Your comment seems like a non sequitur to me. Whether something is a "non-profit" has nothing to do with whether it receives or spends money. (See, e.g. the American Red Cross's ~$4B/yr budget.) It's about what it does with the money it has.

Obviously, since Anna's Archive is breaking the law, it can't conform itself to the normal legal/regulatory system that governs non-profit organizations. It can certainly still claim to be acting in the spirit of a non-profit, and it's up to you to decide whether you trust that claim. Nobody's forcing you to give them money.

▲

cakealert 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The connotation of a non-profit is that it's being audited. It would be extremely silly to suggest otherwise.

▲

teraflop 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

It may have that connotation to you, but in general (at least in the US) non-profit organizations are not required to have independent audits. Typically, that requirement only happens if they receive a certain amount of government funding. An organization may choose to undergo audits in order to make people feel better about donating to it.

I really, really don't think that anybody is being fooled or misled into thinking that Anna's Archive is a "legitimate" audited organization when they describe themselves as a non-profit.

▲

addaon 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The connotation of a non-profit is that it's being audited.

This is very geography-specific. In the US, 501(c)(3)s (what most people think of when they say "non-profit" where I am) have no general requirement for audits. There's also plenty of non-profit-by-some-definition organizations that never file a Form 1023, giving up some benefits of the 501(c)(3) regulations but in exchange being even less regulated.

	▲	Projectiboga 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The entities are regulated at the state level in the usa, with the responsibility to comply with both state and federal tax authorities.

▲

badlibrarian 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Audits have nothing to do with it; all entities are subject to audit.

The primary difference between a non-profit and a for-profit is that a non-profit does not distribute profit to shareholders, including the founders.

	▲	cakealert 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Audit or threat of audit is the mechanism of enforcement and that is all that ever matters.

▲

gowld 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is Cosa Nostra a non-profit? The question doesn't make sense. It's a category error.

A non-profit is a corporate legal structure. An unregistered organization could be a cabal, a gang, a syndicate, a fellowship, a religion, a movement, a private club, or something else.

	▲	nine_k 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The intent is still important. While from a legal point of view a terrorist cell cannot be registered as a non-profit, it typically spends whatever funds it can secure to further its political goals, not on increasing the wealth of its owners or participants. A typical criminal band though is a for-profit entity.

▲

pdabbadabba 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

At least in the US, claiming that you are a nonprofit implies that contributions are tax deductible. Claiming that you are a nonprofit when contributions are not tax deductible might be considered fraudulent.

▲

anigbrowl 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Not true. There are different classes of nonprofit and they are not all tax deductible. Some nonprofits opt to forgo pursuing that status because it involves a lot of extra administration/filing requirements.

	▲	pdabbadabba 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		You're responding to a different point than the one I made. It's true that being a "nonprofit" doesn't logically entail that donations will be tax decudtible. But it still implies it to potential donors. The former is a matter of logic, the latter is a matter of psychology. Both are relevant. Yes, there are multiple classes of nonprofit, not all of which are tax deductible. But it is also true that holding yourself out to the public as a "nonprofit" has the potential to mislead because it may imply to potential donors that contributions would be tax deductible. That is why responsible (or at least well advised) nonprofits disclose which they are, because claiming you're a "nonprofit" in marketing materials, without further explanation, can mislead potential donors.

▲

jrflowers 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They are already very much in breach of US law, which they have always been clear about. That aside, they don’t claim that contributions to them are tax deductible.

I would love to see someone try to explain to the IRS why all those purchases of Amazon gift cards and Monero for the transparently illegal organization should be deductible though