Harry and Meghan doing alright in the US, continuing their universal service

[notanotheroneagain]

Have heard a few comments from panellists and commenters thinking that Harry somehow wants to come back to the UK?

I highly doubt this. I think they are doing more than ok in the US.

A pity a positive thread has been deleted regarding the podcasts, maybe the positive conversation can continue here?

In particularly I wanted to highlight the announcement that they will be recipients for the Robert J Kennedy Human Rights award.

“When The Duke and Duchess accepted our award laureate invitation back in March, we were thrilled. The couple has always stood out for their willingness to speak up and change the narrative on racial justice and mental health around the world,” Kerry Kennedy, president of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, and Robert F. Kennedy's daughter, said in a statement shared today. “They embody the type of moral courage that my father once called the ‘one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change.’”

You only need to read many comments in the rest of the thread above to answer this question. The couple can’t win for losing - they can’t talk about being charitable without scepticism being applied about the veracity of their claims but the moment they are specific about what charity and when, then they are criticised for this as well.

“Meghan is being bashed for the hypocrisy for saying she’s giving altruistically, for insulting people‘s intelligence by making out it’s all benevolent munificence when actually it’s self-serving enrichment under the guise of altruism (sooo much worse than being straight up about building up riches). British people do NOT respond well to that.”

Can’t win for losing.

I agree @onlylarkin and appreciate your challenges on other threads about this.

The first problem with your comment is that they were already wealthy to begin with.

The second is that it is literally impossible for them to become rich through a NPO. They make their money on the business side, legally. And pay taxes on it.

No hope for profit here.

Amazing how rich they (politicians, royals, entrepreneurs, others) all get just a couple of years after setting up a charity/fund/not-for-profit, though, isn't it?

Yes, butbwhat has anyone else to do with M & H? Because politicians do it, they all must do it?

They do not need to embezzle money from a charity because 1) they don't have a charity and 2) $20m advance on a book plus, what $7m from Spotify, plus I have no idea with Netflix.

They are getting more rich and do not need a faux charity to cover it up.

It’s not embezzling or anything illegal like that.

It’s a legal form of money laundering from what I understand. They “donate” the money from their business side to the non-profit, this lowers their corporate tax burden. Non-profits registered in Delaware can use up to 95% of their donations for operating expenses. Which is everything from salaries, cost of travel, clothing and dinner expenses.

Are they taking full advantage of everything? Who knows. Maybe maybe not.

Correction : Harry was already rich to begin with. Only Harry.

$5m isn't rich? Wow, I want to live where ever it is that $5m isn't rich.

Well, if you don't know and you don't have then ... 😀

The second is that it is literally impossible for them to become rich through a NPO. They make their money on the business side, legally. And pay taxes on it.

I'm fascinated by US charities. It seems much more complex that at home, probably because of different rules for different states. don't want to make this about Archewell, though, because we don't really know how they operate so it's unfair, imo, to comment, perhaps, erroneously, on the running of it and how the money is spent.

So talking generally, and quite crudely, don't these founders of non profits have money they've earned paid directly into the foundations to minimise tax? And don't they donate to the foundation their money, again to minimise tax. Nothing illegal, tax accountants will find the best way to do it. Then these non-profits can spend, according to where they're registered (not sure that's the correct American terminology), up to 90% of that money on expenses. That could cover a contribution to their house for office space or entertaining, house costs, clothes, transport, etc. Again all legal. So it doesn't add to their wealth but it does add to their lifestyle. I'm not sure, they obviously pay their staff, do the founders of these NPOs pay themselves? Or are they like unpaid trustees?

Sorry I wrote my post before reading all the previous ones and I cannot see I had similar thoughts to @Bri5 . Sorry, Bri, if it looks like I hijacked some of your ideas. I think I have expressed them before on other threads because I'm fascinated how US charities operate. Especially having worked for UK ones.

I get what you are saying Marsha. My confusion still lies in the NPO vs 501c and registering in Delaware. There are 2 things I am trying to learn.

1. what are the laws in Deleare in regards to profits paid out (how much are they allowed to use for expenses)

2. what Delaware law is regarding an NPO vs a 501c.

To me, it wouldn't make sense, in this particular case, to pull any money from the NPO because a large chunk of money is already being earned on the for profit side. But that does not mean they aren't doing it.

I am going to continue tonresearch this but I speculate that we won't know 100% until we see the tax filings.

And yes, you are correct that people, from the lowest.paid to the higest, will do what they can to lower their tax bills. One of the quickest ways to do that is to make a donation, either cash or goods. But there is a difference between corporate and individual tax laws.

I am going to keep looking into it for my own purposes because I have a curious nature.

Here is the Delaware Law, all 121 pages of it. In case you want to dig deeper. delcode.delaware.gov › title8
General Corporation Law

I was going to print it and read it but not wasting that much paper.

May have to copy and paste that link

Here is a great example of the non profits registered in Delaware. Some bid names in this list.
www.delawareontheweb.com/community/associations/non_profit.htm

It's interesting, isn't it, @onlylarkin? Are you American?
I do know from a previous search that Delaware allows 95% to be spent on expenses, whereas California allows 60%. (Which of course excited comment that Archewell works out of LA but is registered in Delaware so can take advantage of the 95%.) In comparison in the UK the Charities Commission say that if a charity spent over 50%, they'd be wanting a report to justify it. Also, the CC is quite active with its own head and a team to investigate and oversee charities. It isn't like that in the US. In Delaware, for example, oversight falls under the state AG and there are so few staff that they only respond to complaints rather that bring proactive and keeping an active check. But I forget how big the US is and so diverse with different state laws.

amp.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/delaware-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton

Interesting isn't it ohnevermind. It is so normal here in the US that even the Democrats are doing it. Even our politicians, who talk against the system, use it. Which is why it will never be fixed to close the loopholes.

Marsha, I know that is true for 501c3, but not sure if it is true for a NPO. That is where I am trying to learn what the differences are. A 501 and an NPO are completely different in terms of rules and tax requirements.

Oh and thank you for having a great, productive conversation with me.

That's interesting, @Ohnonevermind. Thanks. Strange how politicians always have rhetoric to tighten up "tax havens" except the ones they have money in. 😂 The federal system seems to allow quite a few loopholes across state lines.

Thanks everyone, it’s really interesting to learn more about NPO’s - both financially and culturally. I’m away so just dipping in when I can.

It is interesting, and confusing! I was still reading and my brain shut down! I have a cold coming on though, so that doesn't help.

I did find somewhere that said Archewell is, in fact, a 501c3, so now I need to look over everything again to find the filing and more info. I do not know if they are an actual 501c3 or if the site I was on just stated it. Pretty reputable site though.

I also want to point out that I am not a lawyer and I am not married to a lawyer, so I cant say 100% certain the ins and outs of it all. I also want to remind people that, until we see the actual first year of IRS filings, it is all speculation. Once we are bale to access the first full year of records, it will all become more clear.

One of the things I was surprised to see is all of the organizations they have partnered with. Some of them, I have never seen publicly announced. Not on the level of the Nigeria donation. So they do seem to be doing work behind the scenes along side making announcements of partnerships.

No worries, I think yours did a better job explaining! Thanks for contributing 🙂

I wanted to pop in with what I found this evening. I am definitely digging deeper this weekend because, for some stupid reason, I find this type of research enjoyable. I want to see what I can find on the Delaware registration. Also, I like to deal in actual facts so I can make an informed decision.

Archewell is registered as a 501c3 company. I found their IRS approval letter (attached). Here is what is fact based on this letter:

Archewell is a 501c3 charity who is tax exempt effective April 17, 2020.

They have to fill out the yearly 990 form. For the 2020 year, they were able to file the 990-N because they made less than $50,000 for the year. Not surprising since that is the year they started the business.

For the record, that doesnt mean that they "only" made $50,000 for the year, making it sound bad. It means they made $0 to $50,000 in 2020. This is not unusual for a new company and does not mean they are a failure.

I did read some of the wikipedia, but honesty the information (overall, not just about Archewell) is usually deemed rather unreliable. But it did say that Archewell opened a bank account in January 2021. I want to explore this because we may be able to work together and figure out what happened based on the Sussex Royal filings.

Wikipedia says:

July 1, 2019 Sessex Royal was registered as a private company limited by guarantee

Feb 19th - news reports that they were stepping down

Feb 21, 2020 It was reported (text says reported on Fox news) that they were told they could not use Sussex Royal - basically shit was hitting the fan, as we all know

March 3, 2020 - Trademark application was filed for Archewell in the US. Yes there was some back and forth on this and some people think their trademark was denied at first. Not true. Trademark law is second only to tax law in a confusing "need a law degree to actually understand it" way.

End of March 2020 they stopped duties as senior royals and were staying in Canada.

April 2020 it was announced the new company would be names Archewell

May 26th is when the USPTO sent them notice or irregularity requesting more information on the Trademark application.

August 2020 they changed the name of Sussex Royal to MWX Foundation and then dissolved it.

October 2020 Archewell website launched
December 2020 website was updated to narrow down the description of the charity side of things
January 2021 a bank account was opened.

So all is this is very normal. The bank account in January 2021 does stand out to me, since they started paying an attorney to file things long before that. It is not unusual for small businesses to use personal money to pay for this type of stuff while the process is getting started and then be reimbursed, so maybe they paid out of pocket for the attorney fees OR they had a running account balance that was paid at a later time. I think the attorney filing the paperwork has worked with Meghan a while, so he may have ok'd sending them a bill. I am not rich enough to know how it works for the fancy stuff.

I do wonder though if there was any money under the Sussex Royal name when they shut it down? I have no idea how the finances would have worked in the UK for a royal owning a private foundation? PP's have said that the regulations are tight though, as are filings. Can someone direct me to where I may look up this information?