How do non-profit corporations legally pay their CEOs if laws say you can&#39;t? I read that CEOs of many charitable organizations can make a pretty penny; however, this directly contradicts everything that is known about charities, which state that legally you cannot use any of the money raised/created for anything but charitable purposes. If that's true, how do CEOs make money? And if I stated a non-profit, obviously that would imply that I could pay myself too. But how is this contradiction explained in the eyes of the law? It can't be both ways. You can't have the CEO pulling money from the NPO and lining his pockets legally, but then say all of it is for "charity by law" and that nobody is getting paid anything for what they're doing. What are the "real" laws here?
Your assumption about charities, "that legally you cannot use any of the money raised/created for anything but charitable purposes" is incorrect. For example, a charitable organization can have an office, and can pay rent for that office; it can pay a janitor to clean up, a secretary to do correspondence, and a CEO to run the operation. The basic generalization for a 501(c)(3) organization is To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. Specifically, A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization. Accordingly, the organization cannot be created with the purpose of benefiting John Smith, or the board of directors of the organization, or shareholders. This does not preclude spending money to operate the charity.
There is nothing illegal with doing this (absent specific contractual terms or industry regulations to the contrary in particular cases, e.g. in the case of export controlled high technology products). This is called operating a wholesale business or operating as a broker. Lots of legitimate legal businesses have this business model.
The real question isn't whether there is a law, but whether you want to keep your job. If you want to do something that you believe will affect your company negatively, and you ask whether it's legal or not, the question alone should show you it's a bad idea. And another question is whether you can be sued, and what it will cost you even if you can win a case, and the answers to that are "yes" and "a lot".
The constitution does not actually forbid "abusing a position for financial gain", and thus it is left to the political process to address any such actions (voting for a different candidate), or the legislative process (defining certain acts as forbidden) – or, the impeachment process. The court system in the US does not have the power to decide on their own what politicians can and can't do, if there is no underlying law. It is within congressional power to define limits on the act of any politician, for example Congress could pass a law requiring the President and Vice-President to have no business interests or stocks during their term of office; they could require that of cabinet members or members of Congress. Such a law would, of course, either require presidential approval or else sufficient support in the houses of congress to override a veto. There are various limits on what government folks can do. 18 USC 202(c) is an example of a limit on the limits: Except as otherwise provided in such sections, the terms “officer” and “employee” in sections 203, 205, 207 through 209, and 218 of this title shall not include the President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge It is possible that a president could engage in a criminal act such as theft, and that is not permitted and would be grounds for impeachment. The president does not, however, have the power to e.g. unilaterally send all government hotel business to a certain hotel company, nor can he declare that 10% of all government expenditures must be deposited in his personal bank account, so the mechanisms whereby corrupt rules of certain other nations can get away with that is that those executives have vastly more power in their countries than POTUS does. With congressional support, though, such acts could come about. If it did, it would not be too surprising if SCOTUS ruled based on common law and considerations of justice that such a law / act was illegal, but it would not be a textualist argument.
Such clauses are called "copyright assignment", "invention assignment", and/or "works for hire" clauses, partly depending on the clause's intent and wording. They're pretty common in employment contracts for software development and some creative positions. Frankly, the clauses don't actually do much, at least in the US -- copyright law already recognizes the concept of works made for hire (which belong to the employer), and claims too far beyond that are often rejected if they aren't obviously related to company business. With that said, your hypothetical programmer's painting is safe unless it depicts, say, the contents of an email from the CEO. :) Even if the clause technically entitles the employer to claim ownership, the employer has no legitimate interest in doing so. Likewise, that app created outside work is safe as long as it is created using no company resources and is unrelated to the employer's business. If the app is obviously related, that's where things get hairy.
As in most of the world, there is a BIG difference between a person running a business and a person owning a company which runs a business. In the first case, the person is liable for all the debts of the business, in the second case, providing they have fulfilled the legal duties as am owner/director (as applicable) they are not liable for the debts of the company. One of those legal duties is to stop racking up debts you can't pay. In either case, your friend needs professional advice (legal and/or accounting) NOW! A person who is insolvent (cannot pay their debts as and when they fall due) can seek protection from their creditors through bankruptcy. German bankruptcy law, by most standards, is brutal but not so brutal as to take away parenting rights or put the person in jail.
Maybe, but maybe not; or, It all depends As with most questions about private foundations, the answer to your question depends on the details about: a) your specific situation; and, b) how exactly the IRS has interpreted the relevant tax code. To figure out what options you have, and which will work best for you, you need to talk to a tax attorney who has worked with foundations. That said, it seems to me that the natural way to accomplish your goal is by treating your work as a “direct charitable activity” of the foundation. “Direct charitable activities” are, as the name suggests, charitable activities that the foundation does itself, rather than paying someone else to do. The money used to pay for “direct charitable activities” does count against the distribution requirement. You really need to talk to a knowledgeable lawyer. In the meantime, you might find this survey of the relevant law, or this survey of what foundations are actually doing, useful. Talk to an attorney about “direct charitable activities”!
There are exceptions to the Title VII prohibition, which "does not apply to discrimination by a religious organization on the basis of religion in hiring and discharge. The exemption applies to an organization whose 'purpose and character are primarily religious.'" In all other respects, a religious organization is bound by the law that everyone else must follow. The EEOC defines "religion" as "includ[ing] moral or ethical beliefs as to right and wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views", but that does not seem to encompass metaphysical beliefs (e.g. about reincarnation, who created the universe...). They also state that "Religious discrimination also includes discrimination against someone because s/he is an atheist". The wording there is of some significance, since it does not say that an atheist organization is a "religious organization" which would be entitled to discriminate in favor of atheists in hiring practices. The statutory definitions section of the law tells us that "religion" includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business which doesn't actually support the commission's decision to extend coverage to atheist employees. That interpretation comes from post-statutory case law, such as Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat'l Lab., 773 F. Supp. 304, 305. What is unclear is what a "religious organization" is. The exemption comes from 42 USC 2000e–1(a): This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities but the definitions do not clearly state that an organization dedicates to denying religious beliefs is legally subsumed under the exemption. Billy Graham would be, dunno about an atheist organization.