[Foundation-l] Site Notices Phase 2 - Annual Fundraiser 2008

[Robert Rohde]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at 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