Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!think!husc6!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.taxes,net.religion,net.politics
Subject: Re: RE. Scopes II (non-profit corps and churches)
Message-ID: <1069@bu-cs.bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: Wed, 20-Aug-86 00:27:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.1069
Posted: Wed Aug 20 00:27:06 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Aug-86 23:15:01 EDT
Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci.
Lines: 26
Xref: mnetor net.legal:3297 net.taxes:537 net.religion:2712 net.politics:9270


>A non-profit corporation is roughly defined as a corporation that does not pay
>money to the stockholders.  (Yes, if Exxon stopped distributing its dividends,
>that would make it a non-profit corporation.  And a darn poor investment.

Not to knit picks, but I'm, still not satisfied with this definition. Many
if not most of the corporations on the OTC don't pay dividends, but I don't
think that makes them either non-profit (nor particularly poor investments,
but that's a different issue.) I'm sincere, what *is* the definition of
a non-profit organization? Surely not just one that operates at a loss?
Unless the term is of little value (possibly.) Perhaps a promise not to
make a profit (that is, to plow it back in.) I dunno, I'm confused, all
start-ups do that.

As far as taxing religious organizations, I have no love for any of
them, but I still cannot help but wonder if we allow that there exists
any entity that stands outside the power to tax.

That is, one way to look at it is, it's not that the government gives
special exemption to the churches and universities, it's that they
have no right to tax them. Must they have absolute power to tax over
everyone?

Subtle I guess, but worth a thought.

	-Barry Shein, Boston University