Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Foundation Now IRS 501(c)(3) Approved
jesus_X writes "We at MozillaNews have discovered that the Mozilla Foundation is now officially 501(c)(3) approved by the IRS, meaning you can now deduct donations made directly to Mozilla.org from your income tax returns. This is separate from, and obviates the Open Source Applications Foundation donation method mentioned in August on MozillaZine."
Do they really want such an intimate relationship with the Imperial Revenue Service?
Let's see Microsoft do that!
I think this is going to make a lot more people donate, because it has double benefits.
We need to get up to around 1,080 reviews on download.com (ie 1,000 more than there were before the campaign started). Currently at 1,040, so if you haven't done a review yet, please add one!
http://www.download.com/3302-2356_4-10299359.html
Roll calling a few of our other favorite groups...
Free Software Foundation: Yep, say they're tax-deductable.
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Yep, they say they have 501(c)(3) compliance.
FreeBSD Foundation: Yep, section 2.5.1 on this page says they're tax-deductable too.
Seems like it'll take some work to find an OSS-supporting group that can't accept tax deductable donations.
(fingers crossed)
At a business level, what is the technical difference between a non-profit organisation and a traditional business. Maybe better: to what extent can it non make a profit? Surely a non-profit organisation still needs to assure it has money in the bank and pay its employees.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
WHen you donate to Mozilla, where does the money go, is it purely on the server, does any of it go to the programmers? Who decides where the money goes? If we donate money to them, can we get any say as to where it goes?
this allows corporations as well to donate and take the write-off.
this is big since it makes the foundation significantly more likely to recieve large donations.
IRS Tax Information for Charitable Organizations
If those of us outside the US could also avail of this loophole^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcharitable work.
Though it will be funny to see bigwigs who go to dinner parties with Gates,McBride and Co. donating to an opposing organisation.
May the Maths Be with you!
I encourage everyone who uses a Mozilla browser to donate at least $5. Come on, that is only the price of a value meal at a fast food joint. Just think what the organization could do if we all donated.
um...
:P
meaning you can now deduct donations made directly to Mozilla.org from your income tax returns
what if I've been deducting donations for a year or so now?
Most citizens who have used IE will concede that spending tax money (a questionable connection by the parent poster) to get a better browser is money well spent!
I can claim it on my tax returns. All I need now is to actually have any money......
*sigh*
RoseColor red={0, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000};VioletColour blue={0, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0xffff};find / -name *mybase*|chown you
I think mozilla is a great Charity to donate too. Don't you?
First the Government recommends it, now they are financially supporting it. What's next, they prosecute Microsoft?
= the most slashdotted website in the past few months...
The Mars Society
Project Gutenberg and the Distributed Proofreaders
Wikipedia (sorta, soon it'll be 501(c)(3) )
Blaze a trail to the New World
Actually,
1. Get 501(c)(3) approved
2. Post on Slashdot for millions to see
3. ???
4. Profit!
The greatest experience we can have is the mysterious.
- Albert Einstein
Isn't it
1. Get 501(c)(3) approved
2. Post on Slashdot for millions to see
3. ???
4. don't profit, because you're 501(c)(3) approved!
- Chris
mmmm, suffering....
there are a lot of hidden gotchas once you have that status, many of them political. For instance, say you had candidate A who really supported open source, and a candidate B who wanted to restrict heck out of it. Moz . org could no longer issue press releases or endorse candidate A officially about it. It's hit a lot of not for profits lately. A lot of churches now for instance are abandoning their 501 c 3 status because of those restrictions. The government can legally outlaw some things a preacher might preach about if they are incorporated under 501 c 3. It applies to any org like that, not just churches. I'd have to google to go find all the exact particulars, but I know there's a lot.
A good rule of thumb (well, IMO anyway) is, DON'T sign a contract with the government or any of it's agencies or bureaus if you absolutely do not have to. Every time you "voluntarily" sign something with them, it's always in their favor in the fine print.
I don't know if an open source software project would be able to get charity status in the UK.
When does this take effect? I purchased the $50 donation with t-shirt gift a couple weeks ago. Am I going to be able to include that for 2004 on my tax return?
Speak truth to power.
You can only deduct charitable contributions if you itemize your deductions on Schedule A.
l
See the IRS page, "Should I Itemize?"
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc501.htm
For those of us without mortgages or major charitable contributions, the Standard Deduction is far greater than what can be achieved with Itemization...
Permitting charitable contributions even for apartment renters would surely have a huge positive impact socially and economically... but as things stand, I and many others are foreclosed from realizing any *financial* advantage (as opposed to a warm fuzzy feeling) from charitable donations.
basically, if you donate, you cannot use Mozilla.
Your head a splode
Not so scandalous, in my opinion. Someone took their trademarked logos to use in a KDE theme. Now, they may have been wrong not to allow that, but I can understand why they did. They don't want people tagging all sorts of things with their logos: their logo refers to them. It's a brand. If they don't defend it now, then later they can't do so. This is not fair use either: its not a commentary on the logo, but an appropriation of it. There might be ways around this, but it is a far cry from a "scandal."
Be reasonable, folks. I agree with the free software movement, but that doesn't mean I think everything anyone ever does should be available for anyone to use under any conditions.
No its more like:
1. Get 501(c)(3) approved
2. Post on Slashdot for (not quite) millions to see
3. ???
4. The accounting books say you don't profit, because you're 501(c)(3) approved!
5. Profit!!! because you're really just an easily corruptible, thieving bastard!
Errr, oh wait thats my life story, not the Mozilla foundation. Bah...never mind.
I paid for opera, but have converted to Firefox because its better. To me better means lighter weight and less likely to have a web site complain at me for not using a supported browser.
so the parent is right, firefox probably is going to destroy opera on the desktop. Hopefully opera will succeed on the embedded platforms.
Why can't the mozilla foundation protect its trademarks?
I can deduct most of my investments from the late 90's, since 90% of the companies from the dot.bomb era must have been nonprofits! w00h00
IIRC, 501(c)(3) status just means the entity doesn't have to pay income tax on its revenues. Being certified as a public charity to whom contributions are deductible is a DIFFERENT THING.
Don't try to write off Mozilla contributions until you hear they're classified as a public charity...
Danger, Will Robinson!
geez guys, it was sarcastic
Churches (more specifically the Christian Coalition) have been circumventing this for years by using a Voter Guide (also allowed under the law) which indicates candidate positions usually obtained by crafting a candidate survey in such a way that the candidates they endorse are most highly rated or have the most checkmarks beside their name. Parishioners will often walk into the voting booth with the guide in hand.
The FSF asks that you not lump their work in with "open source". Considering that their work predates the open source movement by many years and is philosophically distinct, I think it would be reasonable to honor that request. Perhaps this list is better left as "a few of our other favorite groups".
Digital Citizen
Hardly a scandal. The Mozilla Foundation has trademarks on the Firefox and Thunderbird logos, and we want to make sure they are only used to label our stuff. Trademark law says we have to ask people misusing them to stop, or we lose the trademark.
When I get a second, after tonight's staff meeting where I will be bringing the issue up, I plan to get back in touch with the people concerned and see if we can't find a way to make these legal.
However, the way to get legal icons is not to distribute illegal, infringing ones and hope no-one notices or fails to take you down. The Free Software movement is (or should be) built on respect for the law. After all, if people ignore copyright law, they can rip off our software. And we would rightly complain about that.
Gerv
From what I read, it's not that big a deal.
The fact is, if Microsoft didn't want their brand on stuff they didn't sanction, it's expected. The world is FULL of really stupid people and while I'm sure no one here actually reading this qualifies as one of the stupids, there are people out there who might see something "themed" as some mozilla product and later ask about "How about that Mozilla Word Processor? Where can I get that?!" If for no other reason that to avoid stuff like that, it's worth defending your mark.
Then again, I'd like to make some "Quattro Vezina" hemorrhoid lotion and "theme" it with your face. Would that be okay?
Maybe, since there are already so many(!) tax lawyers in this thread, someone can tell me whether this is a valid deduction in Canada if it's recognized in the Excited States. I've been wanting to give a little love back to the lizard for a while. Cheers!
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
direct from the irs, so we can all be on the same page here with what we are talking about:
,0 0.html
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=122887
Charities May Not Engage in Political Campaign Activities
IR-2004-59, April 28, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Charities should be careful that their efforts to educate voters comply with the Internal Revenue Code requirements concerning political campaign activities, the tax agency said today in a presidential election-year advisory.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code that are exempt from federal income tax are prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office. Charities, educational institutions and religious organizations, including churches, are among those that are tax-exempt under this code section.
These organizations cannot endorse any candidates, make donations to their campaigns, engage in fund raising, distribute statements, or become involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any candidate. Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violate the political campaign prohibition of section 501(c)(3).
Whether an organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case. For example, organizations may sponsor debates or forums to educate voters. If the debate or forum shows a preference for or against a certain candidate, however, it becomes a prohibited activity.
The federal courts have upheld this prohibition on political campaign activity, most recently in Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The courts have held that it is not unconstitutional for the tax law to impose conditions, such as the political campaign prohibition, upon exemption from federal income tax.
If the IRS finds a section 501(c)(3) organization engaged in prohibited campaign activity, the organization could lose its tax-exempt status and it could be subject to an excise tax on the amount of money spent on that activity.
In cases of flagrant violation of the law, the IRS has specific statutory authority to make an immediate determination and assessment of tax. Also, the IRS can ask a federal district court to enjoin the organization from making further political expenditures.
In addition, contributions to organizations that lose their section 501(c)(3) status because of political activities are not deductible by the donors for federal income tax purposes.
The political campaign prohibition as it applies to churches is discussed in Publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations. This publication, along with other information about the political campaign prohibition, is available on IRS.gov at www.irs.gov/eo.
The IRS issued similar election-year advisories to charities in 1992, 1996 and 2000.
Related Items:
*
Publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations. (PDF 1.3MB)
*
Political and Lobbying Activities
--there are some circumvention efforts, and they are selectively enforced and on shaky ground. The law is vague enough, yet detailed enough, so that they can just assert you are doing something wrong, and you have to prove you aren't, similar to the other backwards rules relating to the IRS, for instance, they can and do seize peoples bank accounts without any court judgement in their favor. Basically it's a club they can use when they choose to use it, that's why I think it's a better idea to just not sign the contract with them. You have waived your rights in advance, in exchange for an arbitrary tax exempt status, that they can revoke on just their say so,and charge you with a crime then, and you then have to go to court to prove they are wrong. In the meantime, they win, you l
geez guys, it was sarcastic
Hard to tell with all the nuts out there. Many write such things very seriously all the time.
I guess that's what happens when you watch too much FAUX News.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
You can't compete with larger companies if they give an open source company like Mozilla free money. They get the tax deduction and destroy a profitable buisiness segment.
Its basically the service industry screwing over the software community and converting that buisiness to a tax write off. Now the engineers and techs get a very small piece of the pie while they profit even more! Oh, the irony...they needed that software to build their "service" but did not want to pay the engineers. Even cheaper than outsourcing...
But all the kids thought they were programming for free but in an indirect way they are helping construct the death star. Ironic?
It gives the donor ( corporation ) the decision of where to spend the tax dollars and not the government. Move the shell from here to there. Now the money is in donor control.
Not that the government spends wisely all the time. But I'd say its more likely the government would repair your side walk or road, make another space probe or support the local homeless shelter.
The pizza money at Mozilla needs to come from somewhere...
People in the third world need to help themselves, and if they can't/won't, then they deserve to die.