SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : HWP -- Hewlett Packard -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (3844)12/14/2001 11:39:57 AM
From: Dave B  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 4722
 
Duke,

Ya know, and I'm just noodlin' here, but since your going to be on the Board, an' all, and since I used to teach this in law school, it might be worthy of comment that the Foundation is allowed its tax exempt status under 501(c)(3) because it maintains a PASSIVE role, as dictated by 4900 et. seq. of the Internal Revenue Code.

Interesting note. What's the definition of "passive" as dictated by 4900, etc.? Does it allow a foundation to exercise the votes that their share ownership provides to them (which is all that the foundation is planning to do at this point)?

TIA,

Dave



To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (3844)12/14/2001 11:52:30 AM
From: Kirk ©  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 4722
 
Interesting.

If a passive role is required to remain tax exempt, then would not a seat on the BOD be considered "active" since the BOD runs a company for the long term while the CEO manages the day to day? What am I missing? Is it because Walter is on the BOD as an individual and the foundations are not represented other than by their shares? Could one argue that Walter has a dual role and that might violate the IRS requirements?

thanks


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News