Hacker News Reader

Comment by abeppu | Hacker News Reader

Setting aside the institutional failures within Harvard, shouldn't this also pose legal problems for the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation? I am certainly not a lawyer, but I thought the tax-benefits of a non-profit were supposed to be tied to some governance requirements and operating in pursuit of some mission other than profit. If when the Chan Zuckerberg foundation gives a donation to a school, an exec from Meta is then put on some Dean's council, and if the foundation's donation is used to pressure the school to advantage the corporation, then it seems like the foundation is operating as an arm of Meta, and is compromised as an independent philanthropic org.

View on HN

CZI and CZF are structured as a for-profit LLC and a non-profit arm, respectively. Depending on where the money came from, it might not be a problem at all, though it could potentially jeopardize Harvard's nonprofit status. I'll leave it up to you to figure the odds of the IRS revoking that designation.

They purposely did not make the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation a non-profit so as to not be encumbered by all the laws that affect those organizations.

Isn't "Foundation" a word that is usually for non-profits? I understood the different between "Charity" and "Foundation" just to be about "Public" vs "Private" organization, but both of them being non-profits. Am I misunderstanding what "Foundation" means here?

I think I could start the Evil Foundation and as long as I don't file for 501(c)(3) status, I'm still for-profit.

The foundation here is a 501(c)(3) non profit. However it is not a public charity, which is a sub classification that comes with stricter rules and higher donation tax write-off limits.

People tend to assume all 501(c)(3)/nonproft and "public charity" are synonymous, but they aren't and that can make discussions like this confusing.

> However it is not a public charity, which is a sub classification that comes with stricter rules and higher donation tax write-off limits.

It sounds like you mean public charities have stricter rules. I find the opposite to be true. There are additional rules and reporting requirements that apply only to private foundations because of the limited funding and tight control of such organizations by a close-knit group of people.

Private foundation is the default status for a 501(c)(3), you have to do extra work to qualify as a public non-profit.

> https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/eo-operational-req...

The rules are different, so which you view as more restrictive dependa on your perspective.

In this case, the context is discussion of this claim:

> I thought the tax-benefits of a non-profit were supposed to be tied to some governance requirements and operating in pursuit of some mission other than profit

Thr greater tax benefits of public charities are indeed tied to governance requirements (specifically rules that restrict the board makeup of public charities) and mission alignment.

thanks. What are these "greater tax benefits of public charities"? They both qualify for deduction of contributions.

I could look this up if I were inclined. I imagine, though, that a public charity is eligible to receive government grants or contracts.

Contributions to charities can reduce taxable income up to 50% (of amount) for the donor. For foundations this figure maxes out at 30%.

Also NAL but there’s a wiiiiide gap between committing what may be a crime, and the federal government charging a crime.

It's deeply dirty, in a sort of teflon get-away-with-anything way. Of course Harvard needs money to run, and has in the past accepted all manner of dubious donors, but implicitly receiving a payment quid pro quo to kill research is pretty low.

What's actually dirty? Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF): a tax breaks now, pay-give later DAF. It ostensibly does some community projects that are token billionaire pet projects, but it exists first and primarily to reduce taxes of the gigarich.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com