On Thursday, February 11th, 2010 half of the New Jersey After 3's budgeted state allocation was eliminated. Compounding this issue is the fact that New Jersey After 3 funding has been omitted from the recently proposed FY2011 State Budget.
The result of this reduction, should it stand, will be the closure of afterschool programs for more than 11,000 students and their families, the loss of over 1,100 full and part-time jobs during a difficult economy, and the loss of significant private and Federal investments that are leveraged against the State's annual investment.
To see if one of these programs is in your neighborhood, go to this link:
http://www.njafter3.org/home/home_programs-sites.php
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Non-Profit, For Profit and What's Next?
| This is an interesting article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. This may affect new organizations that want to provide programs and services for communities. |
Congress Could Consider Creating New Category of Organization, Expert Says
As Congress eventually moves to consider making broad changes to the nation's tax structure, proposals could emerge that would take into account a "blurring of the lines" in recent years between nonprofit organizations and for-profit companies, according to Russell Sullivan, staff director for the Senate Finance Committee.
"We might see the emergence of some proposals to establish what I'll call, for the lack of a better term, a for-benefit corporation -- something that is in-between a private taxable company that's under our rules of C corporations or S corporations and partnerships but also not under our rules having to do with charities," he said.
As an example, Mr. Sullivan pointed to the recent enactment of the new federal health-care law. "As you know, a lot of changes are coming in health care. One of them is we authorized these state-based cooperatives to sell insurance in their states. Not a public option, not pure private sector. So the question is, What is the purpose of that entity and how should it be taxed?"
Mr. Sullivan continued: "Is it really a sort of government-owned entity that is part of the state government? Well, no, not really. Is it really private-sector driven and a corporation? Well, no, not really. It's really kind of in-between."
Federal law already has rules regarding agricultural and other cooperatives, he noted, but Congress may want to look at handling "the advent of some of the new kinds of business entities we're seeing evolve."
Mr. Sullivan spoke at a symposium in Washington held by Catholic University's Columbus School of Law. He emphasized he was speaking only for himself and not for his boss, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat, or the finance committee.
Mr. Sullivan said that "the history of our tax code is that we basically try to put all entities into one of two buckets. You are either a for-profit entity, in which we try to tax you as a corporation partnership, a proprietorship, or otherwise. Or you are a tax-exempt organization -- you are a charity we are not going to tax at all.
But he said "the reality is every business really has multiple purposes," with many focusing on making charitable contributions to support their communities. Meanwhile, many charities "have some business purpose to them" unrelated to their missions on which they pay income tax.
"But I see even more blurring of the lines over the past decade," Mr. Sullivan said. For example, he said certain green energy companies have a purpose to "actually to develop or promote a cleaner environment -- they are just doing it through a corporate structure."
Similarly, "on the opposite end of the spectrum," Mr. Sullivan said, "we see missionaries today who go overseas and they set up a business, they set up a restaurant, they set up a school where they teach English. Are they doing that because they have a business motive? No, they're really not. They are doing it because that is a way for them to gain access to the people that they want to proselytize."
The Columbus School of Law's symposium, "Philanthropy in the 21st Century: Should All Charities Be Created Equal?", will be available for viewing online at http://video.law.edu/.
"We might see the emergence of some proposals to establish what I'll call, for the lack of a better term, a for-benefit corporation -- something that is in-between a private taxable company that's under our rules of C corporations or S corporations and partnerships but also not under our rules having to do with charities," he said.
As an example, Mr. Sullivan pointed to the recent enactment of the new federal health-care law. "As you know, a lot of changes are coming in health care. One of them is we authorized these state-based cooperatives to sell insurance in their states. Not a public option, not pure private sector. So the question is, What is the purpose of that entity and how should it be taxed?"
Mr. Sullivan continued: "Is it really a sort of government-owned entity that is part of the state government? Well, no, not really. Is it really private-sector driven and a corporation? Well, no, not really. It's really kind of in-between."
Federal law already has rules regarding agricultural and other cooperatives, he noted, but Congress may want to look at handling "the advent of some of the new kinds of business entities we're seeing evolve."
Mr. Sullivan spoke at a symposium in Washington held by Catholic University's Columbus School of Law. He emphasized he was speaking only for himself and not for his boss, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat, or the finance committee.
Mr. Sullivan said that "the history of our tax code is that we basically try to put all entities into one of two buckets. You are either a for-profit entity, in which we try to tax you as a corporation partnership, a proprietorship, or otherwise. Or you are a tax-exempt organization -- you are a charity we are not going to tax at all.
But he said "the reality is every business really has multiple purposes," with many focusing on making charitable contributions to support their communities. Meanwhile, many charities "have some business purpose to them" unrelated to their missions on which they pay income tax.
"But I see even more blurring of the lines over the past decade," Mr. Sullivan said. For example, he said certain green energy companies have a purpose to "actually to develop or promote a cleaner environment -- they are just doing it through a corporate structure."
Similarly, "on the opposite end of the spectrum," Mr. Sullivan said, "we see missionaries today who go overseas and they set up a business, they set up a restaurant, they set up a school where they teach English. Are they doing that because they have a business motive? No, they're really not. They are doing it because that is a way for them to gain access to the people that they want to proselytize."
The Columbus School of Law's symposium, "Philanthropy in the 21st Century: Should All Charities Be Created Equal?", will be available for viewing online at http://video.law.edu/.
Catholic-Run Charter Schools Arouse Church-State Concerns
Highlight from Chronicle of Philanthropy:
Catholic-Run Charter Schools Arouse Church-State Concerns
Church-state watchdog groups say they will closely monitor an Indianapolis project to create what could become the country's first public charter schools run by a Roman Catholic archdiocese, says the Associated Press.
Under a plan approved by the city April 5, St. Anthony's and St. Andrew & St. Rita Academy would become charters under new names and qualify for nearly $1-million in state money in the first year. The proposal was hailed by Mayor Greg Ballard and archdiocese officials as a way to keep the schools open and serving struggling neighborhoods despite a budget deficit.
The schools agreed to end religious education and remove crucifixes, statues of saints, and Bibles from classrooms and other areas. But in a letter to the mayor's office, the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State questioned whether the archdiocese would fully eliminate religious observances and items.
(Free registration is required to view this article on the New York Times site.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)