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
This is incorrect. Any increase in equity is not profit, and profit is not shown on the balance sheet.

Profit is revenue minus expenses, also known as net income, and is shown on the income statement:

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/101314/what-differe...