Talk:Foundation (United States law)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Needs a new title

This needs to be moved into a new title. Plus, other pages probably need to be merged into this one. Fredsmith2 02:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What kind of organizational structure for foundations do you propose? If someone searches for foundation they maybe English or French or American searching for their country's law or for another country's law like an French person search for information about English foundations. If we have a main article dedicated to the general idea of organizational foundations with summary's of each country's approach then we can split them off into main articles dedicated to each country's approach. The alternative is one big article dedicated to foundations from all over the world, which would lead to clutter. For American law there should be a article dedicated to foundations in the USA because foundations are so diverse in entity types. From that country specific article we can then have split off into main articles into specific foundation entity types. This organization form has the benefit of starting from a general article and moving on to specific articles. Likewise, it has the reverse benefit of the go/search result lead to the specific article. This way, if someone searches for Private foundation they're search will lead them to the article on private foundations. Meanwhile if someone is French and searching for articles on Australian or English foundations they search for foundation will not lead them to a cluttered article on American foundations but rather to a general article where they can reach articles that are progressively more specific until they get the country and entity type for which they are searching. That said, this article probably could be renamed "Foundation in the USA" or something like that or maybe "Foundation (USA)" that might be better.EECavazos 18:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maintaining Private-Charitable Distinction Consistently

I found the article confusing. I wasn't sure whether "foundation" referred only to "charitable foundation" or to both types of "foundation". Because the distinction is so central to the article and to the real world of foundations, I would have thought that the word "foundation" would never be used alone in this article or one on private foundations. It would always be "charitable foundation" (for the subject of the article), or "private foundation" (for the contrasting position under the internal revenue code), or "both types of foundation" (when an statement including both types is made). I would love to edit this in this way, but lack the specific knowledge. DCDuring 23:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the source of my confusion is the very title of the article, from which I inferred that there are two types of foundations in the U.S. I think that must not be true. Could someone make sure that the true state of affaris is clear? I can't be alone in my confusion about this. DCDuring 04:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several types of foundations in the USA One may be the foundation of a building. Another may be an organization that calls itself a foundation but it is neither a foundation nor a charity. The USA has these distinctions unlike mainland Europe or the commonwealth countries or the USM (United States of Mexico). EECavazos 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Present law

Present law needs a bit of work. I might try to work on it in a few particularly adding more detail to it, like UBIT and some of the law for community foundations.EECavazos 05:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] types of foundations

I'm going to work on that section, I'm going to make a big change at once so that its easy to revert.EECavazos 17:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I made the big change, so lets see how that works.EECavazos 18:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations. This seems to do the job very nicely. I'll give it a closer reading soon, but you've addressed the kind of confusion I had very well. Thanks. DCDuring 18:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing, bud.EECavazos 18:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)