[WikiEN-l] "Taxman denies Wikipedia UK charity status"

[Gwern Branwen]

2009/5/2 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at 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