Obviously, this ruling is using way too broad of an approach to defining charitable activity. The judge’s intent merely seems to be to maximize the tax collection ability of his employer (the state) and has set up a sort of impossible goal for non-profits. If a non-profit provides a service for half the price of its profit-seeking competition, that 50% means something to the people who need it, and I’m sure they’re not selfishly complaining that the entire 100% wasn’t paid for. Free is nice, but you can do good and selfless things without going so far… I wouldn’t be surprised if this ruling got modified at the federal level when the state tries to enforce it. Either that, or people in Minnesota who need a hand better hope the state government is there to help them out where the charities used to be.
COMMENTS
BY John at FreeCollegeBlog.com
ON September 14, 2008 10:47 PM
Obviously, this ruling is using way too broad of an approach to defining charitable activity. The judge’s intent merely seems to be to maximize the tax collection ability of his employer (the state) and has set up a sort of impossible goal for non-profits. If a non-profit provides a service for half the price of its profit-seeking competition, that 50% means something to the people who need it, and I’m sure they’re not selfishly complaining that the entire 100% wasn’t paid for. Free is nice, but you can do good and selfless things without going so far… I wouldn’t be surprised if this ruling got modified at the federal level when the state tries to enforce it. Either that, or people in Minnesota who need a hand better hope the state government is there to help them out where the charities used to be.