[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.