2009/5/2 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Gwern Branwen
<gwern0(a)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' ?
--
gwern