RE: [atlarge-discuss] incorporation - misinformation debunked

["Jeff Holt" <jefftttt@txucom.net>]

Ron et al...

I don't know where you got this mis-information, but I have been
involved with IRS 501(c)(3) organizations since 1977 and the actuality
is much less cumbersome than you describe.  The Registered Agent for the
organization handles most legal correspondence and I have little doubt
that the annual filings would be trivial in nature.  For a start-up the
history you allude to is irrelevant.  There is to my knowledge NO
Requirement for any "disclosure" of stockholders as you refer to it,
since there are NO "Stockholders" to speak of for such an entity.  Your
anti-US bias shows through clearly, "further domination of the
Internet"???  

Sincerely,
 
Jeff Holt
Jefftttt@txucom.net
www.tejas-info-services.com
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Sherwood [mailto:sherwood@islands.vi] 
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 11:50 AM
To: Jeff Holt; atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] incorporation

Jeff Holt wrote:
The crafting
> of the AoI does need careful consideration to insure that ease of
> modification, but from my experience it is not difficult to achieve.
In
> fact, I have a template from another IRS 501 (c)(3) organization that
> could be easily modified to fit our own, as I am sure many would.

Good afternoon, Jeff and all:

It is attractive to consider the US as the location of incorporation,
but
there are drawbacks too.

1) IRS 501 (c) (3) status is not easily achieved.  It requires a complex
and
time consuming application process that includes all the red tape
associated
with not-for-profit incorporation, plus audited statements of financial
status including a three year history and forward financial projections.
It
requires disclosure of corporate officers and stockholders and is
related to
the corporation as a taxable entity.  It also requires disclosure of
percentage of stockholder (or membership) nationality and other details
that
apply to the proportion of a corporation that is required to be US
owned.

2) Incorporating in the US implies further US domination of the Internet
user group that we wish to represent.

3) While you have suggested Florida as a location (good choice if in the
US,
because of the officer' personal property protection laws in that
state),
the liability risks for officers is much higher in the US than it is in
most
other countries.

I think we should seriously consider the EU as a location for
incorporation
because:

1) It appears to be much easier and faster, with less red tape and lower
individual liability.

2) It removes us from the US centric image that ICANN is stuck with.

3) It makes ICANN look even more US centric if they try to block or
ignore a
serious, legally-incorporated grass-roots group from another part of the
world.

Ron Sherwood


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de