2009/5/2 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
What he's getting at is he's trying for the proof that charitableness ⊃ tax-breaks ~tax-breaks ∴ ~charitableness.
Which is of course a formally invalid proof, but nevertheless the hope is that the reader will conclude that because the tax-man has adjudged Wikipedia not worthy of tax-breaks, that Wikipedia is not a charitable enterprise.
I thought he was going on the fact that the tax-man has adjudged that "The production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of education..." to conclude that, "according to the UK tax man", "Wiki-fiddling isn't a charitable activity".
That's a reasonable interpretation too, but the broader interpretation is simpler, less nuanced, and more damning of Wikipedia - and so the preferred interpretation by trolls.
That this is wrong is obvious once you know that not all charitable things get breaks - for example, I understand that one way in the US to fail 401(c) status is to get too much funding from one place (the 'public support' test, or whatever it is).
That's incorrect in too many ways for me to salvage. Read sections 501 and 509 of the Internal Revenue Code and get back to us.
I've never claimed to be a tax expert; '401(c)' is close enough to '501(c)' for me.
Is my essential point, that some organization can be perfectly fine & charitable without qualifying for the particular status (that the Chapter was trying for), 'incorrect in too many ways' ?