Are you referring to where I wrote "profit made be spent on the company"?
If so, I'd like to point out that expenses are not the only way you can spend on a company. Someone may also invest profit that they have made into expansion, for example.
"profit" can never be consumed by expenses, by definition (as you have pointed out). Profit can, however, be re-invested in a company, as opposed to being taken by the owner or shareholders, or whatever.
How I'm understanding is that these things happen at different times.
1. Business operates for X days (1 quarter, 1 year, whatever)
2. Business calculates it's profit (revenue - expenses)
3. Business now has a choice on what to do with it's profit.
At t = 3, the profit is not an expense, though it will ultimately be used to benefit the company/cause (if it's a nonprofit).
nonprofit organizations must decide what to do with profit, if they have generated more revenue than they have expenses. The difference between a nonprofit organization (from another org) is that the profit must go either back into the company, or into the cause. Arguably, the money that goes back into the company goes into the cause anyway, as it is in service of the cause.
Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, I could see it being incorrect to call something "profit" that is never allowed to be spent on anything other than the company/cause. However, the strict definition of profit is pretty bare-bones, simply revenue - expenses, so I think it qualifies.
A nonprofit with profit is a contradiction. I get that some may perform calculations with labels called profit, but that contradicts the underlying thesis of the organization (as you've admitted).
