IRS Looking at Google/Mozilla Relationship 261
ric482 writes "With the release of the Mozilla Foundation's 2007 financial report, questions have been raised by the IRS, who are due to perform an audit on the non-profit organization behind the massively popular Firefox browser.
Last year, the Foundation received $66 million of its total $75 million revenue (88 percent) from search engine maestros Google, so the IRS are looking for blood over the organization's tax exempt status. Back in 2006, Mozilla got $59.5 million from Google — around 85 percent of the organization's revenue.
Google and Mozilla are part of a 'you scratch my back, I'll pay your bills' sort of agreement, with the Google search bar firmly placed in the toolbar, and on the default homepage. Things were a bit rocky a couple of months back when Google unveiled the Beta-run of its Chrome browser, but Mozilla and Google hugged it out and sealed a deal that will last for another three years. That deal will expire in November 2011."
Google search bar? (Score:5, Interesting)
My version of Firefox just has a regular "search bar" that defaults to Google.
If I want another search, e.g., AbeBooks.com, I just change it to that. Does it become an "AbeBooks.com search bar" then?
Re:Soooo (Score:5, Interesting)
Or... They are just doing their job and investigating possible suspicious activities. If Microsoft did the same thing you would be all up in arms on how Microsoft is trying get out of paying more taxes. But Google with Mozilla, that has to be different. Innocent until proven guilty, they are investigating it as it looks fishy but that is.
That's weird (Score:4, Interesting)
What do they plan to tax? Their revenues? Is it just that whenever there's money anywhere the IRS thinks uncle sam should get a share of it? Are they claiming that Firefox is some kind of tax shelter? I don't think that's the case. . .
How come there is no story associated with this summary?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What makes Mozilla different? (Score:5, Interesting)
Generally speaking -- and I'm not specifically accusing Mozilla -- non-profit status is rarely what it seems. Usually the motivation in setting this status up is to avoid certain rules or taxes. It's only proper that this is investigated in Mozilla's case, if most of their income does come from a large highly-successful company.
The IRS should also be taking a very, very close look at Wikipedia. For those reasons, and also the fact that there have been individuals in that organization that have shady financial histories.
Re:Blame Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:nothing wrong with corp. support for OpenSource (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't Epiphany using Gecko, Mozilla's HTML rendering engine?
It may be true that Firefox has kind of lost its way over the years, but you cannot deny it's popular success. And the mere fact that you mention that we should fork it, is testament to their open-sourceness, which is all it was all about in the beginning : have a browser that's better than IE, and that we can claim ours. In that respect, I think Mozilla is a resounding touchdown for the open source movement, and although technically inferior to to Webkit (Chrome, Safari), it still is the less corporate-agenda-encumbered of all browsers.
Re:Another good reason to end corporate taxation (Score:4, Interesting)
Counter thought (Score:3, Interesting)
I generally feel the same way you do. Companies are basically pass-through entities for personal spending and wealth, so why tax them. And from a philosophical point of view, corporations can't vote so why should they be taxed? We're a nation of people.
However I try to keep my mind open to challenge and I saw a recent argument the other way that was intriguing. Basically it made the point that since high corporate taxes penalize profit-taking, they force money to stay in the business, which drives improvements.
By specific example, imagine a corporation is going to report $100 million in profit. If corporate taxes are very low, they'll distribute that to the shareholders. Supply-side economics says the shareholders will then invest their wealth, driving business growth.
But if corporate taxes are high, the company will put that money back into the business (lower prices, take on additional staff, buy capital improvements, etc) rather than report it as a profit. So the money is still used for business growth, but it avoids the round-trip through personal taxation and investment management fees. And it is being applied to a business that has already proven itself a winner (since it made the profit in the first place).
Re:Chrome VS. the IRS? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:nothing wrong with corp. support for OpenSource (Score:1, Interesting)
Advertising is actually a valuable service for a major open source project - it expands the user base, which pushes developer interest and helps argue for corporate adoption. Not as big of a deal for a browser as some apps, but Firefox and OOo's increasing adoption and success have significant trickle-down benefits for the world of open-source applications. Pushing the model as a brand, if you will.
Re:nothing wrong with corp. support for OpenSource (Score:5, Interesting)