On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net 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