Update of the Gift Policy

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Update of the Gift Policy

Florence Devouard-3
The board passed a resolution, which reads as

--------------

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is one of public benefit.
Accordingly, the Foundation intends to operate as a publicly supported
charity under Internal Revenue Service regulations, and financial
support should come from a diversity of sources. If substantial
financial support comes from a specific source, the Foundation should
ensure that this support does not compromise the Foundation’s mission,
create implied obligations, or result in financial dependence on that
source. In light of these principles, the gift policy is hereby revised
to read:

“Policy on the Receipt of Gifts …

3. An offer of a gift, if any part of the gift would not be qualifying
support under the applicable tests for public support, shall be subject
to review by the Board of Trustees. This includes unusual grants and
other gifts in excess of the limits for qualifying support. The gift may
be accepted or returned at the direction of the Board. The Board may
also direct that all or a portion of the gift be set aside for a capital
endowment, rather than being used for operating expenses.
Contributions from other publicly supported charities are not subject to
this limitation. For purposes of this provision, contributions made by a
donor and any person in a special relationship to the donor are
considered made by one person.”


http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Update_of_Gift_Policy_-_january_08

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Gift_Policies

Florence Devouard


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

daniwo59
I think that this is a very valuable policy to have, especially in view of  
the "implied obligations" that are mentioned. While the Foundation should seek  
out major donors, it should be recognized that sometimes these come with a
cost.  For example, if Bill Gates were to donate one billion dollars, there
might be  implied pressure to incorporate Microsoft products or, alternately, to
give Mr.  Gates a board seat as a result. In effect this resolution prevents
such undo  influence from occurring.
 
I am especially happy with the option of channeling the funds toward an  
endowment, as this ensures that such donations could have a longterm  impact.
 
Well done,
 
Danny



**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.    
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
Hoi,
I am sorry I do not understand. What is an "applicable tests for public
support". Why are donations from other charities exempt.
Thanks,
    GerardM

On Jan 21, 2008 1:18 PM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The board passed a resolution, which reads as
>
> --------------
>
> The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is one of public benefit.
> Accordingly, the Foundation intends to operate as a publicly supported
> charity under Internal Revenue Service regulations, and financial
> support should come from a diversity of sources. If substantial
> financial support comes from a specific source, the Foundation should
> ensure that this support does not compromise the Foundation's mission,
> create implied obligations, or result in financial dependence on that
> source. In light of these principles, the gift policy is hereby revised
> to read:
>
> "Policy on the Receipt of Gifts …
>
> 3. An offer of a gift, if any part of the gift would not be qualifying
> support under the applicable tests for public support, shall be subject
> to review by the Board of Trustees. This includes unusual grants and
> other gifts in excess of the limits for qualifying support. The gift may
> be accepted or returned at the direction of the Board. The Board may
> also direct that all or a portion of the gift be set aside for a capital
> endowment, rather than being used for operating expenses.
> Contributions from other publicly supported charities are not subject to
> this limitation. For purposes of this provision, contributions made by a
> donor and any person in a special relationship to the donor are
> considered made by one person."
>
>
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Update_of_Gift_Policy_-_january_08
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Gift_Policies
>
> Florence Devouard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

M. Williamson
I'm guessing they're defined elsewhere, but "public support" means to
me that it does not set itself apart from other public contributions
due to a large amount, so perhaps there is a limit - someone donating
$1 million is much more likely to expect something in return for their
donation than someone who gives $100.

I'm guessing that charities are exempt because the implicit obligation
is not there, or if it is, it is not as strong when a donation is from
a charity rather than an individual or commercial interests.

On 21/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> I am sorry I do not understand. What is an "applicable tests for public
> support". Why are donations from other charities exempt.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> On Jan 21, 2008 1:18 PM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > The board passed a resolution, which reads as
> >
> > --------------
> >
> > The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is one of public benefit.
> > Accordingly, the Foundation intends to operate as a publicly supported
> > charity under Internal Revenue Service regulations, and financial
> > support should come from a diversity of sources. If substantial
> > financial support comes from a specific source, the Foundation should
> > ensure that this support does not compromise the Foundation's mission,
> > create implied obligations, or result in financial dependence on that
> > source. In light of these principles, the gift policy is hereby revised
> > to read:
> >
> > "Policy on the Receipt of Gifts …
> >
> > 3. An offer of a gift, if any part of the gift would not be qualifying
> > support under the applicable tests for public support, shall be subject
> > to review by the Board of Trustees. This includes unusual grants and
> > other gifts in excess of the limits for qualifying support. The gift may
> > be accepted or returned at the direction of the Board. The Board may
> > also direct that all or a portion of the gift be set aside for a capital
> > endowment, rather than being used for operating expenses.
> > Contributions from other publicly supported charities are not subject to
> > this limitation. For purposes of this provision, contributions made by a
> > donor and any person in a special relationship to the donor are
> > considered made by one person."
> >
> >
> >
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Update_of_Gift_Policy_-_january_08
> >
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Gift_Policies
> >
> > Florence Devouard
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On Jan 21, 2008 9:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hoi,
> I am sorry I do not understand. What is an "applicable tests for public
> support". Why are donations from other charities exempt.

I believe this would be referring to US tax code,  I could link to the
applicable rules but you'd never figure them out. This site is easier
to understand:  http://www.sharinglaw.net/npo/PublicSupportTest.htm

Basically if a donor gives more than 2% of your income the portion of
that donors donations over 2% are treated as business income (like
selling t-shirts), rather than public support (donations).

Part of the reason for the existence of this rule is keeping
non-profits from being a front for private interests while still
enjoying tax-exempt status.  Monies from government sources, and other
qualifying non-profits are considered automatically to be public
support by the nature or their source.

I've brought up concerns related to public support (e.g.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084183.html),
and excessive influence from large donors (e.g.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084251.html)
in the past and I am thrilled to see the foundation doing something to
address this area.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Given that we are an international organisation, it would be appreciated if
this is better explained. Also the notion that another non-profit would not
have any implied requests is something that I do not share. Quite the
opposite, with a profit you know at least that profit is an important
consideration. This is relatively easy to understand.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Jan 21, 2008 3:41 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Jan 21, 2008 9:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > I am sorry I do not understand. What is an "applicable tests for public
> > support". Why are donations from other charities exempt.
>
> I believe this would be referring to US tax code,  I could link to the
> applicable rules but you'd never figure them out. This site is easier
> to understand:  http://www.sharinglaw.net/npo/PublicSupportTest.htm
>
> Basically if a donor gives more than 2% of your income the portion of
> that donors donations over 2% are treated as business income (like
> selling t-shirts), rather than public support (donations).
>
> Part of the reason for the existence of this rule is keeping
> non-profits from being a front for private interests while still
> enjoying tax-exempt status.  Monies from government sources, and other
> qualifying non-profits are considered automatically to be public
> support by the nature or their source.
>
> I've brought up concerns related to public support (e.g.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084183.html),
> and excessive influence from large donors (e.g.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084251.html)
> in the past and I am thrilled to see the foundation doing something to
> address this area.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
Mark Williamson wrote:
> I'm guessing they're defined elsewhere, but "public support" means to
> me that it does not set itself apart from other public contributions
> due to a large amount, so perhaps there is a limit - someone donating
> $1 million is much more likely to expect something in return for their
> donation than someone who gives $100.
>
> I'm guessing that charities are exempt because the implicit obligation
> is not there, or if it is, it is not as strong when a donation is from
> a charity rather than an individual or commercial interests.
The key word in your response is "guessing".

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

Brad Patrick
Gerard:

The idea is that other non-profits (large foundations, for example) should
be free to support the mission of the organization, but are obligated to the
same standards under the US code.  Is there a difference between the Gates
Foundation giving $ versus Bill Gates, individually, or Microsoft, as a
company?  The government thinks so.  The point of the gift policy is to put
the consideration of such gifts in the sound discretion of the Board.  Now
the policy is explicit.

Brad

On Jan 21, 2008 2:03 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > I'm guessing they're defined elsewhere, but "public support" means to
> > me that it does not set itself apart from other public contributions
> > due to a large amount, so perhaps there is a limit - someone donating
> > $1 million is much more likely to expect something in return for their
> > donation than someone who gives $100.
> >
> > I'm guessing that charities are exempt because the implicit obligation
> > is not there, or if it is, it is not as strong when a donation is from
> > a charity rather than an individual or commercial interests.
> The key word in your response is "guessing".
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

Nathan Awrich
Regarding the issue of Wikimedia being an international organization
and adjusting policies to reflect this - technically it is a United
States organization based on Florida, and as such its policies and
activities must conform with US law. I don't think it is standard
practice to explain legal terms in policies based on tax and other
laws. Perhaps it could be proposed that policies which are directed
specifically to comply with US law have an "International explanation"
somewhere for ease of understanding by those not familiar with the
requirements.

Nathan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
If you want more of a disconnect between the users of non-American
communities and the WMF you are providing the right arguments. Technically
the WMF is indeed an American organisation. Great.. so you do not want our
EUROS ? You do not want our understanding and appreciation ? You are
surprised to learn that you do not get our EUROS and understanding and
appreciation as you do not appreciate what our concerns are !
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Jan 22, 2008 1:35 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Regarding the issue of Wikimedia being an international organization
> and adjusting policies to reflect this - technically it is a United
> States organization based on Florida, and as such its policies and
> activities must conform with US law. I don't think it is standard
> practice to explain legal terms in policies based on tax and other
> laws. Perhaps it could be proposed that policies which are directed
> specifically to comply with US law have an "International explanation"
> somewhere for ease of understanding by those not familiar with the
> requirements.
>
> Nathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

Nathan Awrich
I'm sorry if that came across as my intent, that is not what I was
attempting to communicate. Perhaps this is a special case, but
typically from what I have seen specific policies designed to comply
with legal restraints employ legal jargon without explaining in detail
what they mean. I don't know necessarily that the policy documents
need to be altered for this, but I suggest a separate explanatory
accompanying document may be useful.

On Jan 21, 2008 7:43 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> If you want more of a disconnect between the users of non-American
> communities and the WMF you are providing the right arguments. Technically
> the WMF is indeed an American organisation. Great.. so you do not want our
> EUROS ? You do not want our understanding and appreciation ? You are
> surprised to learn that you do not get our EUROS and understanding and
> appreciation as you do not appreciate what our concerns are !
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2008 1:35 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Regarding the issue of Wikimedia being an international organization
> > and adjusting policies to reflect this - technically it is a United
> > States organization based on Florida, and as such its policies and
> > activities must conform with US law. I don't think it is standard
> > practice to explain legal terms in policies based on tax and other
> > laws. Perhaps it could be proposed that policies which are directed
> > specifically to comply with US law have an "International explanation"
> > somewhere for ease of understanding by those not familiar with the
> > requirements.
> >
> > Nathan
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

Michael Snow-2
In reply to this post by Brad Patrick
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> I am sorry I do not understand. What is an "applicable tests for public
> support". Why are donations from other charities exempt.
Brad Patrick wrote:
> The idea is that other non-profits (large foundations, for example) should
> be free to support the mission of the organization, but are obligated to the
> same standards under the US code.  Is there a difference between the Gates
> Foundation giving $ versus Bill Gates, individually, or Microsoft, as a
> company?  The government thinks so.  The point of the gift policy is to put
> the consideration of such gifts in the sound discretion of the Board.  Now
> the policy is explicit.
>  
I think Brad has the substance right, but I'd like to address one detail
that may clear up some of the confusion. As has been mentioned, the
tests are covered by IRS regulations, and a good deal of the language
consists of terms of art drawn from those regulations. If you want to
read up on all the details, you're welcome to look at IRS Publication
557. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf (PDF)

Some of the discussion has assumed that donations from other charities
are generally exempt, but the policy actually refers to "other publicly
supported charities" (an important qualifier). This means the exception
is not for any donation from another charity, but only from another
charity that meets the same requirements as the Wikimedia Foundation.
Essentially, the IRS treats the public support test as transitive, and
that test is what the resolution is mostly about. I assume the Gates
Foundation does not try to meet the public support test, but operates as
a private foundation (also a non-profit, but of a different type). So
the hypothetical donation from Bill and a grant from his foundation
would actually be treated the same under this policy.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
I'll add a summary of the various explanations which came accross in the
talk page. And signpost, wikizine etc... are welcome to point out to
these explanations for the benefit of the community :-)

thanks

ant

Nathan wrote:

> I'm sorry if that came across as my intent, that is not what I was
> attempting to communicate. Perhaps this is a special case, but
> typically from what I have seen specific policies designed to comply
> with legal restraints employ legal jargon without explaining in detail
> what they mean. I don't know necessarily that the policy documents
> need to be altered for this, but I suggest a separate explanatory
> accompanying document may be useful.
>
> On Jan 21, 2008 7:43 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> If you want more of a disconnect between the users of non-American
>> communities and the WMF you are providing the right arguments. Technically
>> the WMF is indeed an American organisation. Great.. so you do not want our
>> EUROS ? You do not want our understanding and appreciation ? You are
>> surprised to learn that you do not get our EUROS and understanding and
>> appreciation as you do not appreciate what our concerns are !
>> Thanks,
>>       GerardM
>>
>>
>> On Jan 22, 2008 1:35 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding the issue of Wikimedia being an international organization
>>> and adjusting policies to reflect this - technically it is a United
>>> States organization based on Florida, and as such its policies and
>>> activities must conform with US law. I don't think it is standard
>>> practice to explain legal terms in policies based on tax and other
>>> laws. Perhaps it could be proposed that policies which are directed
>>> specifically to comply with US law have an "International explanation"
>>> somewhere for ease of understanding by those not familiar with the
>>> requirements.
>>>
>>> Nathan
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

Gerard Meijssen-3
Thanks,
    GerardM

On Jan 22, 2008 5:51 AM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'll add a summary of the various explanations which came accross in the
> talk page. And signpost, wikizine etc... are welcome to point out to
> these explanations for the benefit of the community :-)
>
> thanks
>
> ant
>
> Nathan wrote:
> > I'm sorry if that came across as my intent, that is not what I was
> > attempting to communicate. Perhaps this is a special case, but
> > typically from what I have seen specific policies designed to comply
> > with legal restraints employ legal jargon without explaining in detail
> > what they mean. I don't know necessarily that the policy documents
> > need to be altered for this, but I suggest a separate explanatory
> > accompanying document may be useful.
> >
> > On Jan 21, 2008 7:43 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> Hoi,
> >> If you want more of a disconnect between the users of non-American
> >> communities and the WMF you are providing the right arguments.
> Technically
> >> the WMF is indeed an American organisation. Great.. so you do not want
> our
> >> EUROS ? You do not want our understanding and appreciation ? You are
> >> surprised to learn that you do not get our EUROS and understanding and
> >> appreciation as you do not appreciate what our concerns are !
> >> Thanks,
> >>       GerardM
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 22, 2008 1:35 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Regarding the issue of Wikimedia being an international organization
> >>> and adjusting policies to reflect this - technically it is a United
> >>> States organization based on Florida, and as such its policies and
> >>> activities must conform with US law. I don't think it is standard
> >>> practice to explain legal terms in policies based on tax and other
> >>> laws. Perhaps it could be proposed that policies which are directed
> >>> specifically to comply with US law have an "International explanation"
> >>> somewhere for ease of understanding by those not familiar with the
> >>> requirements.
> >>>
> >>> Nathan
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Michael Snow-2
Hoi,
One question, when you get a gift from another non-profit and this other
non-profit is not American how would it be qualified ? I would not be
surprised under American law it is not another non-profit. Also when the FSF
would donate to the WMF howls of protest because of the implied expectations
.. Now think of the howls of protest of a same donation from Creative
Commons :) My point would be that any sizable amount given to the WMF that
is noticed as such should be considered for its impact and when there are
implied expectations it should be approved by the WMF board.
Thanks,
    GerardM

On Jan 22, 2008 3:48 AM, Michael Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > I am sorry I do not understand. What is an "applicable tests for public
> > support". Why are donations from other charities exempt.
> Brad Patrick wrote:
> > The idea is that other non-profits (large foundations, for example)
> should
> > be free to support the mission of the organization, but are obligated to
> the
> > same standards under the US code.  Is there a difference between the
> Gates
> > Foundation giving $ versus Bill Gates, individually, or Microsoft, as a
> > company?  The government thinks so.  The point of the gift policy is to
> put
> > the consideration of such gifts in the sound discretion of the Board.
>  Now
> > the policy is explicit.
> >
> I think Brad has the substance right, but I'd like to address one detail
> that may clear up some of the confusion. As has been mentioned, the
> tests are covered by IRS regulations, and a good deal of the language
> consists of terms of art drawn from those regulations. If you want to
> read up on all the details, you're welcome to look at IRS Publication
> 557. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf (PDF)
>
> Some of the discussion has assumed that donations from other charities
> are generally exempt, but the policy actually refers to "other publicly
> supported charities" (an important qualifier). This means the exception
> is not for any donation from another charity, but only from another
> charity that meets the same requirements as the Wikimedia Foundation.
> Essentially, the IRS treats the public support test as transitive, and
> that test is what the resolution is mostly about. I assume the Gates
> Foundation does not try to meet the public support test, but operates as
> a private foundation (also a non-profit, but of a different type). So
> the hypothetical donation from Bill and a grant from his foundation
> would actually be treated the same under this policy.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

daniwo59
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
 
In a message dated 1/22/2008 12:16:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

Hoi,
One question, when you get a gift from another non-profit and  this other
non-profit is not American how would it be qualified ? I would  not be
surprised under American law it is not another non-profit. Also when  the FSF
would donate to the WMF howls of protest because of the implied  expectations
.. Now think of the howls of protest of a same donation from  Creative
Commons :) My point would be that any sizable amount given to the  WMF that
is noticed as such should be considered for its impact and when  there are
implied expectations it should be approved by the WMF  board.
Thanks,
GerardM




While I would tend to agree with you in principle, chances are that  CC, FSF,
and other non-profits are not often in a position to give  that size of a
gift for which approval is required. They need money as much as  we do. Large
donations are usually corporate or from very wealthy individuals,  who, by the
way, also get a tax break for their donation.
 
Danny



**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.    
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
Nathan wrote:
> Regarding the issue of Wikimedia being an international organization
> and adjusting policies to reflect this - technically it is a United
> States organization based on Florida, and as such its policies and
> activities must conform with US law. I don't think it is standard
> practice to explain legal terms in policies based on tax and other
> laws. Perhaps it could be proposed that policies which are directed
> specifically to comply with US law have an "International explanation"
> somewhere for ease of understanding by those not familiar with the
> requirements.
That's a clear path to confusion. Nothing is more effective at making a
rule unclear than an attempt to explain it within the rule. Longer rules
provide greater opportunities for loopholes.  It's not a matter of
explanations for the international community.  United States citizens
will fare no better with the impenetrability of their own Internal
Revenue Code.

Some terms just beg for definition.  My first reaction to the proposal
was to get so far as "qualifying support", and flash upon the question,
"What the hell does that mean?"  Thus adding something like "as defined
by Section NNN of the Internal Revenue Code," would be very specific.

Any explanations which are appended should not themselves be a part of
the policy, or even of a resolution.  Then in the event of a
contradiction between the rule and the explanation the rule will always
be right.


Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Update of the Gift Policy

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> One question, when you get a gift from another non-profit and this other
> non-profit is not American how would it be qualified ? I would not be
> surprised under American law it is not another non-profit. Also when the FSF
> would donate to the WMF howls of protest because of the implied expectations
> .. Now think of the howls of protest of a same donation from Creative
> Commons :) My point would be that any sizable amount given to the WMF that
> is noticed as such should be considered for its impact and when there are
> implied expectations it should be approved by the WMF board.
I can foresee a lot of arguments in those circumstances about what
constitutes "implied expectations".  The very nature of being implied
means that they are not spoken or explicit.  They may not even be clear
in the mind of the person accepting the gift on behalf of Wikimedia.  
The donor may view thngs quite differently..

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l