Slashdot Mirror
IRS Looking at Google/Mozilla Relationship
ric482 writes "With the release of the Mozilla Foundation's 2007 financial report, questions have been raised by the IRS, who are due to perform an audit on the non-profit organization behind the massively popular Firefox browser.
Last year, the Foundation received $66 million of its total $75 million revenue (88 percent) from search engine maestros Google, so the IRS are looking for blood over the organization's tax exempt status. Back in 2006, Mozilla got $59.5 million from Google — around 85 percent of the organization's revenue.
Google and Mozilla are part of a 'you scratch my back, I'll pay your bills' sort of agreement, with the Google search bar firmly placed in the toolbar, and on the default homepage. Things were a bit rocky a couple of months back when Google unveiled the Beta-run of its Chrome browser, but Mozilla and Google hugged it out and sealed a deal that will last for another three years. That deal will expire in November 2011."
Why not blame Microsoft? Maybe they filed a complaint with the IRS.
Unleash the conspiracy theories!
John
My version of Firefox just has a regular "search bar" that defaults to Google.
If I want another search, e.g., AbeBooks.com, I just change it to that. Does it become an "AbeBooks.com search bar" then?
Would it kill you to put a link in there somewhere?
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/mf-2007-audited-financial-statement.pdf
To me, there shouldn't be much a fuss about big corporates supporting open source. In fact, I think there should be more involvement (financially) for those big companies who no doubt have benefited from the open source community. As long as the licensing remains open source, everything is transparent...
They give away the browser and spend all of their revenue on development. So, how much taxable profit did the Mozilla foundation make anyway? The IRS has nothing to gain from this. I smell a rat closeby!
cat sig >
...and not after some other fictional 'non-profit' organizations?
Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.
Actually, having done bookkeeping for a 501(c)3 on a voluntary basis, I can say that there really aren't that many differences. Basically, a 501(c)3 is required to followed GAP accounting methods -- just as any other IRS-recognized corporation. They have to donate a certain minimum percentage of their annual income to charity. And they have to show that they are organized for the purposes which a 501(c)3 may be organized. Since a 501(c)3 is basically a 'miscellaneous charity status' with the IRS, this means pretty much anything that benefits the community or the greater good, except politics -- they can't directly or indirectly support a particular candidate or ballot initiative. (How non-profits often get around this is by saying "We don't endorse a particular candidate, but many of our members say they are voting for X." )
The important thing that IRS will be looking for is this: Is Mozilla money co-mingling with Google money? Are they keeping it separate? DOes it look like Mozilla is just a front for Google? And so forth. They'll do that by auditing the books, piling through receipts and conducting interviews with appropriate personnel. Mozilla as a non-profit can, believe it or not, sell almost anything. Selling things is not at all illegal for non-profit and actually 'making a profit' is not illegal -- the profit just has to go into a specific fund set aside for purposes that Mozilla is organized for. Such as, in this case, funding Firefox and Thunderbird development.
My blog
Generally speaking -- and I'm not specifically accusing Mozilla -- non-profit status is rarely what it seems. Usually the motivation in setting this status up is to avoid certain rules or taxes. It's only proper that this is investigated in Mozilla's case, if most of their income does come from a large highly-successful company.
The IRS should also be taking a very, very close look at Wikipedia. For those reasons, and also the fact that there have been individuals in that organization that have shady financial histories.
Wow, that's a pretty slanted writeup by ric482...
Back in 2005, before the Mozilla Corporation was created as a for-profit organization, the deal with Google went through the Mozilla Foundation. There was worry that the income derived then would need to be reviewed by the IRS (a large part of the reason the Mozilla Corporation was created in the first place). Mozilla set aside a large part of that income in case that happened and the IRS would end up disagreeing with the status of that income.
The review of that income is basically happening now (and the IRS is probably also looking at what happened since).
Mitchell says it like this:
(Lots of other interesting information in that blog entry, too.)
If it moves tax it.
If it still moves, tax it more.
If it's stopped moving, subsidize it.
\u262D = \u5350
Since Google is a profitable entity isn't this tax neutral to google? IE if Google and mozilla merged, and Google spent the same amount on development, and giving as mozilla does, google would have the same profit, and thus pay the same taxes. The only difference would be some of the last 15% (non google contributions.) Since individuals can write off gifts to Mozilla foundation, but not to google then that's the money the IRS is chasing, not googles portion of the pie.
Honestly, stop with the Debian bullshit already. Mozilla doesn't want others altering their software and still keeping their trademarks intact (which is what Debian wants to do). Debian places the *EXACT* same restrictions on their own trademarks.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc