Talk:Not-for-profit corporation

Are "non-profit" and "not-for-profit" interchangeable terms? If they denote exactly the same types of organizations, then what differing nuances does each term carry and in what contexts does one see one term or the other being used?

Can a not-for-profit corp be made from the ground up?

The article says that a not-for-profit corporation is a government-created entity, be that government national or local. Is it possible for local citizens to create a not-for-profit corporation, perhaps along the lines of a limited liability company (LLC)? -CS

Absolutely, not-for-profit corporations are most often than not founded by local citizens who share a common social objective. --Kimmetje 21:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-profit vs. Not-for-profit (these are Not the same thing!)

The fact that "Not-for-profit" redirects to "Nonprofit" is a Huge error. These are two Distinct types of organizations. For some reason, these two terms are being used interchangeably, and I can't figure out why. This is a problem withing the Wikipedia search index, as well as in the "Nonprofit" article itself. This definition may vary country by country, but as an example, in the United States a Nonprofit is restricted from keeping any net profits. This is not the case with Not-for-profit organizations.

Was there ever a separate page just for "Not-for-profit"? If so, it should Not have been turned into a redirect page. Either way, there should be a new page for Not-for-profit, (or at least a small paragraph) with disambiguation notes attached to Both pages. I've worked for a Not-for-profit organization before, and here's how it was explained to me: The distinction between Nonprofit and Not-for-profit is related to how each organization is allowed to bring in revenue, and how they are required to handle any net profits from year to year. "Nonprofits" are organizations that rely solely on charitable donations and/or grants, and they are restricted in the amount of net profit that they can earn per year (i.e., they must channel their net profits back into providing their charitable service)...

In contrast, a "Not-for-profit" is allowed to earn Revenue (for example. fees for services that they provide) that doesn't have to be in the form of charitable donations or grants. However, there are certain restrictions on how much "net" profit they're allowed to carry over from year to year, and a certain amount of their profits must be re-invested into the infrastructure and administrative costs. The profits Don't have to be dispersed, but they can't just sit in the bank collecting interest, or earning money in some other way that's based on interest, dividends, etc, and it is Not permitted to offer publicly traded stock shares. Essentially a not-for-profit is somewhere in between a nonprofit organization and a private corporation.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. But as I understand it, the main distinction is related to the manner in which they earn any net profit, and what they're required to do with net profits. At least this is the case for the United States -- this definition may vary from country to country.

--BethRogers 18:43, 29 June 2015

== Hay, like the last guy notes, you say that Non-Profit is a SUB-SET of Not for Profit. But then you write the article not being clear about that. In fact you started useing NP instead of NFP and it is not clear if you are makeing an error about terms or your dexcided to talk about NP.

You seem say that NP has a higher standard the NFP (as Tax exempt has an higher standard then the NO and NFP) (^M^) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BatMiata (talk • contribs) 13:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide some citations for your assertions, using reliable, previously published third party sources. Famspear (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Error?

Is "remunitary" a word?

I believe the author meant remuneratory, meaning "for profit/payment." After looking it up though, remuneratory apparently isn't truly a word and remunerative should be used in it's place. In this particular context, a few quick google searches show that the only permutation/conjugation/part-of-speech of this word that has any traction in the non-profit community is non-remunitive, but non-profit is much more widely used. I'm just going to change it to non-profit (considering it is being used in a sentence specifically directing the user to Non-profit organization). -Bigmantonyd 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hay, I am involved in making a brand new NP organization. The NP Board and/or Trustee and/or the Chairpersons (basically the people who are in trusted to handle the money) are the one's who dont get PAID a salary for bing on the board. The board may hire employees and subcontractors. The board members can get repaid for out of pocket expences. And finally the borad can be paid, at the 'going rate' for real work done. For example a Board member can be paid to DJ a dance, as long as it is voted on my the board and is paid the normal local rate.

bat(^M^)iata —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.175.225.60 (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Question of ownership

Though the not for profit is a corporation who is the owner? if they do not issue stock who technically owns the company? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.158.153.239 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

No one owns the "company." It's not a company. It has no owners. No stock is issued in the case of a non-profit corporation. Yours, Famspear 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

mmm you turned the noun 'Remuneration' into an non existent adjective.

The company is an "entity" and yes it owns stuff. For one it owns Money, it name and its charter.

It is too a cooperation, it is a different type than LLC PLC. you need to get more fact then you have here and alos you should correct the few fact that you have here. (in main article)

paying owners

I understand that as a non profit, the owners cannot profit from the income of the organization...however, can they be paid as an expense of the organization or can they be reimbursed for what they put into it?

fred —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.189.179 (talk • contribs) (on 14 June 2007).

If it's really a non-profit organization, it has no owners. If it's formally set up as a non-profit CORPORATION under the law of a particular jurisdiction, such as the State of Texas, it simply cannot have "owners." There are no shares of stock to be issued.

And officer or employee of a non-profit organization - including a non-profit corporation - can generally be compensated in a reasonable amount (whatever that is) for services performed. Yours, Famspear 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Non-profit organization?

Does anyone have any argument against changing this article to a redirect page?Trilobitealive (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do it! Not-for-profit, Not-for-profit agency, and Not-for-profit organization have directed over there (to "Non-profit organization") for years. I suggested the same merger in 2006 and nobody went for it. -MrFizyx (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it. -- SiobhanHansa 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I concure, doing such could make a more comprehensive article. I would suggest making sure anything that is here and not there be included in that article as long as it is good information. Maldarthe1st (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)maldarthe1st

OK, with three votes to change the article to a redirect page and no current votes against changing I'm going to take the plunge.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I just resurrected this article. Not all nonprofit organizations are incorporated. This article should deal with the distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit corporations.Frappyjohn (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

External links

Should some of the external not state to what individual State's site they link? Currently they link to 3 different states and information varies by state. I would think it better to use a federal government site's info for these link, but still that is only one federal government's version of the information. To me it seems hap-hazard. Since I'm a newb I don't feel comfortable changing anything on articles just yet and will leave it to more experianced indiviuals to determine a course of action.

Maldarthe1st (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)maldarthe1st

The links are fairly low quality for this article - which isn't even a US specific subject. I would personally be fine with deleting all of them. None of them are particularly useful to a general reader trying to understand the basic general concept of a not-for-profit corporation. -- 12:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you think them so low quality as to make them not worth keeping if this article were made into a redirect page as I asked earlier this summer? I've only had one reply to my request for discussion about a possible change? I don't want to just come in and delete them (and the whole article) making a redirect page if there is anyone who feels strongly about saving this article.Trilobitealive (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect warning

Unless someone comes up in favor of keeping and improving the article I'm going to come back in a few weeks and move it as discussed above.Trilobitealive (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (This will be basically deleting the whole article and making a redirect page unless I see something I think is worth saving.)Trilobitealive (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)