zlacker

[parent] [thread] 13 comments
1. debacl+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-03-01 16:53:44
A non-profit can have a for-profit subsidiary?
replies(10): >>blckni+q >>deaddo+G >>manque+U >>jraph+61 >>yanokw+71 >>whimsi+m2 >>alickz+s2 >>Kranar+E3 >>biccbo+58 >>jiggaw+Ue1
2. blckni+q[view] [source] 2024-03-01 16:55:54
>>debacl+(OP)
Yes
3. deaddo+G[view] [source] 2024-03-01 16:56:42
>>debacl+(OP)
Yes.
4. manque+U[view] [source] 2024-03-01 16:57:44
>>debacl+(OP)
Mozilla has been doing that for 20 years ?
5. jraph+61[view] [source] 2024-03-01 16:58:34
>>debacl+(OP)
This would be the case of Mozilla (The Mozilla Foundation owns the Mozilla Corporation)
6. yanokw+71[view] [source] 2024-03-01 16:58:35
>>debacl+(OP)
Yup! Mozilla uses this very structure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
replies(1): >>timeon+tF
7. whimsi+m2[view] [source] 2024-03-01 17:04:45
>>debacl+(OP)
yes, common and why not? i dont think most people here know what non profits are or actually do
8. alickz+s2[view] [source] 2024-03-01 17:05:12
>>debacl+(OP)
I had the same question: >>38332460

Apparently a non-profit can own all the shares of a for-profit

9. Kranar+E3[view] [source] 2024-03-01 17:11:52
>>debacl+(OP)
Absolutely, Mozilla is another relevant example where the Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit that owns the Mozilla Corporation, which is for-profit. Furthermore many non-profits also buy shares of for-profit corporations, for example the Gates Foundation owns a large chunk of Microsoft.

You can imagine a non-profit buying enough shares of a for-profit company that it can appoint the for-profit company's board of directors, at which point it's a subsidiary.

Heck a non-profit is even allowed and encouraged to make a profit. There are certainly rules about what non-profits can and can't do, but the big rule is that a non-profit can't distribute its profits, ie. pay out a dividend. It must demonstrate that their expenditures support their tax exempt status, but the for-profit subsidiary is more than welcome to pay out dividends or engage in activities that serve private interests.

10. biccbo+58[view] [source] 2024-03-01 17:29:18
>>debacl+(OP)
why doesn't everyone do this? take all that sweet investor money without having to give anything then have a for profit subsidiary....
replies(1): >>deaddo+KL
◧◩
11. timeon+tF[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-03-01 20:13:13
>>yanokw+71
Even better example is IKEA.
replies(1): >>nicce+cf1
◧◩
12. deaddo+KL[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-03-01 20:51:17
>>biccbo+58
Because most corporate investments aren't managed by complete morons.

This works when there's an obvious non-profit that has a monetizable product. The latter conflicts with the former, so it requires a disconnect. Meanwhile, if Apple tried to do the same, investors would look at that as obviously shady. In addition, non-profits are more heavily restricted by the government.

Lastly, you can't just "take the money" and "do what you want"; fraud, malfeasance, fiduciary responsibility (in the corporate entity), etc still exist. It's not some magic get out of jail free card.

13. jiggaw+Ue1[view] [source] 2024-03-02 00:11:36
>>debacl+(OP)
A surprising one I came across was a group of government departments that collectively controlled a "shell" government agency that ran a non-profit that owned a for-profit Pty Ltd which had over 1K staff.

It was a "legal fiction" to sidestep union rules, government employment regulations, etc...

This let them hire IT staff at market rates, because otherwise they couldn't pay them a competitive wage as normal public servants working directly for the departments.

◧◩◪
14. nicce+cf1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-03-02 00:14:02
>>timeon+tF
Wait, what?
[go to top]