Re: [atlarge-discuss] incorporation - misinformation debunked

["Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>]

Good morning, Jeff:

I bow to your superior knowledge of the workings of the IRS.

My experience is limited to the formation of only five 501 (c)(3)
corporations.  All were extremely difficult to accomplish.  The formation of
the corporation was the easy part.  Satisfying the Internal Revenue Service
requirements that the corporation is an American Corporation (the majority
of stockholders or members must be American citizens) and then dealing with
the mountains of red tape, was a difficult and time consuming business in
every case.  The IRS does not easily give up the taxes on money that may be
claimed as exempt by anyone donating to a 501 (c)(3) corp.

I am sure that you have legal and accounting skills that will make it an
easy task for you to form such a corporation (or the money to hire such a
person). However, it is wrong of you to suggest to our global membership
that the incorporation of a global entity in the US, while claiming tax
exempt status for it's benefactors, is a trivial matter.

As for your statement:
> Your
> anti-US bias shows through clearly, "further domination of the
> Internet"???

You chose to leave out the word "implies".  I have no anti-US bias.

You may have been born here, Jeff, but I _chose_ to live in the US and have
done so for 30 years. There is, however, a difference between us.  I have
also lived in many other countries and do not believe that the US is the
center of the universe.  I can understand why many people in the world see
the Internet as being dominated by the US, and I can understand the very
real benefit of locating the official administrative center of our @Large
organization somewhere outside of the US to avoid exacerbation that implied
domination.

Regards, Ron Sherwood.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Holt" <jefftttt@txucom.net>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 8:29 PM
Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] incorporation - misinformation debunked


> 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
>


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