X.Org Foundation Loses 501(c)3 Non-Profit Status
An anonymous reader writes "The X.Org Foundation, which drives the X.Org Server projects, Mesa, and Wayland open-source programs, had its tax-exempt status revoked by the IRS. It turns out the X.Org Foundation had put in quite a lot of work to become a non-profit organization, with guidance from the Software Freedom Law Center. They got in trouble after failing to routinely file their taxes on time. There's also been a host of other X.Org accounting errors in recent years. There was also the recent news of the IRS going after open-source projects, too."
Seriously. How hard is it to file your taxes on time? Or to hire someone to do it for you?
So X.org applied for and received 501(c)3 status, and then failed to live to its end of the bargain, resulting in the IRS revoking its status.
Someone please tell me why this really newsworthy? Is it only because its a company related to software? (Of which I bet the majority of /.ers don't even use - and I said majority .. not vocal individuals)
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I though text-exempt status also meant you didn't have to file all that paperwork once you had it. Lot of good it does to have tax-exempt status for a non-profit that makes no money, anyway.
First off... Non-Profit does not mean they don't make money, only that any money and assets they acquire do not belong to someone or a for profit entity. Non-Profits can and do make money, sell things and services at a profit, pay employees and all the same things other businesses do, but they cannot acquire cash and assets which end up owned by an individual or other for profit entity.
Second, the filing requirements for tax returns are not that involved for a 501c3. For most non-profits it amounts to filing out a form similar to a 1040Ez. The IRS generally wants to know where your money came from so they can cross reference donors deductions with receipts, at least in the general sense. I don't believe that a non-profit has to report who is giving to it, just how much they received. I also don't think that they would be required to pay taxes, only file the report.
The real problem here is that the organization that can't be bothered to file the yearly reports is likely going to be a problem for someone wanting to give money and take the tax deduction. If the organization doesn't supply a receipt a donor will be limited to $250 and if they cannot supply the IRS with the yearly return, I'm sure they won't be bothered to send out receipts either.
Seems that this organization doesn't really care about the money side of things. This is a shame, because the accounting is NOT that hard and the risks of not having proper controls in place is pretty big.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So, counselor, in your estimation - is the IRS Inspector General a Tea Party Libertarian employed by Fox News, as well?
Because the IG report basically confirmed what you're trying to hand-wave away - that organizations were targeted for "special" processing which imposed unnecessary burdens on them - for no other reason than their name, or chosen policy positions (e.g., a focus on "government spending").
From the report:
The lesson? Sometimes, the government really *is* wrong when Fox News reports they did something wrong.
It is not hard to remember, in particular because with an organization of any reasonable size you'd want to hire an accountant to do your taxes. If you are a non-profit, you'd hire an accountant who knows how to deal with that.
Any business taxes, profit or non-profit, are a bit complex and this isn't unique to the US. So you hire an accountant. Just part of doing business. My parents used to run a small business in Canada, about 5 employees including themselves. They hired an accountant to do their taxes. It wasn't that expensive and the accountant made sure everything was in order and the Canadian government was happy.
Well same shit here. X.org should have paid someone (or some firm) a couple of grand a year to do their tax accounting.
You don't get awarded tax exempt status and then are allowed to do as you please. If that were the case, every company ever would start out as a charity, get tax exempt status, and then change over.
So you have to file and show that your activities still warrant tax exempt status, that you aren't violating the rules for it. For example suppose you run a non-profit and you get a massive donation, some billionaire leaves you a billion dollars. You decide cool, you'll pay all of it to yourself as salary for that year. I mean the entity is still "non-profit" right? Your salary is a cost, so no profit was made!
Ummm... no. You'd get in all kinds of trouble for that. Doesn't matter what kind of games you tried to play. Hence, you have to file taxes to show that your operations are indeed non-profit, that the money you receive goes to pay for the operation of your organization, not to enrich yourself.
If you want an organization to enrich yourself, that's fine, but that is called a business, and you have to pay taxes on that.
So the "powers that be" infiltrated X.Org's finance/accounting groups and made them not follow the rules for non-profits?
This is no different than the spun up fiasco a few months ago about the IRS investigating non-profits that appeared to be fronts for political organizations (and contrary to the Fox spin, it was not just targeting the Tea Party). To be a non-profit there are some specific rules you have to follow to maintain the status. It is the IRS's job to investigate to make sure you are following those rules.
So the real news here is "IRS does their job and idiots get upset about it and make up conspiracy stories".