albert the panther

You can't copy-and-paste from their website.

But they say, "Together, the more than 2,400 YMCAs are the largest
not-for-profit community service organizations in America ..."

They had here, of course, that very elegant building at "One Capitol
District" which now houses the Hawaii State Art Museum. I've seen lots
of
YMCAs but that surely was one of the most grand. (It would be
interesting
to read a history of the YMCA in Hawaii.)

They have a 114-room facility on the Ala Wai across from Waikiki, what
must be a very prime piece of real estate. And a much larger building
on
Nuuana Avenue, plus a student facility across from UH-Manoa.

The Nuuanu facility seems to be the least expensive, $30 a night, $160 a
week. A man living on Social Security retirement pay could only just
afford that, if he didn't mind having very empty pockets otherwise.

(Of course, it is the *Y*MCA, they never seem to have considered
starting
an *O*MCA offshoot.)

Well, they want $50/night at the Vanderbilt YMCA in Manhattan where I
lived for years on that much a week, grumbled when it went up to that.

"Not-for-profit"? I wonder what this means?

judy

I don't think it was a Y in recent years. The way I heard it, it was
built to be the "guest house" for the Kingdom, the original Royal
Hawaiian Hotel. The YMCA bought it when the Moana basically ran it out
of business. The new Royal opened a couple of years later. The place
was nearly 100 years old and in rough shape shape by the time Hemmeter
(rest his soul) bought and restored it in the 80s.


It does not mean they are not allowed to make money. It mostly means
they don't have to pay income tax if they spend most of what they earn
to run or expand the operation (which may include real estate purchases
and/or fat salaries for well-placed executives).

alvin e. toda

The owners don't make a profit but sometimes certain
staff do, you say? I agree. And I think it also means
that the state and the fed tax offices agree that the
mission of the organization serves a useful public
purpose, or provides a public service. Revenues they
get to meet that purpose or provide that service are
tax-exempt. But if their primary purpose is to provide
say music, then I believe that they should and do pay a
tax on their sales of huli huli chicken for example.

Of course, a portion of the price of the chicken is
tax deductable to the public as a donation. However, if
they make money from a concert which features the
orchestra, then the revenues from the concert are not
taxable. Also, there are organizations like the Bishop
Estate that make no money off their Schools but earn
fantastic ammounts off of their business investments.
I'm not sure why 100% of their revenue should be
non-taxable when only a fraction of the revenue gets
spent on the schools.

--alvin

hoku beltz

for the benefit of the schools, and the other is taxed. They own Royal
Hawaiian and Windward malls. The revenue from those, for example, is
taxed.
Other of their investments are taxed as well.

alvin e. toda

Come to think of it, I believe I might have once seen a
link to a web page on this kind of information. But it
may have been for donations (to check if it's tax
deductable) rather than for revenue.

--alvin

wing@lava.net (wing c

There are no owners. Not-for-profit may not have shareholders.
If they terminate, they must donate all of their net assets to
another 501(c)(3) organization, or to the gov.

I think that was one of the issues during the massive IRS
audit few years ago, that they retained too much of their
net incomes and did not spend most of their current incomes
on the school, another one being the huge compensation to
their trustees. They argued that they are perpetual, and
need to support the schools in some future years when incomes
are lean (don't see when that's going to be). I think they
must certain adjustments and the IRS was satisfied.

Wing

alvin e. toda

I mean the people who have control of the non-profit.
In this case, it is the board of trustees. Trustees
cannot overpay themselves, but some on the staff may
feel their work may be worth the pay. The old board
also has considered themselves to be kind of like
staff. I think that I have seen the term of "ceo role"
of the trustee in the papers. This is the way they have
justified their high salaries.

I guess like another member of this group has reported,
some business activities like the Royal Hawaiian
Shopping Mall are now taxed 100%. And now trustee
salaries are reduced to reasonable amounts. A CEO of
the trust receives high pay, but presumable he earns
fair compensation for the work he/she does. They've
also agreed to stop the trust's political activities.
The days are gone when a state representative can be
the House leader and a Trustee at the same time.

--alvin

wing@lava.net (wing c

That's an "unrelated business activity", which is taxable.
Not-for-profits are allowed passive investments of their
assets, tax-free. A shopping center would require active
management and would become taxable. This was established
back in the 70s with N.Y.U. having a spaghetti factory, I was
at N.Y.U. then. Wing