Ok, let me rephrase my question. Will these need to be deleted: [[Category:Non-commercial_use_only_images]] or will they be re-tagged as "fair use"? -- nyenyec On 1/1/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 1/1/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote: If the WMF just started slapping ads on Wikipedia and generated tens of millions of dollars of revenue they'd be in a precarious situation when tax time rolled around. I'm sure the directors of the foundation would get professional legal advice and possibly an official IRS private letter ruling, before they'd do such a thing. Of course everything I've read on this topic seems to point to the fact that advertising *is* UBTI, and therefore it *can* jeopardise the foundation's tax-exempt status (the revenue generated from it would have to be disproportionate, such as the millions of dollars a quarter that is being hypothesized). See, for instance, http://www.unclefed.com/ForTaxProfs/irs-regs/2000/20960192.html, which is talking about an exception to the classification for something called "qualified sponsorship payments". I've started out skeptical about this point, but the more I look at it the more it seems like the only legitimate way for Wikipedia to start advertising like this is for it to create a separate for-profit organization (which could be wholly owned by the foundation). But maybe some genius legal minds can come up with some other loophole, maybe I just completely misread the regulations and rulings, or maybe there were some laws passed recently which overrides what I've been reading. "I can't imagine Mediawiki would even consider something which would endanger its not-for-profit status so I doubt this is a problem." The thing is, I doubt very many people are aware of all the intricacies of US non-profit tax laws. Most people don't know what UBTI even is. Anthony

On 1/2/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: The excise taxes on running a non-profit organization as a for-profit corporation go up to 200% if you don't eventually correct the situation. Yes, 200%, that means if you make $100 in net profits you owe $200 in taxes. You're much better off dissolving the non-profit and forming a for-profit corporation than running a non-profit as a for-profit :). Of course in reality what would happen far before any of that took place is that the WMF could form a for-profit company which would pay taxes and would be owned by the non-profit. That's how the IRS wants you to do things, in essence it's how they force you to do things. Anthony

On 1/2/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'm not sure it's possible do that. What would the WMF do with all its assets (domain names and servers being the most valuable ones)? The govt would probably want them to transfer it all to a charity organization. Maybe it's possible to do it retroactively, and just pay penalties and interest on all the previous deductions. Of course then you'd be left with a strange non-profit organization that isn't tax exempt in any way whatsoever. I have to say I have absolutely no idea how that'd work. This is, of course, ***purely hypothetical speculation***. I don't see any reason the WMF would *want* to lose its tax-exempt status. See the paragraph below...