This site was archived on 24 April 2012. No new content can be posted. The mailing list remains online and the site will stay in this archived state for the forseeable future. If you find any technical errors on the site, please contact Callum.

501(c)(3)? Can Casey sell out?

The hottest thread in the Brainstorm group is probably the 501(c)(3) thread. The CS General Manager, the Volunteer Coordinator have posted, but apparently not with enough information to cast away doubts raised by a retired management consultant with plenty of experience with US law.

Apparently there is a way for Casey to sell out, as long as the bylaws are not sorted out properly. Of course, these are currently far away from public scrutiny.

As Callum wrote:

I think the key question for Casey / LT therefore is about the company byelaws. How was the company incorporated and are there any provisions for changing the company status? Without that information, I am of the opinion that if 501(c)(3) status is ever achieved, Casey could voluntarily remove that status, pay the relevant tax, and then sell CouchSurfing.

2 Responses to “501(c)(3)? Can Casey sell out?”


    As Zakor points out here, the attitude of the LT (represented in this thread by Jim whom I have been unable to catch saying anything legally relevant on the 501c3 matter) only adds to the discomfort that is eating some of us.

    I started out from the same position as Norbert; it is not because we don’t trust you, it is because we want to ensure that nothing unforeseen can spoil the fun of 227,000 CS users.

    But, I am beginning to have serious doubts about Casey’s integrity on this issue. Sure, I believe Jim that there is no intention to sell anytime soon; but will Casey still be passionate about it in, say, ten years from now? And if he isn’t, what but his word (not given by himself, by the way; it is only REPORTEDLY his word) do we have that CS is not to be sold? Exactly, NOTHING AT ALL.

    I see an LT that is unable to respond in any satisfactory way to questions raised by a member with relevant legal training; is that really because they don’t want to rush things? I was willing to accept this, if it hadn’t been for the complete lack of demonstrable progress in the application procedure for tax-exempt status. Apparently, they’re simply not willing to proceed at all.

    I also see an LT that is ‘not amused’ to find out that users are able to shoot holes in the charitable façade they had so carefully been erecting for CS. Because a façade it is, as long as an irrevocable asset lock-in clause is included in CS’s byelaws…

  • Because a façade it is, as long as an irrevocable asset lock-in clause is NOT included in CS’s byelaws…

    Forgot the ‘not’; makes for rather confusing reading without it…

Comments are currently closed.