zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
Allowing startups to begin as non-profits for tax benefits, only to 'flip' into profit-seeking ventures is a moral hazard, IMO. It risks damaging public trust in the non-profit sector as a whole. This lawsuit is important

>>therei+4H
I live in Pittsburgh, and UPMC’s nonprofit status as they make billions in profits and pay their executives fortunes, is a running joke. With the hospitals and universities as the biggest employers and land owners here, a big chunk of the cities financial assets are exempt from contributing to the city budget.

>>jimbok+SU
If they are non-profit, they do not make billions in profits. I suspect you mean revenue :)

Exec compensation is another thing, but also not a concern I am super sympathetic to given that for profit companies of similar magnitude generally pay their execs way more they just are not required to report it.

>>whimsi+JX
> If they are non-profit, they do not make billions in profits. I suspect you mean revenue :)

Uhm, profit is a fact of accounting. Any increase in equity (or "net assets", or whatever other euphemism the accountant decides to use) on a balance sheet is profit. Revenue is something completely different.

>>userna+D71
Change in net asset is calculated the same as net profit, but is not the same in an accounting sense.

Constitutive to profit is a return to private stakeholders, holding assets in reserve or re-investing in capital is not the same.