[margalabargala]

They aren't a 501c3. When I wrote my original comment I did a search for Rebble among all 501c3 ores and they are not there.

I looked closer after your comment. They appear to be a "Michigan Domestic Non-Profit Corporation".

Why aren't they a 501c3? I have no idea. It makes me trust them less to be honest, that they are some sort of nonprofit but not a 501c3.

[c22]

501c3 offers one narrow form of tax exempt status for a very specific type of non-profit organization with specific privileges and duties. Every organization is unique and many non-profit, tax-exempt, and even charitable organizations exist outside of that specific framework.

If they're not soliciting donations from you I'm not sure why you'd care about their federal tax status.

[margalabargala]

> If they're not soliciting donations from you I'm not sure why you'd care about their federal tax status.

Because if they appear to be a normal company but call themselves a non-profit, I want to know what that actually means to them.

Being a non-profit is generally a reason for community goodwill towards a company. Therefore being a nonprofit is attractive both to companies doing good, and charlatans seeking to capitalize on that goodwill.

If you call yourself a nonprofit but don't talk anywhere about what that means to you and why, then you look like that second option.

[philipallstar]

Being a non-profit can definitely just be high salaries and easier access to donations (because people stop thinking once they read "nonprofit").

[apparent]

> If they're not soliciting donations from you I'm not sure why you'd care about their federal tax status.

Well, if they portray themselves as a "nonprofit" then most people who read that will think they are a 501c3, which is almost always the case. I don't know why they don't qualify for that status (if they don't), but it's possible that it's a reason I would care about when deciding whom to side with on issues like this one.

The battle of for-profit versus non-profit comes across differently than for-profit versus Michigan Domestic Non-Profit Corporation (which for some reason does not qualify for IRS nonprofit designation).

[int_19h]

It's not "almost always the case". It may be the case for nonprofits that people donate to, but in general there are quite a few 501c4 around, for example, and there are many others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#Types

[margalabargala]

The list may be long, but most other categories are extremely narrow. There are very few into which Rebble could fit.

[c22]

Looking over Michigan's Nonprofit Corporation Act it seems a Domestic Non-Profit Corporation would meet the IRS 501c3 requirements. The act even borrows definitions from IRS Publication 501.

It looks like Michigan Domestic Non-Profit Corporations cannot allow their proceeds to benefit private parties. So they are a nonprofit if that helps you pick a side. It seems like an asinine point to pivot on, though.

[margalabargala]

> It seems like an asinine point to pivot on, though.

Whether or not they are a nonprofit is not a point I care about on its own.

What is a point to pivot on, is if they claim to be a nonprofit, but make that claim in a misleading way.

It is highly unusual to be a 501c3-compatible state nonprofit but not actually bother to become a 501c3. You're essentially opting to pay federal taxes unnecessarily. It makes one wonder why.

[cweagans]

I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer, but I have set up a 501c3 before.

I think you have a misunderstanding of how that works. In many cases, you need both the state and federal non-profit designation (i.e. a Michigan domestic non-profit corporation would not pay state income taxes on charitable income + that same corporation would need the 501c3 designation from the IRS to have the same benefit at the federal level).

Do you have positive confirmation that they are not filing as a 501c3?

[margalabargala]

> I think you have a misunderstanding of how that works. In many cases, you need both the state and federal non-profit designation (i.e. a Michigan domestic non-profit corporation would not pay state income taxes on charitable income + that same corporation would need the 501c3 designation from the IRS to have the same benefit at the federal level).

Yes, I'm aware. And since the lions share of taxes is often federal, the 501c3 step does not generally get skipped, like it does here. Why would they voluntarily give themselves federal tax exposure if they were able to avoid it?

> Do you have positive confirmation that they are not filing as a 501c3?

I am positive that it has been over 2 years since they filed as a Michigan domestic non-profit. Therefore we all have positive confirmation that they did not attempt to become a 501c3 with an organization capable of doing so, at the time they became a nonprofit. It does not take 2 years to become a 501c3.

I can't speak to their plans for the future.

[cweagans]

> Why would they voluntarily give themselves federal tax exposure if they were able to avoid it?

Right. That wouldn't be particularly smart, even to someone who doesn't fully understand the ins and outs of tax/corporate law. Is it possible that perhaps they _do_ have their 501c3 designation and are just communicating it poorly?

Lack of positive confirmation that they are a 501c3 != positive confirmation that they are _not_ a 501c3

[margalabargala]

No, you misunderstand.

All 501c3 are publicly listed. They are not on the list. We have positive confirmation that they are not a 501c3, right now, nor have they ever been one.

The possibility suggested earlier was that they have applied but are not yet a 501c3. I lack positive confirmation that they have never attempted to become a 501c3.

Since it has been two years since they became a nonprofit, I think that implies they either have no intention of becoming a 501c3 or else tried to become one and failed because they did not meet the criteria. But technically it is possible that it is just delayed.

[cweagans]

Ah, I see. I don't think I realized that 501c3 are publicly listed and that we do have positive confirmation that they aren't on that list. Thanks for clarifying.