my understanding is that the limited number of shareholders are only voting shares, not ownership interest. this is the case because the corporations are all charities (non-profit organizations). with a non-profit corporation, no share holder, officer, etc. is allowed to profit from an ownership interest. in a sense charities are "owned" by the public. they enjoy their tax-free status because they give back to the public or serve the public's interest. if someone that is private individuals were allowed to benefit, then that would be a taxable situation. (of course this doesn't mean that charities don't take in more revenue than expenses (i.e. profit), can't pay a reasonable percentage of operating costs as salaries or on personnel, etc., or are exempt from all forms of taxation.)
charities are set up for the benefit of the general public or with specific purposes to serve specific segments of the public. if a charity has to be wound up, after payment of any debts, any residual assets are either distributed in accord with the Articles of Incorporation or in the absent of a specific directive, in a manner that would similarly serve the public interest as the purpose of the charity. Generally the board of directors has this responsibility to wind up the non-profit corporation (charity) and makes such decisions as to the distribution or use of assets. If however, there is no acting board of directors or responsible party, the State Secretary where the charity is incorporated would make such a distribution or allotment. The goal would be to use such assets to serve the public interest in comparable fashion, so for example lets say there were a certain sum left of cash, no board, and the State Sec is making the decison, the State Sec could distribute the funds to other religious or bible charities/non-profits.
nice hypo but it will not happen. the WTS will shrink in scope and assets as it reshapes its paradigm and purpose in the 21st century, but some non-profit corp will continue probably indefinitely.