[OSGeo-Conf] Tax Implications of FOSS4G

[Darrell Fuhriman]

On Jul 11, 2013, at 02:10, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:

> Washington and Portland,
> I invite you both to comment on Steve's recommendations about passing on tax exempt status. Is this something that you propose to offer?

The tax issue is, frankly, something we didn't think about and was never mentioned in any of the RFP docs or previous plans. While I knew OSGeo was waiting on its tax-exemption application, I never connected the dots.

As Steve has pointed out we are planning to work with Stumptown Syndicate, who is a 501(c)3, but in addition the PDX OSGeo group is also a part of Oregon and SW Washington URISA, which is also a 501(c)3.  But I don't speak for them, and would not want to make any promises, or even assurances without consulting with them first. And there's just no way to reasonably do that before the end of the voting period – the issues are just too complex.

But that being said, if in the next several months OSGeo gets the tax-exempt status it has applied for – and right now there's no reason to think it won't  – then isn't the whole question moot?

I would add, however, that if OSGeo doesn't have its own tax-exempt status in time, and that a partner organization extends their umbrella to cover FOSS4G, regardless of the chosen location, it would be appropriate to give them at least some of the money that was saved on taxes – if I've understood how this whole thing works, that is.

Darrell

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4136 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20130711/fb31a5d2/attachment.bin>