Talk:Non-profit organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] global tax law

Isis, you have made the article Americo-centric, it would be better to separate US-stuff from the general text. Patrick 17:07 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

Agreed, non-profits exist worldwide - sbwoodside@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.16.125 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 23 August 2004

Added entries on the legal aspects of non-profit organisations in Europe. It's far from being neutral and globalised - pelasgian 30 Nov 2004, 14:27 (GMT+2) pelasgian@hotmail.com

[edit] example list

The list should be moved to a separate article. --Joy [shallot] 10:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Status

Can non-profits have shareholders? I don't think they can, but the article directly implies this. --James 22:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

OK i just went ahead and changed that and fixed a few other details. I removed a line and a half that went into unnecessary detail about Wikipedia. Although we all love Wikipedia, that line and a half really didn't advance the explanation of the topic at hand. --James 22:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Non-profits in the United States can have shareholders (take, for example, a non-profit cooperative business or housing cooperative. They depend on shareholders). I am not sure about globally... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.123.55 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 29 July 2005

In Australia, non-profit organizations cannot have shareholders. They can have members. They don't have owners. The difference is fundamental to the nature of a not-for-profit entity. Can someone who knows about comparative law explain if the US has a significantly different approach to non-profits? - Richardcavell 10:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This might be nitpicking, but Webster's says "nonprofit" should be spelled with no hyphen. thoughtclaw

The IRS requires that, for exempt organizations, "none of the earnings of the organization may inure to any private shareholder or individual."[1] The "owners" of a nonprofit are the members of its board of directors. Board members do generally attend meetings, have voting rights, and exercise ultimate control over the organization, like business shareholders. Shareholder makes the distinction between shareholders and stakeholders. Zadeez 05:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Legal nonprofit expert Bruce Hopkins has written several legal guides for nonprofit organizations and has noted (to my recollection) that there are a few US state statues that allow for shareholders in nonprofit organizations. However, those shares are strictly limited in number and scope. So, for example, there may be only one share to be held by the board in its entirety or that the share is nondistributive of any profits generated by the organization. In such cases, I think business incorporation law was poorly adapted to a different purpose by perserving the concept of "share ownership" within an organization while gutting any effect it may have on goverance. It would have been wiser for such states to simply have adopted some version of the model nonprofit organization law that many states observe. eia1957

[edit] Suggested move

I suggest that this article be retitled 'not for profit' and that all the synonyms, including 'non-profit' be redirected there. - Richardcavell 09:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this suggested move. Where I come fdrom they are formally called 'non-profit organisations', so I do not see why the article should be changed to 'not for profit'--Clawed 20:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Any other opinions on this? Where I come from (Victoria, Australia) they are formally called 'not for profit' and the semantic difference does have genuine meaning, since it helps elaborate that it is *not* an organization that fails to make a profit, but one for which the distribution of assets to owners is illegal. - Richardcavell 10:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonprofit is not a particularily useful name, since it only differentiates a NPO from the private sector, but does not differentiate from the state. Perhaps nonprofit and not-for-profit could both redirect to third-sector organization (or some other equally accurate, but less academic, phrase)? - Crigaux 20:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-profit is much more common (in the US at least), and easily wins a google fight[2]. I think whoever made "not for profit" redirect here was correct! -MrFizyx 15:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A Google fight doesn't necessarily make it the correct choice. If nonprofit is a synonym for 501(c) organization, then it should redirect to the 501(c) page, and rename this page to Not for profit. It appears to me that this is the case; that nonprofit can be isolated as a US dialect word, which doesn't hold the same meaning throughout the English-speaking world. Which would win? Google-fight or OED-fight? :-) --Rfsmit 21:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] need to ask a CPA

I was told once that non-profit and not-for-profit are different statuses in the U.S.A. I was given this information from a credible source (someone who handled bookkeeping for a not-for-profit I worked for). I was confused when I saw that link to not-for-profit directed me to the non-profit page. Perhaps someone should ask a CPA for clarification regarding U.S. tax laws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.35.221 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 April 2006

No difference. (I work for a nonprofit that provides this type of information to other nonprofits.) I've heard this idea before...I think the confusion arises from the classification of charitable nonprofits vs. other categories of IRS 501(c) exempt orgs such as political organizations, business or neighborhood associations, etc. Zadeez 05:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I think editor Zadeez hit the nail on the head. I've had to give the same sort of explanation from time to time when a client or co-practitioner forgets that the mere fact that your organization is a "non-profit" or "not-for-profit" does not mean that it's a "charitable" organization for purposes of 26 U.S.C. Â§ 170 or 26 U.S.C. Â§ 501(c)(3). Yours, Famspear 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote an article on this topic a few years ago (2000) and referenced it when I updated the topic on Wikipedia. A few months after my update, someone erased the reference but kept the content change I made thus prompting the request for a citation. So, I re-inserted the citation reference again today and hopefully it will stay there. The article itself is *not* available for free online because it is copyrighted material with the publisher; however, copies of it can be obtained through a variety of sources (such as Amazon.com). And no, I do not receive any royalties based on your purchase. eia1957

[edit] Misspelled

"Nonprofit" is the correct spelling. Compound words created by combining prefixes with root words do not take a hyphen except under very limited circumstances.

The two most common exceptions are when the root word is Capitalized (e.g., un-American, but unusual), and when the prefix ends in the same vowel that the root word begins with, in which case the hyphen divides the two identical vowels (and then not always, e.g., cooperate). A third exception, less common, is when there the compound word is spelt the same as another word but should be pronounced differently (e.g., recreate, re-create).

If for some perverse reason the hyphen is insisted upon, then the term should be "not-for-profit." Else the misspelling should be eliminated and the article should be headed "Nonprofit. . . " with misspelled uses redirected to the proper spelling.

Hey, please sign your posts!

I could live with "Nonprofit," however, right or wrong usage of words like non-profit and non-partisan are just as common as their non-hyphenated, ... err nonhyphenated spellings. -MrFizyx 15:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's misspelled. I agree with the argument that the correct term for this is "nonprofit." All other spellings should be referred to nonprofit. Misspelled is misspelled. The most commonly misspelled word in the English language is "separate." This word, by comparision, is misspelled far more often than nonprofit. Shall Wikipedia resort now to accepting the "common" misspelled form of "seperate?" I think not. signed: Mark Mason 28 March 2008.

[edit] Public Trust

The assets of a nonprofit organization are held in the public trust, and must be used for the purposes set out in the organization's documents. As such, the assets are not owned by the board, individually or collectively. Instead they are held by them to be administered and used for a public good, e.g. charitable, religious or educational activities.

[edit] merge Not-for-profit corporation?

While most "not-for-profit" terms redirect here, the above has been a separate article for some time (and has been unedited for a month). I don't know the legal distictions between the terms, but I was wondering if some who do know a bit could weigh in as to whether or not these should be different articles. At the very least it would be nice if this articles would explain the difference. -MrFizyx 17:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't "not-for-profit"s differ from "non-profit"s in that some profit is acceptable in a "not-for-profit" even if that is not the stated goal. Most organizations could not survived if they played a zero-sum game. Cougarbate (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In certain jurisdictions, at least, not-for-profit is distinguished from non-profit with regard to tax-exempt donations. So there is a legal difference. Marcus The box (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with NGO

As with NPOC, David Bornstein in Massive Change says that NPOs and NGOs are American and European names for the same thing (and proposes citizen sector organizations as a neutral alternative), so I'm proposing a merge. If this isn't precisely true, could we at least have much heavier cross-referencing? --Vagary 19:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I really can not say to what extent the terms are synonymous. My immediate reaction is to jump on the very description of "non-governmental"; since most organisations are not governmental, that seems to me as a very funny description! and I guess that would go for most Europeans. If the merge should be done, it takes someone knowledgeble in both terms to perform it. // Habj 22:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I realise now that most of the talk is done at Talk:Non-governmental organization#Merge with NPO. Let's keep the reminder of the discussion there... // Habj 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layman - Ease of Use Recommendation

If you merge the not for profit page with non-governmental page, then poor sods like me won't be able to find the 21st century meaning of not-for-profit definition. Not for profit is about collaboration, focus and membership, not tax, governance or charity.

I'm adding these comments to the above unsigned post: The above point is valid, that nonprofits should speak in words understandable to the public, the use of *any* terms that the nonprofit thinks appropriate flies in the face of three aspects of the realpolitic -- (1) governments determine what legal terminology applies to organizations that ask for tax privileges and method of operation (2) common usage of terms by the public of terms already in common reference are easily applied as long as they are adequately explained (3) the introduction of new terms confounds the ability of the public to understand what nonprofits can do, do well and should not do at all. There is an understandable preference of some nonprofits for certain terms over others, that is their choice, however it does not add to clarity in accountability or governance. Eia1957 (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)eia1957

[edit] State Regulation, possible additions

In the U.S., not-for-profit and federal tax exemption are two separate statuses. Typically, incorporation as a not-for-profit is done under state government. In recent news reports of "investigations" of not-for-profits, the state attorney general has been responsible for studying either malfeasance or adherence to the charter of a not-for-profit.

Some topics for possible further inclusion:

[edit] What about government etc

In the UK "Not for Profit" is widely used (e.g. look at any recruitment agency) to include the whole of government, local government etc. If this usage doesn't work in the US at least there has to be a UK usage section --BozMo talk 10:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Non-profit organization" is a US term; elsewhere, such as in the UK, the term "charity" is more widely used than in the US and there is a broad overlap (but not a correspondence) between the two. This article needs to disentangle these issues and not be so US-focused.

[edit] Paying Owners

I understand that as a non profit, the owners cannot profit from the income of the organization...however, can they be paid as an expense of the organization or can they be reimbursed for what they put into it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.189.179 (talk • contribs) (on 14 June 2007).

In a true non-profit organization, there are no "owners." People who work for the organization can be compensated for services performed, but compensation probably has to be "reasonable" - whatever that means. Famspear 20:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is surely one of abuse of status. A small commercial company with a small number of active shareholders might, for purely presentational reasons, want to be seen as non-profit. A hospital say. This may make purchasers more inclined to buy from this type of source. But the owners may just arrange matters so that they still make money from the venture for example, by selling the hospital to the orginal shareholders and leasing it back from them on terms favourable to the original shareholders. In this way, profits from the health care business are effectively siphoned into the lease contract and the hospital itself appears to be non-profit. I'm not sure what can prevent such abuse.--Tom (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link Spam

I have put this article up for semi-protection due to link spamming. I've cleared the spam, so im gonna remove the template. Warrush 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem too bad at present but the site wide link to this page in footers makes it high traffic and attractive to spammers. --BozMo talk 08:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to add a link to the page to BoardSource (boardsource.org), which is a nonprofit that helps other nonprofits to build effective boards. Seems like a natural fit to me. I am not quite sure why it would have gotten rejected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiptester (talk • contribs).

Boardsource doesn't meet our guidelines because it's not a website that is about nonprofit organizations. It provides useful information for nonprofits and people who would like to serve on boards, but that's not what our external links section is for. We're not a portal or listing service, and many good links are not appropriate for our articles. See our external link guidelines for more detail about what's appropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

Rather than having a separate page of information that should be listed here, the article Nonprofit corporation should be brought into this page as a type of NPO. – Freechild (BoomCha) 23:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've flagged both the present article and Not-for-profit corporation and would suggest the main merger discussion should be on Talk:Not-for-profit corporation.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger discussion

NPO and NFP's are entirely two different things. NPO is a Federal Tax issue, NFP Corporations are state disignations. The articles should be separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.11.114 (talk • contribs) 6:34, 29 June 2007 "not-for-profit" is better off without its own entry; rather, it is a U.S. slang term sometimes used to refer to nonprofit organizations, but the words "not-for-profit" do not appear in statutes, such as the various U.S. state's nonprofit corporation acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.90.100 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 9 July 2007

Many organizations exist that do turn a profit but merely give the profits to the employees, whether this is non profit or not for profit, it is definitely not volunteer work. (discussion moved from Talk:nonprofit to Talk:Non-profit organization#Merger discussion--Dwarf Kirlston 20:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization Creation

Hi um I was wondering how in the hell do you Get a Unoffical NonProfit Organization, Offically and Legally Called a Nonprofit Organization?--Wikiloli (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Nonprofit" vs. "non-profit"

I'm wondering why the article uses the hyphen in the title - "nonprofit" (without the hyphen) is an accepted dictionary-defined word.[3][4] Is there a reason for this? BWH76 (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External References

I would like to include the external link to www.greatergoodsa.co.za as the article does not give reference to the NPO sector in South Africa which is growing and needs to be noted here. GreaterGood SA is a notable NPO that assists smaller NPO's by leveling the playing field. Does anyone have any objections to adding this external link? Experience the gift (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding well referenced content to the article about the state of non-profits in South Africa could be a great addition - but an external link is not the way to improve coverage. The site while good in its own context does not meet the needs of an encyclopedia. It's a "social marketplace" not a source of encyclopedic information about the subject of non-profit organizations. It does not appear to meet our guidelines. -- SiobhanHansa 13:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simpler than the page suggests at the moment?

I had a rather simplistic view of Nonprofit organizations until I read this page. I thought that it was any organization that didn't make a profit. That is, any surplus money created by the organization would be further invested in the organization rather than be distributed to shareholders etc or indeed anyone else. Considered globally I thought that they could be of any legal structure, and active in any sphere of activity. Unless it is restricted to a particular country is there anything more to say? There are lots of interesting nonprofit organizations that could be mentioned. TamaraStaples (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the page suffers a lot from people writing about specific instances as though they applied globally and then others coming in and adding more detail to try to cover other specific instances. In general I think your summary is pretty spot on. But as an encyclopedia article rather than a dictionary we need to go further than a definition. Ideally I'd see the article explaining some of the history about how and why the concept came about and how it is seen by different significant people/groups today. I'm not sure that mention of specific nonprofits is particularly useful unless doing so will illustrate a point in the article for most general readers. -- SiobhanHansa 16:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning specific nonprofits might not be particularly useful as people will continuously try to add in their particular favourite charity. It might be useful to add a few things about groups of non profits in particular countries. For example, I only recently found out that there are at least eight categories of non profit organization in the US of which only one is philanthropic (charitable); the others including educational establishments (including zoos and symphony orchestras for example) and agricultural and labour organizations (see //pe.usps.com/) TamaraStaples (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)