2009/5/2 Anthony <[email protected]>: > On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Gwern Branwen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> What he's getting at is he's trying for the proof that >> charitableness ⊃ tax-breaks >> ~tax-breaks >> ∴ ~charitableness. >> >> Which is of course a formally invalid proof, but nevertheless the hope >> is that the reader will conclude that because the tax-man has adjudged >> Wikipedia not worthy of tax-breaks, that Wikipedia is not a charitable >> enterprise. > > I thought he was going on the fact that the tax-man has adjudged that "The > production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of > education..." to conclude that, "according to the UK tax man", > "Wiki-fiddling isn't a charitable activity".
That's a reasonable interpretation too, but the broader interpretation is simpler, less nuanced, and more damning of Wikipedia - and so the preferred interpretation by trolls. >> That this is wrong is obvious once you know that not all >> charitable things get breaks - for example, I understand that one way >> in the US to fail 401(c) status is to get too much funding from one >> place (the 'public support' test, or whatever it is). > > That's incorrect in too many ways for me to salvage. Read sections 501 and > 509 of the Internal Revenue Code and get back to us. I've never claimed to be a tax expert; '401(c)' is close enough to '501(c)' for me. Is my essential point, that some organization can be perfectly fine & charitable without qualifying for the particular status (that the Chapter was trying for), 'incorrect in too many ways' ? -- gwern _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
