[Board] Second letter/report from our attorney on 501(c)3/6/4 status questions

[Peter Batty]

I lean to Daniel's interpretation too, that a c6 might be the best fit. But
either one sounds promising.


On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com
> wrote:

> Personally I read it the reverse way as you:
>
> First the c4 is in theory for public benefit and outr problem is that our
> activities provide too much private benefit (David raised that
> contradiction in his letter)... so c4 wouyld work for us only because it
> also tends to be used as a catch-all by the IRS.
>
> I'd lean towards c6 because I read somewhere that c6 "are characterized by
> a common business interest, which the organization typically promotes", I'd
> tend to take business in a wide sense here (I don't think the IRS is
> worried about hobbyists) and consider that all OSGeo members are "open
> source GIS professionals" at one level or another, that's their "business",
> whether they are doing it as a hobby, in academia, for business, for a
> non-profit, or as part of their day to day non-GIS job, I'd treat them all
> as FOSS GIS professionals, and OSGeo is there to look after their common
> "open source GIS professional" interest.
>
> But in the end at this point I don't care about the semantics as long as
> we get approved for one or the other and for good reasons so that we don't
> lose our status in an audit in a few years, so I'll go with whatever the
> majority thinks makes the most sense within the limits of the advice of our
> attorney.
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On 13-08-14 10:21 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>
>> Thanks Daniel.  I agree it is more clear now.
>>
>> My opinion: Just from reading around today it would seem that c6 would
>> not apply to OSGeo because I don't believe we fit the Industry
>> Association definition, as in that case (his words) "people and
>> companies involved are primarily there for shared commercial and
>> business purposes" is not always true in our case.  For that reason I
>> believe we should be applying for c4, as a foundation that 'promotes
>> social welfare' (as opposed to solely focusing on business interests).
>>
>> -jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2013-08-14 10:46 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>>
>>> Board,
>>>
>>> Here is (attached PDF) a copy of the written responses of our attorney
>>> to the follow-up questions and discussions that I had sent him after
>>> receiving his first letter/report earlier this week. You'll notice that
>>> we had also forwarded to him the info about OpenNTF getting 501(c)4
>>> status that Jeff shared on this list earlier today, so this info is
>>> discussed in his responses as well.
>>>
>>> I invite you to read through it before the board meeting (in 1.5hrs) if
>>> you can. What I read there is very reassuring and tends to confirm that
>>> switching our current application to 501(c)6 or 501(c)4 might be the way
>>> to go for OSGeo.
>>>
>>> See you all on IRC
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>>  ______________________________**_________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/**mailman/listinfo/board<http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Morissette
> http://www.mapgears.com/
> Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/**mailman/listinfo/board<http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20130814/2ff50bbb/attachment.htm>