Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: no 501(c)(3) status

Expand Messages
  • Hidden from Govt Eyes
    ... exempt ... decided it ... it was ... would ... respond to ... second ... within a ... the FSP ... But ... remains ... longer. ... Jason, My two cents:
    Message 1 of 11 , Apr 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Jason P Sorens
      <jason.sorens@y...> wrote:
      >
      > The Board of Directors has made the decision not to pursue tax-
      exempt
      > status with the IRS further. The IRS was clearly stonewalling our
      > application and burdened us with so many requirements that we
      decided it
      > was simply not worth it. We hated to let them win, but in the end
      it was
      > clear that with our limited resources, succumbing to their demands
      would
      > be too much of a strain.
      >
      > The experience was certainly eye-opening. The IRS took 3 months to
      > respond to our initial application, then another 2 months to
      respond to
      > our letter providing the additional information they sought. Their
      second
      > request required us to provide reams of additional documentation
      within a
      > three-week time period. The hypocrisy of it is mind-boggling.
      >
      > At any rate, not attaining 501(c)(3) status should not affect our
      > day-to-day operations in any significant way. The chief benefit of
      > tax-exempt status would have been that people who contributed to
      the FSP
      > could have deducted their contributions from their income taxes.
      But
      > because of our virtually zero overhead, our financial situation
      remains
      > healthy despite the inability to attract large donations, and it is
      > freeing not to have this application hanging over our heads any
      longer.
      >

      Jason,
      My two cents: Hooray for the FSP and no 501(c)(3) status! What a
      fitting way to begin breaking our addictions to federal control and
      authority over every aspect of our lives. I say to the IRS keep your
      tax deductible briberies and watch out for American families and
      workers who love their freedom and love justice for all. Now we
      should all the more consider making a contribution to the FSP even if
      it pinches our wallets a bit.
      Liberty Forever,
      Abe Arias
    • Bill Greene
      Jason - I m REALLY sorry to hear you folks made this decision. I can t stand the IRS or its burdensome regulations, and I believe the 501(c)(3) status
      Message 2 of 11 , May 7, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Jason - I'm REALLY sorry to hear you folks made this decision. I can't stand
        the IRS or its burdensome regulations, and I believe the 501(c)(3) status
        requirement for tax-deductible contributions is flat-out unconstitutional
        (thank you Lyndon Johnson)... however, it's there, and without that status,
        you're going to find yourself in a much more uncomfortable position in the
        future, especially as you grow.

        I understand you have low overhead now (most non-profits do!), but there
        will likely come a time soon when you'll need some big bucks, and there will
        be folks with a lot of money who are willing to give... but not if it's a
        for-profit organization. (Yes, I know it's not *really* "for-profit", but
        that's how it is designated in the eyes of the IRS, and people pay attention
        to that.)

        I know how hard it is to jump through their hurdles for this status; I just
        recently got notification of approval of a non-profit (future Christian TV
        network) I started a year ago. It's a long and difficult process, and the
        hoops they make you jump through are arbitrary and ridiculous, but I think
        you'll find it's worth it in the end. I hope you reconsider.

        BG

        Jason P Sorens wrote:
        >
        > The Board of Directors has made the decision not to pursue tax-exempt
        > status with the IRS further. The IRS was clearly stonewalling our
        > application and burdened us with so many requirements that we decided it
        > was simply not worth it. We hated to let them win, but in the end it was
        > clear that with our limited resources, succumbing to their demands would
        > be too much of a strain.
        >
        > The experience was certainly eye-opening. The IRS took 3 months to
        > respond to our initial application, then another 2 months to respond to
        > our letter providing the additional information they sought. Their second
        > request required us to provide reams of additional documentation within a
        > three-week time period. The hypocrisy of it is mind-boggling.
        >
        > At any rate, not attaining 501(c)(3) status should not affect our
        > day-to-day operations in any significant way. The chief benefit of
        > tax-exempt status would have been that people who contributed to the FSP
        > could have deducted their contributions from their income taxes. But
        > because of our virtually zero overhead, our financial situation remains
        > healthy despite the inability to attract large donations, and it is
        > freeing not to have this application hanging over our heads any longer.
      • Bill Greene
        I did my nonprofit all by my lonesome. SImply bought the NOLO book How to Form a Nonprofit Corporation and followed the instructions. Sure, it took a year,
        Message 3 of 11 , May 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          I did my nonprofit all by my lonesome. SImply bought the NOLO book "How to
          Form a Nonprofit Corporation" and followed the instructions. Sure, it took a
          year, but I didn't have the money to have someone else do it, and it worked.
          Maybe you should keep trying?

          BG

          "Elizabeth McKinstry" <emckinst@...> wrote:
          >
          > Bill --
          >
          > What it came down to is -- we didn't have a choice. Frankly, we didn't make
          > a big decision -- we just got creamed by the paperwork and complexity. I
          > believe that with a good lawyer with nonprofit experience, we could have
          > gotten the 501c3, but we tried to do it in-house, by ourselves, and we were
          > outmatched by the legions at the IRS.
          >
          > Elizabeth McKinstry
          > Do You Want Liberty in Your Lifetime?
          > http://www.freestateproject.org
          >
          >
          >> From: Bill Greene <profg1@...>
          >> Reply-To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
          >> To: <freestateproject@yahoogroups.com>
          >> Subject: [FSP] Re: no 501(c)(3) status
          >> Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 08:46:18 -0400
          >>
          >> Jason - I'm REALLY sorry to hear you folks made this decision. I can't
          >> stand
          >> the IRS or its burdensome regulations, and I believe the 501(c)(3) status
          >> requirement for tax-deductible contributions is flat-out unconstitutional
          >> (thank you Lyndon Johnson)... however, it's there, and without that status,
          >> you're going to find yourself in a much more uncomfortable position in the
          >> future, especially as you grow.
          >>
          >> I understand you have low overhead now (most non-profits do!), but there
          >> will likely come a time soon when you'll need some big bucks, and there
          >> will
          >> be folks with a lot of money who are willing to give... but not if it's a
          >> for-profit organization. (Yes, I know it's not *really* "for-profit", but
          >> that's how it is designated in the eyes of the IRS, and people pay
          >> attention
          >> to that.)
          >>
          >> I know how hard it is to jump through their hurdles for this status; I just
          >> recently got notification of approval of a non-profit (future Christian TV
          >> network) I started a year ago. It's a long and difficult process, and the
          >> hoops they make you jump through are arbitrary and ridiculous, but I think
          >> you'll find it's worth it in the end. I hope you reconsider.
          >>
          >> BG
        • motie_d
          ... can t stand ... status ... unconstitutional ... status, ... in the ... I emphatically disagree! By applying for and accepting 501(c)3 status, you have
          Message 4 of 11 , May 7, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Bill Greene <profg1@b...>
            wrote:
            > Jason - I'm REALLY sorry to hear you folks made this decision. I
            can't stand
            > the IRS or its burdensome regulations, and I believe the 501(c)(3)
            status
            > requirement for tax-deductible contributions is flat-out
            unconstitutional
            > (thank you Lyndon Johnson)... however, it's there, and without that
            status,
            > you're going to find yourself in a much more uncomfortable position
            in the
            > future, especially as you grow.

            I emphatically disagree! By applying for and accepting 501(c)3
            status, you have willingly and voluntarily invited the IRS to be your
            Business Partner as Senior Administrator.
            >
            > I understand you have low overhead now (most non-profits do!), but
            there
            > will likely come a time soon when you'll need some big bucks, and
            there will
            > be folks with a lot of money who are willing to give... but not if
            it's a
            > for-profit organization. (Yes, I know it's not *really* "for-
            profit", but
            > that's how it is designated in the eyes of the IRS, and people pay
            attention
            > to that.)
            >
            > I know how hard it is to jump through their hurdles for this
            status; I just
            > recently got notification of approval of a non-profit (future
            Christian TV
            > network) I started a year ago. It's a long and difficult process,
            and the
            > hoops they make you jump through are arbitrary and ridiculous, but
            I think
            > you'll find it's worth it in the end. I hope you reconsider.

            Another willing volunteer for the Slave Trade, willingly putting on
            his velvet chains in exchange for the promise of a comfortable Cell.
            Where is the Separation between (Commercial) Church and State, when
            Churches willingly partner with the State in exchange for Tax
            benefits? My Religious beliefs are NOT for sale. I won't contribute
            to a Government-regulated 'Church' as a tax shelter.
            I'll practice my Freedom of Religion without the government
            regulations, Thank You.

            Motie
          • Jim
            Do we really want a 501 (c) 3?? The hook on that , as I understand it, is no political activity. The other exemption that permits political activity comes
            Message 5 of 11 , May 8, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Do we really want a 501 (c) 3?? The hook on that , as I understand
              it, is no political activity. The other exemption that permits
              political activity comes with a lot of disclosure strings, too.

              Jim





              --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Bill Greene <profg1@b...>
              wrote:
              > I did my nonprofit all by my lonesome. SImply bought the NOLO
              book "How to
              > Form a Nonprofit Corporation" and followed the instructions. Sure,
              it took a
              > year, but I didn't have the money to have someone else do it, and
              it worked.
              > Maybe you should keep trying?
              >
              > BG
              >
              > "Elizabeth McKinstry" <emckinst@h...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Bill --
              > >
              > > What it came down to is -- we didn't have a choice. Frankly, we
              didn't make
              > > a big decision -- we just got creamed by the paperwork and
              complexity. I
              > > believe that with a good lawyer with nonprofit experience, we
              could have
              > > gotten the 501c3, but we tried to do it in-house, by ourselves,
              and we were
              > > outmatched by the legions at the IRS.
              > >
              > > Elizabeth McKinstry
              > > Do You Want Liberty in Your Lifetime?
              > > http://www.freestateproject.org
              > >
              > >
              > >> From: Bill Greene <profg1@b...>
              > >> Reply-To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
              > >> To: <freestateproject@yahoogroups.com>
              > >> Subject: [FSP] Re: no 501(c)(3) status
              > >> Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 08:46:18 -0400
              > >>
              > >> Jason - I'm REALLY sorry to hear you folks made this decision. I
              can't
              > >> stand
              > >> the IRS or its burdensome regulations, and I believe the 501(c)
              (3) status
              > >> requirement for tax-deductible contributions is flat-out
              unconstitutional
              > >> (thank you Lyndon Johnson)... however, it's there, and without
              that status,
              > >> you're going to find yourself in a much more uncomfortable
              position in the
              > >> future, especially as you grow.
              > >>
              > >> I understand you have low overhead now (most non-profits do!),
              but there
              > >> will likely come a time soon when you'll need some big bucks,
              and there
              > >> will
              > >> be folks with a lot of money who are willing to give... but not
              if it's a
              > >> for-profit organization. (Yes, I know it's not *really* "for-
              profit", but
              > >> that's how it is designated in the eyes of the IRS, and people
              pay
              > >> attention
              > >> to that.)
              > >>
              > >> I know how hard it is to jump through their hurdles for this
              status; I just
              > >> recently got notification of approval of a non-profit (future
              Christian TV
              > >> network) I started a year ago. It's a long and difficult
              process, and the
              > >> hoops they make you jump through are arbitrary and ridiculous,
              but I think
              > >> you'll find it's worth it in the end. I hope you reconsider.
              > >>
              > >> BG
            • Bill Greene
              Motie - what you re not understanding is that many donors -- honest, hard-working, decent American citizens -- are faced with the fact that, until we CAN get
              Message 6 of 11 , May 8, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Motie - what you're not understanding is that many donors -- honest,
                hard-working, decent American citizens -- are faced with the fact that,
                until we CAN get the tax system changed and the IRS eliminated, they have to
                utilize every means available to reduce their tax liabilities. That means
                that a non-profit organization wants those donors' money, it has to jump
                through the current hoops to get it, or it will cease to exist. Abiding by
                current regulations is NOT the same thing as "volunteering to be under" the
                IRS's "umbrella".

                Is it worth the cost? It's a few hundred bucks and a goodly amount of time
                if you do-it-yourself. You can make up for that with one good fundraiser,
                then the rest is net gain. (And YES, non-profits can make a profit - they're
                just not supposed to make too MUCH of one, though there are plenty that do.)

                Are financial supporters that are only supporting us to get a deduction on
                their personal taxes really the type of people we need? It depends -- do you
                want a LOT of money, or not even enough to get by?

                Most people *I* associate with are also wishful to get the IRS OUT of their
                business -- and they have a lot of money, and don't want the IRS to have
                most of it, so they look for tax-deductible charities that they agree with
                so they can stick their money there where it will do some good.

                Look, like I said, I can't stand the IRS or its burdensome regulations, and
                I believe the 501(c)(3) status requirement for tax-deductible contributions
                is flat-out unconstitutional, but until we can change it all (which is why
                the FSP exists), it's the framework we have to work within to get where we
                need to go. To bury one's head in the sand -- or worse, keep it in the
                clouds -- because working in the current system somehow "taints" us, is just
                the sort of purist attitude that has kept the LP hovering around the 1% mark
                in electoral politics, and that drove gung-ho activists like myself OUT of
                the LP years ago. It's only the FSP that's enticing us to play the
                libertarian game again, so don't blow it for us.

                Have a nice day. :-)

                BG

                motie_d wrote:
                >
                > I have a question concerning the desirability of non-profit Status.
                > What is really desirable about it, and is it worth the 'cost'?
                > I am under the presumption that all monies collected will be spent
                > on deductibles, right? Will there be any 'profits' to pay taxes on,
                > or will this be a break-even venture?
                >
                > If financial supporters are only supporting to get a deduction on
                > their personal taxes, are they really the type of people we need?
                >
                > Most people I associate with, are wishful to get the IRS OUT of
                > their business, not spending much needed and scarce time, effort and
                > money to get them in, and then bear the burden of compliance (and
                > legal exposure) with numerous and sundry regulations.
                >
                > Many people are trying desperately to get out from under the IRS's
                > umbrella. You are not only volunteering to be under it, but actively
                > working and demanding to be under it.
                >
                > What am I not understanding?
                >
                > Motie
              • Bill Greene
                SHEESH, Motie, calm yourself down. When did anyone say anything about the Church here? I was talking about a Christian television station, which will rely on
                Message 7 of 11 , May 8, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  SHEESH, Motie, calm yourself down. When did anyone say anything about the
                  Church here? I was talking about a Christian television station, which will
                  rely on tax-deductible donations to function from month to month. That's NOT
                  a church.

                  Under current law, churches are *automatically* tax-exempt entities, and do
                  NOT need to file for 501(c)(3) status. Yes, some of them still do (for the
                  benefit of their donors, not because they're required to), but that's hardly
                  "willingly putting on [their] velvet chains in exchange for the promise of a
                  comfortable Cell".

                  So go, practice your Freedom of Religion without the government regulations.
                  No one's stopping you. Sheesh.

                  BG

                  motie_d wrote:
                  >
                  > Another willing volunteer for the Slave Trade, willingly putting on
                  > his velvet chains in exchange for the promise of a comfortable Cell.
                  > Where is the Separation between (Commercial) Church and State, when
                  > Churches willingly partner with the State in exchange for Tax
                  > benefits? My Religious beliefs are NOT for sale. I won't contribute
                  > to a Government-regulated 'Church' as a tax shelter.
                  > I'll practice my Freedom of Religion without the government
                  > regulations, Thank You.
                  >
                  > Motie
                • motie_d
                  ... us, is just ... the 1% mark ... OUT of ... You re making an awfully erroneous assumption if you think I support the LP! I have been a part of the FSP
                  Message 8 of 11 , May 8, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Bill Greene <profg1@b...>
                    wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > To bury one's head in the sand -- or worse, keep it in the
                    > clouds -- because working in the current system somehow "taints"
                    us, is just
                    > the sort of purist attitude that has kept the LP hovering around
                    the 1% mark
                    > in electoral politics, and that drove gung-ho activists like myself
                    OUT of
                    > the LP years ago. It's only the FSP that's enticing us to play the
                    > libertarian game again, so don't blow it for us.
                    >
                    > Have a nice day. :-)
                    >
                    > BG
                    >

                    You're making an awfully erroneous assumption if you think I support
                    the LP! I have been a part of the FSP movement since before it was
                    organized, and were still trying to come up with the Porcupine
                    Mascot! I have actively stated my resistance to becoming entangled
                    with Partisan Politics throughout the process.
                    I'm happy to hear you managed to extricate yourself from the LP, and
                    sorry to hear that you may be getting drawn back into it.
                    Join the FSP, and let the LP do as it may. We are not a branch of
                    the LP, or any other Party.

                    Motie
                  • Bill Greene
                    No no no, I m NOT saying I m getting drawn back into the LP! Am I being THAT muddy in my writing? I m pretty sure I used a little l in saying, It s only the
                    Message 9 of 11 , May 9, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      No no no, I'm NOT saying I'm getting drawn back into the LP! Am I being THAT
                      muddy in my writing? I'm pretty sure I used a "little l" in saying, "It's
                      only the FSP that's enticing us to play the libertarian game again."

                      But I find it interesting that someone so active in the FSP wants to avoid
                      partisan politics, especially once we all move there. How exactly do we come
                      to power if no one runs and no one votes? Just curious, is all.

                      BG

                      motie_d wrote:
                      >
                      > You're making an awfully erroneous assumption if you think I support
                      > the LP! I have been a part of the FSP movement since before it was
                      > organized, and were still trying to come up with the Porcupine
                      > Mascot! I have actively stated my resistance to becoming entangled
                      > with Partisan Politics throughout the process.
                      > I'm happy to hear you managed to extricate yourself from the LP, and
                      > sorry to hear that you may be getting drawn back into it.
                      > Join the FSP, and let the LP do as it may. We are not a branch of
                      > the LP, or any other Party.
                      >
                      > Motie
                    • motie_d
                      ... being THAT ... saying, It s ... to avoid ... do we come ... Perhaps my writing is a bit muddy also. I didn t intend to imply that no one should run for
                      Message 10 of 11 , May 10, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, Bill Greene <profg1@b...>
                        wrote:
                        > No no no, I'm NOT saying I'm getting drawn back into the LP! Am I
                        being THAT
                        > muddy in my writing? I'm pretty sure I used a "little l" in
                        saying, "It's
                        > only the FSP that's enticing us to play the libertarian game again."
                        >
                        > But I find it interesting that someone so active in the FSP wants
                        to avoid
                        > partisan politics, especially once we all move there. How exactly
                        do we come
                        > to power if no one runs and no one votes? Just curious, is all.
                        >
                        > BG
                        >

                        Perhaps my writing is a bit 'muddy' also. I didn't intend to imply
                        that no one should run for Office, or that we shouldn't Vote. On the
                        contrary, I think we should all become very politically active, but
                        discern our support by Policy and positions based on their Merits,
                        NOT based on what Party affiliation one carries.
                        Ron Paul is a handy example. I will support and Vote for him,
                        whether he carries a Repub or LP label, or even better ironically, if
                        he were to call himself a Democrat!
                        I will not support Hillary Clinton, no matter what label she may
                        choose to wear, or how libertarian/Freedoms oriented her speech
                        writers may try to portray her as being.
                        I try to make personal judgements based on the factual Merits of the
                        issues, not on what label the Author is wearing at the time he
                        presented it.

                        Motie
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.