster), here (Encarta), here (Webster's New World), and here (Cambridge). — The Man in Question (gesprec) (forðung) 04:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Neither the OED nor publication history consent. Please see my entry under 'Misspelled'. Respectfully, -Ioannis-94.66.81.3 (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not-for-profit vs. non-profit

Entries for "not-for-profit" redirect here. Some people in some contexts make distinctions between "non-profit" and "not-for-profit". (e.g. Credit_union#Not-for-profit_status_and_the_need_for_a_surplus, but also other, non-Wikipedia contexts). While they may not be different enough to warrant separate articles, there should at least be a section discussing the differing usage of the two terms, and the contexts where they might be considered distinct. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-profit and not-for-profit are two terms that describe the same class of organization. It is argued that "not-for-profit" is the more accurate or precise term. See the reference in the opening paragraph.

I have just undone a couple of changes to that opening paragraph that completely muddled that point, claiming they are two distinct types of organizations but citing the same reference that merely says not-for-profit is more accurate.Frappyjohn (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

annaul general meetings

If in an organisations statutes they state they will hold annual general meetings, but then do not hold an annual general meeting for two years is this a breach of contract and does the organisation then become nill and void ?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.180.25 (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Help to pursue its goals of what....???

goals of corruption... or goals of helping the poor...??? --58.38.40.255 (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Quantitatively to measure and define whether an organisation is for profit or not for profit....

whether a benchmark is 50%, 25% of net profit or even lower can be left for open discussion--58.38.40.255 (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the non-profit designation is a legal one, not one based on how much in earnings is spent rather than retained in reserves. The legal aspect is already addressed in the article. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Any sustainable organization is profitable. The more profitable, the faster it grows. The benchmark for non-profit status is whether the organization has enough political connections to stop the IRS from imposing taxes on earnings or not. It doesn't matter whether the profits are used to grow the company directly or to pay shareholders to make similar investments in the future. It's all about public image and whether it crosses the political threshold of NPO designation. Hospitals and schools spend lots of PR dollars maintaining this image, and also they have lots of internal politics related to it. That's the price they pay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Beyond politics, there is one quantitative part of the definition: If nobody owns it, it can be a NPO. But that is not sufficient criteria for being an NPO. You have to pass the political purity tests too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is all way too oversimplistic. The stuff about political maneuvering may be true in some kinds of cases, but it certainly isn't universally true. There are many small NPOs which not only don't have political clout in the IRS, but also have no need for it. They conduct their requisite board meetings and file their paperwork with the IRS- and they are tax-exempt per the official criteria. As an example, I'm a member in a small, local astronomical society. The Society's revenues each year are below the threshold, so it pays no taxes. It pays no taxes, and the Board plays no political games with the IRS. There's probably no one within the IRS who is even cognizant of the Society's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Non Profit

our church is a Non profit organization... we have a music teacher who conducts guitar lessons for a fee in our building... we do not charge him a fee for the use, however he does make a donation to our church monthly... does this put us in jeapordy with our non-profit status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.232.107 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

thinking of establishing a home for girls at 18 that have been in the system all there lives and now need a start at mainstreaming them into the real world. 1. if i charge them rent to keep the house going will that income interfier with a non-profit org ?

2 we are trying to get state funding at the moment. if we do will that be eligibility for non- profit?

Teresa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.188.97 (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

To be registered

I want to be registered as non profit organisation to help in houses hijacking & illegaly eviction i leave in johannesburg south in turffontein what can i do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.30.83.140 (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-profit Organization vs. Non-profit Corporation

There are two distinctions that must be made here. One is that NPOs are separate from NPCs, and the other is that not all NPOs have to be incorporated. From my understanding, if stated in the bylaws, an NPO is whatever it claims to be. The point being that trusts (like family trusts) may in fact differ from business trusts, and/or charitable trusts.

On the otherhand, NPCs are ONLY corporations, and are subject to the terms set forth by the office of the Attorney General. In other words, not all NPOs are NPCs, and vice versa.--Rajpaj (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"privately owned" and "private owners"

Ownership is the quantitative difference between for- and not-for-profit organizations. For-profit organizations can be privately owned and may re-distribute taxable wealth to employees and shareholders. By contrast, not-for-profit organizations do not have private owners. They have controlling members or boards, but these people cannot sell their shares to others or personally benefit in any taxable way.

This paragraph has been causing some discussion and confusion in a discussion of the Green Bay Packers.

Green Bay Packers, Inc., has been a publicly owned, nonprofit corporation since Aug. 18, 1923, when original articles of incorporation were filed with Wisconsin’s secretary of state.

A total of 4,750,937 shares is owned by 112,158 stockholders — none of whom receives any dividend on the initial investment.

http://www.packers.com/community/shareholders.html

The terms causing confusion are "privately owned" and "private owners." I take the terms to be in parallel and to mean the same thing. I take them as referring to the distinction between entities that can be owned by individuals, whether one or many, and entities that cannot be owned by individuals.

As an example, Microsoft can be regarded (for the purposes of this discussion only) as privately owned because shares in it can be owned by individuals. Harvard College cannot be regarded as privately owned because individuals (as individuals) cannot own any part of it.

Some people take the terms to refer to the distinction between privately owned and publicly owned companies. I have argued that if this is the case, the article is completely leaving out of consideration all publicly owned companies. I don't understand why it would matter for a discussion of for- and not-for-profit organizations whether the for-profit companies are privately owned or publicly owned.

(I said that the Green Bay Packers do not really fit the not-for-profit category in the paragraph above because they have shareholders, i.e. they are ultimately owned by individuals. Someone argued that the Green Bay Packers do fit the not-for-profit category because they are publicly owned and not privately owned. Thus, the person argued, they do not have private owners.)

I suggest that this confusion might be resolved by adding a sentence defining what is meant by "privately owned" and "private owners," or, if it is appropriate, changing the terms to "owned by individuals."

Ppllkk (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that the mentioned paragraph is no longer in the current version. 81.57.60.23 (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Internal Revenue Service IRS) Status as a 501(3)c

The term "non-profit" is widely recognized throughout the world to imply certain characteristics. The discussion about this article points one out: whether or not the entity can have shareholders. Status as a non-profit generally implies an organization exists for a benevolent reason rather than existing in order to profit. In the United States (perhaps elsewhere, too) this is deceptive -- and can be used to hide a political agenda.

In the United States, there is no benevolence associated with being a non-profit company except in certain circumstances where the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has assigned the organization status as a non-profit under Section 501(3) Sub-paragraph C of the IRS code.

In my opinion Wikipedia needs an article entitled "501(3)c" so that other articles can link to it. Articles in WP about US-based NFP corps often include reference to their incorporation as an NFP but lack reference to whether or not they have been accepted as such, by the IRS. The result is an insidious difference in meaning, lost by the majority of readers. Most people aren't aware there is a difference between being a self-declared NFP and having been granted status as a 501(3)c. There is a difference in monetary terms, therefore there is (logically) a difference in intended purpose.

A 501(3)c can accept donations and the giver of such donations can claim the amount as a charitable contribution. Money given to an organization that is NOT a 501(3)c amounts to giving a non-charitable gift. Depending on the amount, this may put the giver at risk of owing a Gift Tax on the donation. This contrasts with a charitable donation because donating money to a 501(3)c is not taxable as a gift.

A more important, though less tangible difference, pertains to ethics. This is the main reason WP needs an article about 501(3)c organizations. Such an article would make it easier for a WP editor to refer to the most accurate classification. An organization recognized by the IRS as a 501(3)c Charitable Organization means that it is also a non-profit. Therefore, such an article would allow an editor to link to the most appropriate classification. At present, either there is no link in such articles or the WP editor must know how to explain the difference as well as knowing that there is one, in order to provide the most accurate information.

The WP tenet of verifiability doesn't address this. Verifiability validates truth and fact. Providing verifiable information requires foreknowledge of this information, that isn't as easy to come. An organization that is recognized by the IRS as a 501(3)c Charitable Organization, and hopes this information is conveyed in its article is likely to provide evidence of the designation -- assuming it doesn't already. An organization that is NOT designated as such won't be able to provide this evidence. Providing information that explains there is a difference, will improve WP content. Furthermore, proving the information eliminates questions about what it means to be: 1) a non-profit in the U.S., 2) a non-profit elsewhere, and 3) and being a charitable organization.

The difference between being granted status as a 501(3)c Charitable Organization under IRS code, versus being a self-declared Non-Profit, is a nuance that escapes most people. By making the difference easier to see WP content would improve and potential misuse (intentional or otherwise), would also be avoided.

Kernel.package (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

These are good points, have you found anyone who has written about them in reliable sources? My opinion is 501(c)3's are in effect owned by the U.S. government. They have an approved mission, executed under public trust. The tax exemption has the same effect as if the U.S. Gov where to reinvest the Internal Revenue back into their asset. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Charitable Organizations

"Not-for-Profit " is not synonymous with "Charitable Organization". The majority of text that defines what it is was inaccurate in that it referred to the latter. Comments in this Discussion clarify that text was centric to the United States however these comments were an additional indication that WP needs to have a dedicated article for organizations recognized by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service as being "qualified 501(3)c" organizations.

I happened to notice an entry in the discussion about the use of "corporation" versus "organization". Whether one or the other is used doesn't seem relevant since neither of the underlying issues are addressed by these terms. The underlying issues are whether or not the entity exists to benefit itself or others, and whether or not it is taxed.

Throughout WP, articles about a business entity (not an individual) refer to themselves as "non-profits". It should be noted that any organization that is tax-exempt in the United States is designated as a 501(3)c corp, which reflect the applicable IRS code. It is perfectly legal to claim that an organization is either a non-profit or a not-for-profit corporation/organization since neither is recognized as an official term. States follow IRS rulings in most cases so whether or not an org is a qualified 501(3)c would seem to be the only relevant matter.

The authoritative reference for any related information can be found on the Internal Revenue Website. I removed the reference used in the opening paragraph because the home page for that reference refers to itself as a "Social Work Publisher" which doesn't seem relevent.

No disrespect intended by these changes. I did note that there is a need to clean up WP articles using the term "non-profit" to imply "Charitable" organization. They are not the same fiscally and an underlying ethical issue needs to be addressed. Kernel.package (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding who the org benefits ... this is why 501(c)3's have U.S. Gov. approved missions and IRS financial controls which are expressly regulated for and to preserve the public benefit. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Who to talk to about specific types of nonprofit organizations:legal rules and guides

I am interested in finding out what type of lawyer would be best to talk with regarding the specific laws, guidelines, and regulations of starting a new nonprofit organization. Specifically, what type of businesses could be classified as a nonprofit. I am specifically seeking the legal aspects of the company type and scope of business.

Thank you in advance for you assistance.

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalmtogether (talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

distinctions between "non-profit" and "not-for-profit"

I tried to find out what are the distinctions between "non-profit" and "not-for-profit". If someone could add a section explaining the difference between these two terms, it would be very helpful. Thanks. --Eusc (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Website for comparing legislation

Hi,

We are considering creating an international structure and we would like to know which country offers the best advantages for the creation (the actual advantages we are looking for are irrelevant at this point). Do you know of any NPO comparison matrix or article?

Thank you--
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 03:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

REDIRECT Target page name

to whom it may concern in try to get help from the mrs buffett organization im the director of the verlia house a non profit organization for women and men substanse abuse and mental health problems the house have been open for seven years mosty fund by me im in need of help to keep my problem up and runing you can check my webb site www.indiegogo.com/verliahouse thank you joseph butler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.36.130 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Non profit templates to form a nonprofit

http://www.northwestregisteredagent.com/articles-of-incorporation-non-profit.html - The webpage is not promotional. If you're going to form a non profit, you need a proper template. No state or the IRS provides a proper template in a word doc or pdf format to simply use to form a non profit. If you look at the link, you can't buy the template on the website, you can't hire a service done to form a nonprofit, you can't pay for the non profit template, therefore it's not advertising. Try searching the web for a free nonprofit template to use with IRS tax exempt language. You actually can't find one, except for the linked page. I counsel nonprofits and have had many people use that free template to establish a nonprofit. If this wiki page is actually going to help a nonprofit organization, don't you think one should be able to see what is required to start one and what exactly they will need (and get for free) to take to a state, file it, and form their nonprofit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonprofitassoc (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear "Nonprofitassoc": Yes, the webpage is promotional. The entire web site is promotional. The "template" for nonprofit organizations may be free, but the web page is clearly part of the entire advertising program on the web site for "Northwest Registered Agent LLC." That company, according to the web site, is engaged in the business of providing services to form corporations and limited liability companies. The web site clearly states that the company charges a fee for the services. Linking to this web site is the promotion of advertising spam. The "free template" for nonprofit organizations is simply part of the advertising program for the business of Northwest Registered Agent LLC.

Many businesses include a certain amount of free materials on their web sites. The fact that no "template" to form a non-profit organization is found "for free" on the internet anywhere except the "Northwest Registered Agent LLC" web site (assuming that this is actually a fact) does not justify a link to the web site. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Nonprofitassoc, while I appreciate your efforts to make nonprofit filing information more accessible, I'm afraid I agree with Famspear's comments above and with Mindmartix's comments in his edit summaries and on your talk page; the website is promoting its own services (even if some of them are free), and per WP:NOTPROMOTION, it should not be linked to. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I put it up there almost a year ago and it's helped a lot of people. I disagree on the promotional aspect. Every website has a purpose and generates money. Wikipedia itself generates money. If the template was housed on a school website would it be promotional because the school sells admission to its university? It would be different if the link was to a page selling nonprofit incorporations. (oh did you notice there are links on the page that do link to people selling nonprofit incorporations?) Your argument of a website being promotional isn't valid, since every website is funded somehow. The link is to a template that someone needing to form a nonprofit organization will need to actually accomplish it on their own. Again, you can't actually pay that website for the template, you can't pay the website to form a nonprofit for you, so I fail to see how the link is promotional. It's a word document. Try clicking on it. Your comments are contradictory and not accurate.

The other references are to a paid dictionary, a book for sale, publication companies selling books like this: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=727363,

and junk like this? http://www.sfsgo.com/what-is-a-guarantee-company , http://www.alliancemagazine.org/free/html/jun07a.html , https://minidonations.org/2010/02/social-benefit-organization/, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/not-for-profit?q=not-for-profit+, http://www.bis.gov.uk/cicregulator/, more books for sale: http://books.google.com/books?id=5OFFNw0a1dkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false ,

Has any of you actually looked at this webpage or are you just on some wiki regulatory mission without a cause? There's for profit links all over this page. Books to buy and an amazing amount of junk, and you guys don't want a link to a template that isn't even for sale and actually helps out a visitor to this page?

None of you make any sense. LMK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonprofitassoc (talk • contribs) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Nonprofitassoc (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nonprofitassoc: No, it looks like the links you're citing are mainly to references -- that is, to sources for the material in the article. The link you want to provide does not accomplish that purpose. Further, if any of those links violate Wikipedia rules, they should be removed as well. Famspear (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

2 Functions

Section 2 seems to be structured somewhat illogically and haphazardly. I considered a couple quick-fixes, but I think someone will have to actually restructure that information. 69.122.244.46 (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive and distinction from not-for-profit

In the archive there were frequent questions about the difference between a nonprofit and a not-for-profit. I am fairly sure that there is no official difference. II | (t - c) 07:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There is too a difference; it is a subtle yet important difference. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nonprofit vs. Not-for-profit

According to Idealist, "In a technical sense, it's probably correct to say there is no significant difference between the two terms. State "nonprofit" or "not-for-profit" corporation statutes sometimes use both terms side by side to suggest they are synonymous.

The IRS does make one distinction though. In some publications, the IRS explains that for them "not-for-profit" refers to an activity, for example, a hobby (like fishing). In contrast, "nonprofit" refers to an organization established for purposes other than profit-making. Note: nonprofit does not necessarily mean "charitable.""

According to the website Grant Space, "Generally, "nonprofit" and "not-for-profit" have the same meaning. However, nonprofit, legal, academic communities do make subtle distinctions between the two terms.

Although the words can be used differently by different groups, the simplest way to distinguish between them is to think of "not-for-profit" as an activity, like reading a book. The term "nonprofit" refers to an organization that is not intended to make a profit, like an adult literacy group."

They are not essentially the same exact thing as one refers to an action itself and the other refers to an organization's purpose and interests. Just because they both have the same basic meaning does not mean they are used in the same legal sense. An organization could be considered not-for-profit and still work loopholes around the legal definition of what "not-for-profit" really means vs. "nonprofit". There is clearly a subtle yet distinguishable difference between the two terms, and it should be noted. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply: This is the same problem as mentioned in the other category [Non-profit vs. Not-for-profit (these are Not the same thing!)] by Beth. The references cited above do not reference an outside authoritative source. When I wrote my article on this subject 15 years ago, ^[1], I had investigated the sources of these claims and found that they were self-referential. The IRS does *not* make a distinction between "nonprofit" and "not-for-profit" -- they don't care and don't want to be part of the discussion. To the IRS, all these organizations are "tax-exempt", unless you are not, in which case you owe the federal government some money. While the distinction above makes sense, it simply is not a legal definition. State laws could provide a distinction but I am not aware of any state that does so. Eia1957 (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Elliott Alvarado

References

^ Alvarado, E. (2000). Nonprofit Or Not-for-profit-Which Are You?. Nonprofit World, 18(6), 6-8.

NPO vs. NGO

This page can benefit from a clear definition of NPOs and the distinction between a NPO (non-profit-organization) and a NGO (non-governmental-organization). I think NPO is mostly used in the U.S. and I have heard NGO when people are talking about international NPOs. It's a bit hard to contribute to this page. I don't know where to start. Noel Jones (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nature and Goal

I think this page should include more information about the goals. I briefly added one of their goals, however; this page would be more informative if this section of the page is expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsong248 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this page could use a lot of help in various ways. II | (t - c) 07:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the definition is misleading and quite possibly a direct statement to this fact should be explained. Nonprofits need and want a profit- The non-profit is not going to use the money earned to buy out a taco bell yet they will maybe improve services by hiring more personnel and or improving technology. This is a crucial piece for informing the public. NON PROFITS NEED MONEY and would love to have a PROFIT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.14.250 (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Structure and Headings

I am so tempted to be bold and change the whole page. If I come to this page I do like to see the following headings, but I am also worried that I am reading too much into it, going into too many details. I don't know. I wish there was an expert of some sort that we could use to improve this page.

Definition of Nonprofit Organization

So hard to find a scholarly article for definition.
The notion of "earn through mission" has recently been introduced but it is very different from what I am hearing from this talk saying that nonprofits love to profit.

Life Cycle

There are graphs and charts form research for-profit institutes which I am hesitant to use, but they are so helpful to clarify how a nonprofit starts with an idea and how it evolves, succeeds, fails, and what contributes to them.

Governance

Why a nonprofit organization should be governed by Board Members.
US Government and IRS requirements
Other Countries requirements

Fundraising

Different theories about fundraising efforts
The role of the Board Members
The role of the Staff
The role of the Foundations/Corporations
The role of the Government
The role of the Individual Donors

Capacity Building

Staff Development
Board Development
Technology
Branding and Communication

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Jones (talk • contribs)

I agree that it needs work, but I'm not sure structures and headings you have about "roles" makes sense - it describes a theoretical sense of what a nonprofit is from your perspective, but I'd need to see sources which describe it appropriately. In many nonprofits there are no staff or only one staff member and the board and volunteers do most of the work. II | (t - c) 19:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

My suggestions were only suggestions, however they are not theoretical, they are from experience. This page is very important to me and today by listening to KPCC morning edition hearing Co-founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales interview (http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/01/15/463059593/wikipedia-at-15-the-struggle-to-attract-non-techy-geeks?ft=nprml&f=7) about how he and the board is comfortable with donations and refuse and even don't think about putting ads on wikipedia and reiterated the mission of wikipedia as a nonprofit organization made me admire wikipedia even more and understand why so many people are dedicating their time and money. Above all his words made me understand the importance of this page. I am more than happy to search for credible sources, but I think it needs to be organized first. Can we use this talk page as a working page? Noel Jones (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It might be best to create a subpage under your own user page. Link to it here and I'll take a look. You could also create a subpage under this I suppose. II | (t - c) 23:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

-ize/-ise

Are we using American English here or so-called British ? Both -ize and -ise endings appear throughout the page; either way, we need to be consistent. Bollystolly (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

march of dimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.176.4 (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Definition

The current definition "purpose is something other than making a profit" is generally misleading - a common fallacy. Take a UK example John Lewis (owner collective, broadly not-for profit). It's a type of company crucially defined by how profits are legally allowed to be distributed, rather than a lack of profit motive per se. I've tagged as dubious, as the dict ref is simplistic and requires a better source. Widefox; talk 11:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nonprofit organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915081559/http://www.sfsgo.com/guaranteecompany.asp to http://www.sfsgo.com/guaranteecompany.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Potential Resources

Sacristán López de los Mozos, I., Rodríguez Duarte, A., & Rodríguez Ruiz, Ó. (2016). Resource Dependence In Non-profit Organizations: Is It Harder To Fundraise If You Diversify Your Revenue Structure?. Voluntas: International Journal Of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, 27(6), 2641-2665.

Uzonwanne, F. (2015). Leadership styles and decision-making models among corporate leaders in non-profit organizations in North America. Journal Of Public Affairs (14723891), 15(3), 287-299. Hamptal (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Langer, J., & LeRoux, K. (2017). Developmental Culture and Effectiveness in Nonprofit Organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 40(3), 457-479. doi:10.1080/15309576.2016.1273124138.49.3.48 (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Erin

Friesenhahn, E. (2016). Nonprofits in America: New research data on employment, wages, and establishments. Monthly Labor Review. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/monthlylaborrev.2016.02.009 Mueller.sarah2 (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Sarah

Non-profit vs. Not-for-profit (these are Not the same thing!)

The fact that the terms "Not-for-profit" and "Nonprofit" are being used interchangeably is a Huge error. These are two Distinct types of organizations. For some reason, these two terms are being used interchangeably in as well as in the "Nonprofit" article, and a re-direct page has been set up for "Not-for-profit" to redirect to "Nonprofit" which is just adding to the confusion.

Was there ever a separate page just for "Not-for-profit"? If so, it should Not have been turned into a redirect page. Either way, there should be a new page for Not-for-profit, (or at least a small paragraph) with disambiguation notes added to Both pages.

I've worked for a Not-for-profit organization before, and here's how it was explained to me: The distinction between Nonprofit and Not-for-profit is related to how each organization is allowed to bring in revenue, and how they are required to handle any net profits from year to year. "Nonprofits" are organizations that rely solely on charitable donations and/or grants, and they are restricted in the amount of net profit that they can earn per year (i.e., they must channel their net profits back into providing their charitable service).

In contrast, a "Not-for-profit" is allowed to earn Revenue (for example. fees for services that they provide) that doesn't have to be in the form of charitable donations or grants. However, there are certain restrictions on how much "net" profit they're allowed to carry over from year to year, and a certain amount of their profits must be re-invested into the infrastructure and administrative costs. The profits Don't have to be dispersed, but they can't just sit in the bank collecting interest, or earning money in some other way that's based on interest, dividends, etc, and it is Not permitted to offer publicly traded stock shares. Essentially a not-for-profit is somewhere in between a nonprofit organization and a private corporation.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. But as I understand it, the main distinction is related to the manner in which they earn any net profit, and what they're required to do with net profits. At least this is the case under United States' law; these definitions may vary from country to country.

--BethRogers 18:51, 29 June 2015

Disagreement here—reference the Internal Revenue Service Publication 557 at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf. The information presented in the Wikipedia article does not cite IRS information, but uses the opinion of a third party. In Publication 557, the IRS clearly defines all 501(c) organizations as nonprofits (noting that no hyphen is used, but that's a point for a separate topic of discussion). The only time the IRS uses the term "not-for-profit" is universally in the context of corporations, to distinguish that the corporation's activities are not designed to generate a profit.

The source cited here states that 501(c)(7) organizations are "not-for-profit", but there is simply no evidence that distinguishes this class of nonprofit from others using that term. On the contrary, the section on 501(c)(7) in Publication 557 notes, "You must show that members are bound together by a common objective of pleasure, recreation, and other nonprofitable purposes", using the italicized phrase multiple times.

I would favor revision of this section to reflect the official stance, and put this silly bit of misinformation to rest.

73.252.40.55 (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's the problem with the imposition of a distinction between nonprofit and not-for-profit, there is not one. That is, there is no legal distinction. The IRS (who dispenses charitable status, for most nonprofits that is 501c3) does not make a distinction and has decided to not get into the argument. Frankly, it doesn't care and leaves it up to the organizations to self identify. Okay, so if the feds don't make a distinction, then what about the states? With 50 different states in the US, there is no common definition to provide a distinctive overlay. States are the entities that grant "nonprofit" or "not-for-profit" organizational status but do not dispense charitable status (tax exempt). So it is possible for there to be a legal nonprofit operating without tax-exempt status but you cannot have tax exempt organization without prior state incorporation as a nonprofit (or not-for-profit, as you may prefer). So, in fact, there is not a distinction. Despite what you may have been told, both "nonprofit" and "not-for-profit" are referring to the same thing. For more information, see my article, ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eia1957 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Eia1957 (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Elliott Alvarado

References

^ Alvarado, E. (2000). Nonprofit Or Not-for-profit-Which Are You?. Nonprofit World, 18(6), 6-8.

Concrete religious termins.

In editing 185.76.10.174 - apparently forbid (for not extremistick, base for violations) ideas: impersonalism, religions - as "cults of persons" (witch not God), speak not-existense of beings, "idols of square", dumns/blessings, persons-energies, prophecy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walker in sleep3 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nonprofit organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328101743/http://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/%5BA4ID%5D%20AustraliaNon-ProfitLawLegalGuide.pdf to http://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/%5BA4ID%5D%20AustraliaNon-ProfitLawLegalGuide.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hyphen confusion

The title of this article is “Nonprofit organization,” but the lead section says “Non-profit organization.” Why is that? (Oxford Dictionaries prefers the hyphenated spelling.) Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 14:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Tax exemption not universal

Hi, the lead currently says, "Nonprofits are tax-exempt or charitable, meaning they do not pay income tax on the money that they receive for their organization."

As already can be gathered from the details about several countries further in the article, this is not necessarily the case. At least not in the EU where VAT exemption is not based on the non-profit status of the organization, but on the activity for which they may charge money. Note that 'non-profit' is not necessarily the same as charitable either, because associations set up to help the members exercise their hobby (like sports associations) may not be considered as an organization aiming at the 'public good', even though they are nonprofit as well, using all their money for the activities (or for reverving money for future expenses).

Some years ago, the English Bridge Union (EBU) started a legal procedure against their against government to get tax exemption, but in 2017, the European Court of Justice ruled that bridge is not to be exempt of VAT, although the EBU is a nonprofit organization. Rather awkward that they came to this decision just before the Brits pulled out of the EU, because now other countries like the Netherlands (where mind sports, contrary to the UK, were already exempt of VAT) had to change their rules. The Dutch ministry of Finance is still thinking about a tax exemption on the ground that mind sport is not only a sport but also a social-cultural activity.

But anyway, some governments may get money from nonprofit organizations, so the quoted sentence in the lead is not correct. Bever (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete list?

As of the Latest revision as of 13:46, 23 May 2020 version of this article, there is a sentence (the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article) that says

They can operate in religious, scientific, research, or educational settings.

Perhaps the little "list" in that sentence was not intended to be exhaustive, or perhaps there is some other explanation for why that little "list" does not seem to include an entry that would include words such as "benevolent", "humanitarian", and/or "philanthropical". That (or, those) would [also] exemplify the kind of nonprofit organization that most of the people I know, would consider to be "charitable".

Maybe not all nonprofit organizations have to be "charitable". Fine. But, IMHO, the kinds of nonprofit organizations that are charitable are well-known, and are notable, and are probably important to mention.

So, in my opinion, that sentence should be changed, to say [something more like]

They often act to promote benevolent / humanitarian (philanthropical) purposes, whether or not they are operating in a religious, scientific, research, or educational setting.

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Nonprofit versus not-for-profit

The claimed distinction between these two terms is not generally accepted. I would say they are interchangeable. Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastimido (talk • contribs) 11:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The distinction seems to exist in IRS regulations in the United States, with the two categories covered under different sections of rules about 501(c)(3) organizations. I doubt the same distinction exists in other countries. Dimadick (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Criticisms and bias

It seems the article takes a bias in favor of nonprofit organizations without expressing any criticisms. Every type of organization can be used for the benefit of some at the expense of others. I think this article should look into things from a neutral point of view. 2604:2D80:6305:600:DFB:3397:7BF0:6502 (talk) 07:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

[1] Alvarado, E. (2000). Nonprofit Or Not-for-profit-Which Are You?. Nonprofit World, 18(6), 6-8.

[2] Alvarado, E. (2000). Nonprofit Or Not-for-profit-Which Are You?. Nonprofit World, 18(6), 6-8.

[1]

[1]