<p>Bern, bern!!! Something can be "not-for-profit" or officially registered with the US Government (for IRS purposes) as "nonprofit" and STILL make out like bandits!</p>
<p>Example - the HUGE salaries paid to Red Cross top dogs, comparable to many commercial executives. In our area the head of the United Way makes a salary that's over a quarter of a million a year. A nonprofit medical agency recently upgraded its "campus" so now its workers work in a luxurious setting that looks like it would fit right in in Palm Beach. The list goes on and on and on --- I could fill up the CC board with examples.</p>
<p>To be "not-for-profit" in the IRS's eyes had NOTHING to do with not charging a lot of money, not raking it in, not paying HUGE salaries, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean that you can only charge COST for services, with no "profit" tacked on! I don't have the definition in front of me for filing for nonprofit status, but part of it is simply serving a certain kind of educational, or other public good, service, etc. People start nonprofits all the time and pay themselves huge salaries.</p>
<p>Maybe someone else has the definition and can post it. Part of the def. is that stock is not issued, and excess income is supposed to be spent on charitable purposes, but that "excess" is after what the org. decides it wants to pay in salaries, furniture, etc. etc. etc. Hence the huge salaries and gorgeous buildings that many nonprofits own. (PS - a not-for-profit is a TYPE of nonprofit; the latter term is wider).</p>
<p>But it is one of the MAJOR misunderstandings in the US. Believing nonprofits don't charge OVER expenses is like believing the earth is flat!</p>