This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Taxation (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

• I agree with redirect and merge John wesley 12:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Looks like a good idea to me. —Markles 14:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article really up to being linked to from the footer of every page in WP? --BozMo talk 10:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would very helpful at the 501(c)(3) wiki page to provide visitors with information pertaining to the IRS regulations concerning public inspection and copying the IRS Form 990 "Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax". This should also include the Form 990 variations such as 990-EZ, and 990-PF,

It would also be helpful to mention and link to the IRS Form 4506-A "Request for Public Inspection or Copy of Exempt or Political Organization IRS Form", Form 1023 "Application for Recognition of Exemption Under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code", Form 1024, Form 8871 "Political Organization Notice of Section 527 Status", and Form 8872 "Political Organization Report of Contributions and Expenditures"(http://www.irs.gov/polorgs)

Section 6014. --- Publicity of Information Required From Certain Exempt Organizations and Certain Trusts

26 CFR 301.6104(d)-3

T.D. 8818, 1999.

4.88.49.206 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to http://www.nonprofitlegalcenter.com/ redirects to http://www.tswrobel-law.com/nonprofit_resources/nonprofit_services.htm, which is a mostly an advertisement for legal services, as opposed to "Helpful 501(c)(3) information and links", as described in the article.

Also, while I don't speak russian, I'm a little worried that http://2.01m.net.ru/ "501(c)(3) in Russian" might be link spam, given the host name, the look of the resulting site, and some question as to why the link is relevant to the article in general. If there's a need for information in Russian about a part of the US tax code, maybe they could create an article on http://ru.wikipedia.org/

Pwooster 13:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extremely interesting (and questionable) that Wiki-examples are included throughout the Wikipedia in lists of this and that (here notable 501(c)(3)s), yet any other entry element (person, corporation, etc.) is discouraged from self-promotion even when including self in a factual list of like elements without commentary. I anticipate the justifications, but the open democratic nature of Wikimedia does not embrace other good faith operators in its self-serving exemptions. By placing Wiki-examples, Wiki-editors are breaking the Wiki-rules for Wiki-promotion, thus they are serving Wikimedia whether they are its employees or not and putting the interests of Wiki ubiquity above the rule against self-placement, thus, Wikimedia gains exaggerated exposure while legitimate entries are removed even when the starkest, simplest bits of fact are being included in this so-called encyclopedia. I'm having a hard time not seeing information control and unnecessary limitations here.

Wilnap (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link in footnote 41 doesn't work. Henry1776 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Henry1776 26 January 2013[reply]

I think cases where the 501(c)(3) status of charities has been challenged, why, and the result would be appropriate for this article. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Also, I think information on what makes a (c)(3) not a (c)(3) anymore, or what charities can do to compromise their status, such as too close alignment with for-profit companies would be very valuable in this, too.Fredsmith2 16:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubly agree with User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling though he is apparently indefinitely banned. I am especially interested in challenges to charity status on basis of disallowed discrimination. For example, Wikipedia claims itself to be a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Wikipedia uses this claim as part of its foundation to solicit donations from donors. If it is true anyone can edit, discrimination is not allowed. If it is not true that anyone can edit, and some types of discrimination are to be tolerated, then the claim by which Wikipedia solicits donations may be considered fraudulent.Tomkwill (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Tomkwill[reply]

The correct way to write a section in this code, using (3) as an example, is 501(c)(3), and not any of: 501C3, 501(c)3, 501c(3), 501(C)(3), 501c3. This isn't done in the article, but is done throughout wikipedia. There are redirects for all of these incorrect usages, though. I've started cleaning up referers, so that they refer directly to the correct part, e.g., 501(c)(3), not 501c3, and so their pages are correct. Fredsmith2 21:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should do this yet, but I agree with LegitimateAndEvenCompelling and plus I think think that there's a lot more that can be added about charity organizations. I also think that we need a (c)(3) category, because nonprofits and charities aren't necesarily (c)(3) organizations, and I think that an infobox would be helpful, with information such as Tax ID, and whether it is a public charity or a private foundation, date and status of IRS ruling, etc. Those (c)(3)-specific things aren't found in other non-profit related infoboxes. Also, check the "What links here" section. Lots of pages link here, and most link here because of the (c)(3) section. Fredsmith2 16:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

501(c)(3) is one of the sections of the Internal Revenue Code that has worked its way into common language, making it reasonable to have an article on it. I don't know how far you want to take it. Churchs are an interesting area of controversy since it is troubling to have a goverment agency ruling on what does or does not constitute a Church. On the other hand if you don't want governemt regulating churchs you have to define what they are. There is a similar problem with Indian Tribes.

I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to be a legal reserch source. The other section that has worked its way into common language is 401(k).

12.159.138.194 (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>>********** The line in the section on 501(c)(3) and political organizations about the The American Foreign Policy Council being a pro-Israel lobby is both biased and gramatically incorrect. One of you Wiktators should fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.124.149.170 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justifying my replacement of Scientology as an example 501(c)(3) with United Methodist Churches:

• IRS Pub. 557 Ch. 3 specifically mentions churches as example 501(c)(3) organizations.
• Scientology is a highly controversial, polarizing organization, and its inclusion as a mainstream example of a 501(c)(3) needlessly brings its controversy to this article.
• Contrary to Fredsmith2's edit note, United Methodist Churches are definitely 501(c)(3) if they choose to apply. For many cases in point, go to IRS's charity search and search on methodist. You'll find many examples of UMC congregations, albeit not all are there. Per IRS Pub. 557 Ch. 3, churches do not need to fill out form 1023.
• Further contrary to Fredsmith2's edit note, 501(d) is for communal organizations which may or may not be churches. The UMC is not a communal organization in that sense.
• Even further contrary to Fredsmith2's edit note, there is considerable debate of the propriety of recognizing Scientology as a religion or a nonprofit. See Scientology_controversy#The_legitimacy_of_Scientology_as_a_religion.

Nova SS (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea to add in a church that is a 501(c)(3). I don't particularly care which church it is but I think it's important that whatever we choose actually is a 501 (c)(3) - If all individual UMCs are not necessarily 501(c)(3)s then I think that's a poor example to use. I don't think the controversy over Scientology's religious status is a bar to its inclusion here - 501(c)(3) status is not the same thing and the article you linked to doesn't seem to question that. In someways using examples that might surprise readers is a good thing in that it helps to challenge incorrect assumptions. However, if we can find a Church 501(c)(3) example that does this without introducing unnecessary controversy that's even better. In any case - edit warring over the content is entirely inappropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 22:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe any examples should exist in this article. If you want to show what a church or any other example of a 501(c) than create a link to an article that goes into more depth. MJSplant (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to political/election groups, could someone go into more detail regarding the difference between a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4), and how they differ from a 527 group or PAC. - Matthew238 (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lists of examples seem to be magnets for people wanting to promote individual organizations. Are they really useful? Could we add links to categories that list of examples instead? Or develop better prose that puts the examples in context and dissuades additions for the sake of listing yet another org an editor particularly likes? -- SiobhanHansa 11:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one has responded here and we have seen several added in drive-bys in recent days I'm going to remove the sections as they seem to be doing little good and are becoming places prone to becoming unbalanced and subtly promotional. -- SiobhanHansa 21:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the examples (again), as they do not belong here. This is not a place to help voice organizations. It was undone by 150.108.232.68. That Undoing was then reversed by someone else. It seems that the examples do not have a place here. However 150.108.232.68 chose to reverse that undo putting the examples back. It seems to me, that if this individual at IP 150.108.232.68 cannot even take the time to create an account and a username, then they are quite possibly trying to advance some agenda with one of those organizations. This is not the place for that. MJSplant (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I took some additional time to look at what IP 150.108.232.68 has edited. It seems they placed an organization on this page. This furthers my belief they are trying to advance the agenda of an organization, which not the policy of wikipedia. MJSplant (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After carefully waying the pros and cons of removing information in this article that has gone uncited, and reviewing the policy's of Wikipedia, I finally came to the decision that removing all uncited information was the best course of action. In understanding my reasoning better, I offer the following major points:

To quote Jimmy Whales "it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources." Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l insist on sources", WikiEN-l mailing list, July 19, 2006.

From the Wikipedia:Verifiability page: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references." It is obvious that a lot of this information dates back to July of 2008 when a request for more sources was made using the {{Refimprovesect}} and {{Unreferenced section}} templates. Please continue reading regarding newly added and uncited information.

Given these I am going ahead and will begin removing any uncited information. As there is an abundance of information in this article that is uncited, I am not going to differentiate between recent and old information. I apologize to anyone who recently added uncited information, but I am sure you won't mind citing it if you choose to restore it as that is Wikipedia policy.

I strongly encourage anyone to restore and, if necessary, correct removed information. I will aid in the restoration of information when I have time, but I do not plan on personally restoring all information removed. I would also like to point to the following Wikipedia policy regarding restoring, or adding for that matter, any information:

From the Wikipedia:Verifiability page regarding Burden of Proof: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books."

For further information on citing sources and the policy's regarding references I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citing sources. MJSplant (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scrub away. ^Law _shoot! 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is tagged with {{citation style}}, what are the issues?--RadioFan (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they are ACORN who openly supported Obama and then received government grants in return. -- this is ridiculous and political palaver added by an ignorant person!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.292.236.2 (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there provisions that allow the certification holder to purchase and own properties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.4.104.83 (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added today a secondary reference to the page. The current reference is quoting off the primary IRS source and it important to have secondary sources that interpret the information. I didn't have time to fully integrate this into article. If you are helping this page I have it listed already in article..Good reading..and add relevant information from document without violation of their copyright.^[1]Pbmaise (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm filing a 501c3 right now, and per IRS's form the filing fees are 750 and 300, not 850 and 400 although the 10,000 gross receipts for the difference remains the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.53.145 (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

501(c)(20) and 501(c)(24) are missing from the current wikipedia list of twenty-nine types of 501(c):

501(c)(20) An organization or trust created or organized in the United States, the exclusive function of which is to form part of a qualified group legal services plan or plans, within the meaning of section 120. An organization or trust which receives contributions because of section 120 (c)(5)(C) shall not be prevented from qualifying as an organization described in this paragraph merely because it provides legal services or indemnification against the cost of legal services unassociated with a qualified group legal services plan.

501(c)(24) A trust described in section 4049 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (as in effect on the date of the enactment of the Single-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1986).

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501

I am including descriptions of 501(c)(20) and 501(c)(24) in the list of twenty-nine accordingly.124.185.122.155 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prototime reverted my edit that added "and can receive unlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions."to the lede as "too detailed". And "not discussed in the body".

Both reasons are incorrect. It is not too detailed to add this basic info; everything else in the lede like 29 types of 501 c are detailed. Contributions are mentioned in the body of the text.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recently updated and added a citation to the large quotation in the Elections section in response to a When template, which while misused did at least direct my attention to the issue. While I was editing the section I realized that because the quoted text comprises an entire page of the IRS website, I think potential copyright implications should be considered along with the possibility of quotation overuse where shorter quotations and paraphrasing interspersed with framing article text may not merely meet but exceed the section's current level of quality and readability. Adallace (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to provide the year that 501 (c)3 was created — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C400:8C80:41:4DD3:F656:89B3 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANYONE KNOW IF THIS IS BETTER THAN A 501C3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.224.107.6 (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

found a better link but i am on a cellphone.

https://www.venable.com/insights/events/2019/06/legal-structuring-for-nonprofit-organizations

Egberts (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence reads: "A 501(c) organization is a nonprofit organization in the federal law of the United States according to Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c) (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)) and is one of over 29 types of nonprofit organizations exempt from some federal income taxes."

"A 501(c) organization ... is one of over 29 types of nonprofit organizations exempt from some federal income taxes?" —

An average reader may be wondering/questioning: Are there (over) 28 types other than/different from/except 501(c)? — The answer is: No, the article explains it: 501(c) is subdivided into 29 types. —

According to Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, we should not use first sentences that are ambiguous. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wps Office id vs ask Tan malaysia 2001:D08:1829:E2F0:1858:BD1E:C8DC:D983 (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are the 501s a variety of C corporation? I know the parenthetical (c) refers to the codification scheme and is unrelated, but I'm trying to gain an understanding of the 'family tree' of org types. Arlo James Barnes 21:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]