patrimonio de la asociación

11:39 Jan 19, 2011 

"Recursos patrimoniales" is just another way, a more 'elegant' way of saying "Patrimonio"; this is how it usually appears on Uruguayan bylaws/Articles of Iincoporation etc

11:32 Jan 19, 2011 

Fine. Recursos Patrimoniales would have been easy. It is far wider than Patrimonio. But let's leave it there.

11:22 Jan 19, 2011 

I don't want to go on with the discussion, but believe me, "Recursos Patrimoniales" or "Patrimonio" is definitely referring to "Capital" as it is directly referring to an account on the balance sheet whether referring to "cooperatives" (I don't know where did I get the idea that it was a cooperative, I must have confused with another question...) or "non-profit organizations" (as the case here, despite Fabio's refusal to translate it that way).
I see this all the time and have translated many time and "capital social", "reservas", "ajustes y reexpresiones contables", "resultados acumulados" are all items of the Capital account (or Equity). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_sheet

06:53 Jan 19, 2011 

In your link regarding cooperatives it states:
Artículo 52. (Recursos patrimoniales).- Son recursos de naturaleza patrimonial de las cooperativas para el cumplimiento de su objeto social, los siguientes:
1) El capital social.
2) Los fondos patrimoniales especiales.
3) Las reservas legales, estatutarias y voluntarias.
4) Las donaciones, legados y recursos análogos que reciban destinados a incrementar el patrimonio.
5) Los recursos que se deriven de los otros instrumentos de capitalización.
6) Los ajustes provenientes de las reexpresiones monetarias o de valuación.
7) Los resultados acumulados.

The term 'recursos patrimoniales' would I think be the term which the legislator had in mind in our context here. It would certainly avoid all this discussion. And it also takes us back to Robert's term.

It is by no means uncommon for legislators to misuse terms. The courts are full of cases where legislative terms have to be clarified and the usual criterion, at least in England, is What did the Legislator intend?
PS. If I'm going on too much just say so.

06:33 Jan 19, 2011 

This type of body CANNOT be a cooperative. When skimming your reference I saw:
"El empleo del vocablo "cooperativa", o el de "cooperación" o sus derivados, ya sea como denominación, marca o nombre comercial, queda prohibido a toda persona que no se ajuste a las disposiciones de la presente ley."
So it ain't a cooperative!!!

I would not dispute that asociaciones civiles may have de facto 'capital' in accounting terms but I think here the term patrimonio covers more than this and 'capital' must be wrong.

06:16 Jan 19, 2011 

I agree as to cooperatives. Your link makes that clear. But then cooperatives are formed for essentially mercantile purposes under a different organisational system. Looking at the link in the question there is no reference to capital at all. In fact these bylaws are extremely short and simple, appropriate to what are basically small clubs and groups. I could imagine one of these associations maybe running the local football pitch or some such. I may be totally wrong of course. Finally, these items mentioned, aportes ordinarios at least, would cover say annual subscriptions which would constitute income, not capital. Do these organisations not have any income?? If they did would it not be included under the term patrimonio in the sense used??

06:01 Jan 19, 2011 

This type of associations (and particularly "cooperativas") do have a capital as such; the Law that regulates these entities specifically states so (at least this is how it goes in Uruguay). Besides, "financial resources" is too generic; it does not convey the full meaning.
Here's the Law: http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18...

05:48 Jan 19, 2011 

In this context, of a non-mercantile entity, I think it would be inappropriate to extrapolate terms used in business. Patrimonio can often be translated as 'assets and liabilities' but then the section only refers to assets. Capital would be wrong because it does not have a 'capital' as such and it would be misleading to use it. I think on balance it would be best to plump for something non-commercial sounding hence I think Robert's take is probably the best. I think the legislator here has used an inappropriate term, or at least defined it incompletely.

00:10 Jan 19, 2011 

Activos (Assets) y Patrimonio (Capital, Equity, Net worth, etc depende a qué exactamente se estén refieriendo) son dos cuentas, dos capítulos del Estado contable (balance) totalmente distintas, por lo cual no se puede traducir por "assets".
Activos - Pasivo = Patrimonio ( o Activo = Pasivo + Patrimonio), es la ecuación contable básica y por lo tanto "Patrimonio" nunca puede traducirse por "Assets" (es . Menos en este caso donde habla de "aportes ordinarios de los asociados" y otro tipo de aportes y contribuciones que claramente forman parte de la cuenta Capital, rubro que por definición integra el Patrimonio.
Por lo expresado, en este caso la mejor opción, en mi humilde opinión, es "Capital" (como propuso TechLaw)