Search for: "Doe Non Profit Corporations 1-10" Results 121 - 140 of 1,047
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jun 2012, 9:42 am by Chris Castle
  Probably not, since the insiders control the company on a 10 to 1 so it doesn’t really matter what any stockholder says. [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 1:55 am by Kevin Kaufman
This understates true business costs and inflates taxable profits, effectively taxing profits that do not exist. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 10:24 am by Jordan Furlong
Leverage non-lawyer professionals: the firm has more than 500 paralegals, putting the ratio to lawyers at more than 2:1. [read post]
1 May 2024, 11:52 am by Brian Clark
The Code[1] often allows sales to be taxed at preferential capital gains rates[2] while simple royalties are ordinary income.[3] At present the maximum capital gain versus ordinary income rate differential for non-corporate taxpayers – without more[4] – is seventeen percent[5] which is not immaterial. [read post]
27 Jun 2022, 10:50 am
To understand how the global alliance of non-governmental organizations, affected communities and social movements working in this context is structured, we nee [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 1:44 am by Florian Mueller
Then the acquisition targets become subsidiaries of European subsidiaries, and if those deals generate profits, those profits, too, must stay in Europe or will be subjected--as they will be sooner or later--to the U.S. repatriation tax.In its decision, the Commission does recognize that under Irish tax law a company can be registered in Ireland without being subject to Irish taxes. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 6:05 am by Michael Geist
With a rumoured purchase price of over $1 billion dollars, there is big money for ISOC but the deal has left the non-profit community worried about potential price increases and policy changes to the domain that could impact online speech. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 3:26 pm
  In contrast, under a SaaS model those fees are spread over the contract term (typically 1 - 5 years for SaaS offerings to corporate customers). [read post]
23 Jun 2021, 5:30 am by Kevin Kaufman
While Firm 1 does not pay corporate tax in its loss-making Year 1, it is subject to tax on the full $100,000 in profits in Year 2. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 9:05 pm by renholding
The same is true regarding ESG proponents who may be willing to give up profit for non-monetary benefits. [read post]
23 Mar 2021, 4:50 am by Kevin Kaufman
Scheduling a future corporate income tax rate increase does not avoid this. [read post]
19 Mar 2024, 6:08 pm
The Norms rested comfortably in the traditions of the old Soviet-Non-Aligned camp views of the world; the SRSG was deeply invested in the sensibilities and modes of operation of the OECD. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 5:20 pm by Wolfgang Demino
The First Marblehead Corporation played the key role in origination and securitization and pocketed millions of dollars in the double-digits from each trust-transaction ($89,705.866.00 for Trust 2007-1, $88,424,309.00 for Trust 2007-4). [read post]
10 Jan 2018, 3:28 am by Carl Christensen
A non-corporate partner is allowed a deduction for up to 20% of its distributive share of a pass-through entity’s qualifying business income. [read post]
19 Apr 2023, 7:46 am by Matthew Dochnal
In an LLC, Members can choose to distribute company profits in any way they prefer, while corporations typically require profit distribution based on the number of shares each shareholder owns. [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 2:50 pm by Alain Leibman
Several days after our posting of Part 1, ynetnews.com published a report from Calcalist (the “Calcalist Report”) about Hadassah Medical Organization (“HMO”), the Hadassah hospital in Israel that is supported and owned by Hadassah Medical Relief Association, Inc., which is the non-profit Hadassah affiliate that actually paid the $45,000,000 in cash settlement to Trustee Irving Picard in the Madoff bankruptcy, as reported in earlier Installments in… [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
District Court for the Northern District of California for insider trading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. [read post]