FERRET-SEARCH@LISTSERV.FERRETMAILINGLIST.ORG
|
|
Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:29:41 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I do NOT know the British taxation system at all, but I recall when
U.S. shelters were discussing not having any official status vs. being
registered as a non-profit vs. becoming 501 (C) -- which may be a
mis-recollection of the numbering and lettering involved as the
designation.
*IF* I recall right and *IF* things haven't changed then total donations
below a low amount didn't matter here (James, do you know?), but since
most shelters wanted more to off-set their high costs they at least
became registered as non-profits. That also was important for some
because of the way their own states legislate things for shelters, for
animals, or for liability issues (most -- all? -- of which CAN and often
enough DO differ state by state). A good number also went through the
work to enter the final category, and that number has increased over the
years which makes me suspect that it is a useful thing to do. The reason
is that when that is done then the donors can take the donations off on
their taxes (which they can't do for just a non-profit). This increases
private donations and attracts business donations.
It always pays to have good bookkeeping, of course -- always, always.
Anyway, the reason I am saying all that is because the MAIN thing that
I recall from that conversation is that almost everyone was greatly
confused what the designations meant and what the limits of each were.
It may be that a British expert on the designations there and their
limits could provide the answer to many questions and then making that
public could help a number of shelters and by doing so help very many
ferrets for years to come.
Meanwhile, it is always in the interest of ferrets to not make trouble
for shelters which are actually helping them. No one's personal likes
and dislikes and no argument are worth that.
Oh, a note: in the U.S. if someone makes claims to the IRS about another
person which can't be backed by good hard evidence then the complainer
will be audited. I don't know how many countries have that as a regular
response or it the UK is among them.
[Posted in FML issue 4404]
|
|
|