CALIFORNIA

Due to recent changes in California’s law, charities that are delinquent with the California Attorney General (AG), California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are effectively being shut out of charitable fundraising platforms, including, but not limited to, Facebook and Blackbaud.  The law prohibits fundraising platforms from allowing charities that are delinquent with any of these agencies to fundraise or receive donations in California via their platform. This effectively shuts down a significant amount of online fundraising activities not just in California, but in all states, due to platforms’ compliance with the California law.  Moreover, since the agencies may take three to six months or even longer to process and confirm the correction of the delinquencies, this change is seriously impacting many charities’ ability to fundraise for an extended period of time.  

Delinquencies with the AG’s Registry of Charities and Fundraisers typically occur when a charity’s registration has expired and it has not submitted renewal documents, or because a deficiency has been identified upon the state’s review of the renewal registration.  In either instance, the delinquency status is effective immediately. The AG has changed its procedure and is no longer sending notices of deficiency with time to cure. Similarly, missed filings with the FTB will cause a charity to be included on its revocation list, which requires the platforms to shut down online solicitation or receipt of donations for the charity in California. 

It is imperative that all filing requirements in California are timely, complete, and accurately met.  If your organization is a California charitable corporation, or conducting operations in the State, it must submit annual filings with the FTB in addition to the annual filings with the AG’s Registry of Charities and Fundraisers.  All charities which solicit contributions in California, unless exempt, have an annual registration requirement with the AG. 

For more information on the California law, please see Has Your Organization Been Blocked by Charitable Fundraising Platforms? It is likely due to California’s new “Good Standing” requirement.

TENNESSEE

Effective July 1, 2024, charities soliciting in Tennessee must file a copy of any applicable commercial co-venturer agreement, along with a state form, at least five (5) business days before the promotion begins in the state.  Applicable commercial co-venturer agreements include those in which the territory of the promotion includes Tennessee.  

UTAH

Following a recent change to Utah’s Charitable Solicitation Law, effective May 1, 2024, charitable organizations will no longer be required to submit an annual registration with the Utah Division of Consumer Protection.  To this end, we have been notified by the Consumer Protection Division that as of March 29, 2024, it is no longer accepting registrations from charitable organizations.  With the elimination of this charitable registration requirement, Utah has also eliminated the requirement to pre-notify the state about charitable sales promotions taking place in Utah.  

The changes in Utah law also require Utah nonprofit corporations or foreign nonprofit corporations doing business in Utah to file their most recent Form 990 as part of their annual corporate registration filing process, unless the organization is exempt from filing a 990 with the IRS. This change will take effect in January 2025 and the Division will promulgate new Administrative Rules reflecting this change. 

Please see our recently updated charts

Charitable Solicitation Registration and/or Filing Requirements

Charity State Registration, Reporting and Contract Filing Obligations Relating to Commercial Co-venturer (CCV) Promotions

The post Charitable Registration Filing Updates for California, Tennessee, and Utah appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

Basic Legal Principles

The New York Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (“NYPMIFA”), the New York version of UPMIFA, took effect on September 17, 2010.  That law made important changes to rules governing the spending of institutional funds and replaced key provisions of the prior statute known as the Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act (“UMIFA”).  The new law was passed after the 2008-2009 financial crisis, a very difficult period for charities administering institutional funds, and gave nonprofit boards broader authority to spend donor-restricted institutional funds while establishing provisions to ensure that boards exercise their authority responsibly.  

Significantly, NYPMIFA made a few changes to the rules governing the modification or release of donor-imposed restrictions on institutional funds.  These changes are summarized in the guidance provided on the website of the Office of the New York Attorney General (the “Attorney General”), entitled A Practical Guide to The New York Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act. In this article we focus on a new procedure created by NYPMIFA for lifting or modifying a donor-imposed restriction on the management, investment, or purpose of an institutional fund without donor or court approval when the institutional fund is less than $100,000 in value and has been in existence for more than 20 years. 

Below I outline the steps for releasing or modifying donor-restricted institutional funds that are under $100,000 and older than 20 years, as outlined in section 555(d) of the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law (N-PCL). In brief, if the institution determines that the restriction is unlawful, impracticable, impossible to achieve, or wasteful, the institution may release or modify the restriction, in whole or part, without court approval, after giving written notice to the Attorney General, unless the Attorney General objects to the release or modification within 90 days. It is the view of the Attorney General that such notice must also be given to the donor if available. The organization may proceed to release or modify the restriction if the Attorney General does not notify the institution within 90 days, or if the Attorney General provides its consent. 

Step 1. Identify Eligible “Small and Old Funds”

The institution should identify any donor-restricted institutional funds that are currently less than $100,000 in value and more than 20 years have elapsed since the fund was established. The institution should locate the original gift instrument and any other supporting document that indicates the fund’s age and value. 

Step 2. Determine Whether to Seek Modification/Release

Once the eligible small and old funds are identified, the institution should determine whether the restrictions on any or all of those funds are unlawful, impracticable, impossible to achieve, or wasteful, such as to warrant release or modification of the restrictions in whole or in part. This determination should be made in a careful and prudent manner by the institution’s board in the exercise of its reasonable business judgment, and documented in appropriate detail in the minutes of the board meeting where the decision was made. 

Step 3. Notify Donors 

Once the institution has determined which of the applicable small and old funds warrant release or modification, the institution must contact the original donor, if available, and try to obtain consent to the modification. A donor who is an individual is “available” if the donor is living and can be identified and located with reasonable efforts. There is no requirement to contact an executor or heir of the donor of the fund. If a donor’s current address is unknown, the institution should make reasonable efforts to locate the donor, including Internet searches and contacting known associates of the donor, such as an attorney who represented the donor when the gift was made. The institution should keep a record of its statutory notice to donors and should document the institution’s efforts to locate donors, even if those efforts are unsuccessful. If donor consent is received, the institution can proceed with its intentions without any further action. 

Step 4. Notify the New York Attorney General 

If the original donor cannot be reached or does not consent to the proposed modification, the institution must notify the New York Attorney General of the institution’s intent to modify or release the donor restrictions from the institutional funds. 

The notice to the Attorney General must contain the following. 

1. An explanation of the institution’s determination that the restriction is unlawful, impracticable, impossible to achieve, or wasteful.
2. An explanation of the proposed release or modification.
3. A copy of a record of the institution approving the release or modification.
4. A statement of the proposed use of the institutional fund after such release or modification.

The notice to the Attorney General must be submitted with the following supporting documents.

1. A copy of the gift instrument and other documentary evidence sufficient to show that the fund’s total value is less than $100,000 and that more than 20 years have elapsed since the fund was established.
2. If the donor is available, and particularly if the donor has withheld consent, a copy of any correspondence between the institution and the donor regarding the proposed release or modification.

The notice must also be given to the original donor, if available. The Attorney General has 90 days to review the notification and object to the release or modification. If the Attorney General does not respond within 90 days, or if the Attorney General responds favorably, then the modification or release is deemed approved. 

Given the many specific requirements that must be met to obtain approval for the release or modification of small and old funds, institutions should consider consulting with legal counsel to ensure compliance with the required process. 

The post Lifting Restrictions on Old and Small Institutional Funds Under NYPMIFA appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

State of the Nonprofit Sector 

Tim Delaney, President & CEO, and Donna Murray-Brown, Vice President of Strategy and Development at the National Council of Nonprofits, presented an overview of the charitable community.  Included in their discussion was the current scale and scope of the sector, external threats to its sustainability, and ideas for how state charity regulators and members of the sector can continue to work together to better protect and serve the community.  

External threats include an increased demand for nonprofit services in an environment of increased costs and reduced contributions.  At the same time, nonprofits are faced with the antiquated and broken systems of government contracts and grants while the sector is experiencing a workforce shortage.  This has weakened the delivery of services to the public.  

Charity regulators and nonprofits are encouraged to work together to protect and serve the public by focusing their efforts on preventing bad actors from misuse of the charitable nonprofit system and on stopping scam artists from masquerading as charitable nonprofits. 

Lessons in Nonprofit Governance from the Big and Small Screen

Gene Takagi, principal of Neo Law Group, entertained participants with key points about “good and not-so-good governance” by quoting characters from popular television shows and movies. My favorites included Ted Lasso (“Believe”), Captain America (“How do we do this? As a team!”), Spiderman (“With great power comes great responsibility”) and Dumbledore (“it takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to your enemies, but a great deal more to stand up to your friends”).   Gene used the quotes to walk participants through key issues of the duties of care and loyalty, delegation, trust and reliance, board composition and vacancies, succession planning, prohibition of private benefits, as well as governance and charitable solicitations.  For more detail, read Gene’s Lessons in Nonprofit Governance from the Screen.

Purpose Driven Board Leadership

Dani Robbins, Director of Governance Strategy at Board Source, delved into a new way of framing nonprofit board members’ roles through a discussion about purpose-driven board leadership which prioritizes purpose and mission over the organization’s needs.  In summary, this framework is premised upon four principles. 

Purpose Before Organization 

Prioritizing the organization’s purpose and the problems it addresses versus the organization as an entity by reframing the “duty of loyalty as the center of its own gravity” to how the organization can best steward its resources to serve its purpose.

Respect for Ecosystem 

Acknowledgment that because an organization’s actions have an impact on the ecosystem it requires an obligation to consider the organization’s actions as part of its decision-making processes. 

Equity Mindset 

Commitment to advancing equitable outcomes, avoiding ways in which the organization’s work may reinforce systemic inequities and being willing to break down barriers that may have been created by the organization in the past. This must be applied across a number of areas including allocation of the organization’s resources, programmatic oversight, and creating a diverse and inclusive board. 

Authorized Voice and Power 

Recognition that the organization’s power and voice must be informed and authorized by those who are impacted by the organization’s work, which requires decisions to be made in the context of real understanding of community assets, needs, preferences, and aspirations, listening to community needs and experiences, and sharing power by inviting individuals to the board who have relevant lived experiences.  

Reframing for purpose requires a shift in focus from the board’s traditional position of operating in service to the organization to a primary responsibility for sustaining the organization and its ability to exist in service to its mission and to its service for the public good with a primary responsibility to steward organizational capacity such that it maximizes positive effect to that core purpose. 

The Uses of Different Business Structures by Charities

While the agenda promised a discussion of “some of the latest developments in what can be complex arrangements and structures in the section,” this session focused on just one – the Versatile LLC. Sharon Lincoln, Partner with Casner & Edwards, LLC, shared her insights about the Versatile LLC in the session “What Board Members and State Regulators Need to Know”.  

She explained that a limited liability company (LLC) is the U.S. version of a private limited company, one that provides flexible tax treatment and limited liability for its members.  It offers three options for the tax classification -corporation, partnership, or disregarded entity.  Ms. Casner then focused her discussion on answering the following three questions. 

Can an LLC operate for philanthropic purposes? 

The short answer is yes, but it requires a review and understanding of statutory considerations, the LLC’s certificate of formation and operating agreement, as well as who or what are the members of the LLC and how the activities of the LLC will be funded.

Can an LLC operate as or be a 501(c)(3) organization? 

A single-member LLC may be a subsidiary of a 501(c)(3) organization (see also IRS Notice 2021-56 which permits an LLC to apply on its own for recognition as a 501(c)(3) under certain circumstances). 

When can an LLC be useful to a charity?

This answer depended upon the various forms of corporation, partnership, or disregarded entity.

The discussion concluded with some state-specific considerations, such as what purposes the LLC statute permits and charity bureau oversight in related-party transactions, mergers, asset transfers and dissolution. 

State Update

Unfortunately, noticeably lacking in this year’s conference was a robust discussion about the state regulators’ enforcement efforts.  Only twenty minutes of the five hours allocated were devoted to sharing enforcement updates.  The Annual Report on State Enforcement and Regulation, which highlights enforcement actions in the areas of deceptive solicitations, governance and trusts and estates, as well as summarizes outreach efforts and published guidance, transaction reviews and updates regarding regulations and legislation was provided with the conference materials.  It was not, however, a substitute for the usual color and insight that have been shared with conference attendees in the past, a key incentive for attendance by members of the sector. 

The post Noteworthy Sessions from the 2023 NAAG/NASCO Conference appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

What is CPA?

The Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) is a state law that gives consumers the right to know what personal information is being collected about them, why it is being collected, and how it will be used. The CPA also gives consumers the right to control how their personal information is used and to remove their personal information.

Who Should Care?

The CPA applies to any organization that controls or processes personal data regarding 100,000 Colorado consumers or derives revenue or receives a discount on the price of goods or services from the sale of personal data and processes the personal data of 25,000 Colorado consumers or more. The CPA defines ‘consumers’ as Colorado residents acting in their individual or household contexts. Excluded from that definition are individuals acting in a commercial or employment context. For nonprofit organizations “consumers” includes donors and visitors to their websites. 

What Consumer Rights Are Granted By the CPA?

The CPA grants Colorado consumers various privacy protection rights related to their personally identifiable information, and the opportunity to learn more about the types of data being collected, shared, and sold. These rights include:

• The right to opt out of the sale of personal data.
• The right to opt out of the collection or use of personal data for targeted advertising or various types of profiling.
• The right to know whether an organization is processing or collecting their personal data.
• The right to access personal data an organization has collected.
• The right to delete personal data an organization has collected.
• The right to correct the data an organization has collected.
• The right to download a copy of their personal data.
• The right to transfer their data from one platform to another (up to two times per year).

How Can My Organization Comply with CPA?

To comply with the CPA, organizations must provide consumers with clear privacy notices and conduct data protection assessments for any personal data processing that presents a heightened risk of harm to consumers. What qualifies as a “heightened risk” is not clearly delineated, however. Generally speaking, organizations which are subject to the CPA should:

• Update their privacy policy to address the CPA requirements, including the “categories” of personal data processed. 
• Update their contracts with third parties (i.e., anyone that “processes” personal data on their behalf) to ensure that they comply with the CPA. The CPA requires that these contracts include (i) processing instructions, including the nature and purpose of the processing; (ii) the type of personal data and duration of the processing; and (iii) obligations to delete or return all personal data at the end of the services period.
• Ensure that they are implementing appropriate physical, organizational and technical cybersecurity safeguards and depending on the nature and use of the data collected, conduct a data-protection assessment.
• Create a process to allow consumers to submit requests and receive information regarding their use of consumers’ personal data. Generally, organizations have 45 days to respond to such requests. 
• Provide clear and conspicuous notice of the right to opt out of targeted advertising and sales of personal data. 
• Establish the technical specifications of a user-selected universal opt-out mechanism by July 1, 2024. 
• Obtain consumers’ informed consent before collecting sensitive data. 
• Establish a procedure to determine when to conduct a data protection assessment.

Universal Opt-Out 

In an interesting twist, the CPA will make Colorado the first state to explicitly require companies to honor a universal opt-out signal. Starting July 1, 2024, organizations must allow individuals to opt out of targeted advertisements and/or the sale of personal data through a universal opt-out mechanism that meets the technical specifications established by the State Attorney General (AG).  I’ll explore this in detail in a future article. 

Conclusion 

While many of the rights and obligations set forth in the CPA should be familiar to organizations that process personal data, the CPA includes some additional requirements not seen in the other state data privacy laws. These include new consent requirements regarding sensitive data and a universal opt-out, as well as requirements around data processing and data privacy.  Organizations should review their data privacy policies and procedures with legal counsel to ensure compliance with the CPA.

The post Colorado Privacy Act – Rocky Mountain Regulations appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

Expansion of Electronic Consent

Under the N-PCL, members and directors are permitted to take action without a meeting by unanimous written consent, which consent can be either written or electronic. (See N-PCL §§ 614(a) and 708(b)) Under the previous law, electronic consent was limited to electronic mail, otherwise known as e-mail.

To keep up with emerging changes in technology, the legislation allows members and directors to act without a meeting by unanimous consent undertaken by “other electronic means” in addition to email. This means that director or member consent can also be provided through other technology methods besides e-mail, such as the use of electronic portals that facilitate the collection of votes.

Board Vacancies

Under the previous law, when a director was elected or appointed to fill a vacancy in an unexpired term, that director was only able to fill that vacancy until the organization’s next annual meeting. (See N-PCL § 705(c)) This provision was often impractical for organizations with classified boards in which board members serve for staggered, multi-year terms, and the seat of the director whose vacancy was being filled was not set to expire at the next annual meeting.

The legislation provides increased flexibility in selecting terms for replacement directors. A director elected to fill a vacancy in an unexpired term can now hold office until the end of the term that the director was elected or appointed to fill, or for a different term determined by the board which ends at an annual meeting. These changes give boards more leeway to select a different term when filling a vacancy that better aligns with the organization’s specific objectives.

Clarification to Board Quorums

Under the N-PCL, any action taken by the board of directors requires a quorum to be present at the time of the vote.  (See N-PCL § 708(d)) The amendment clarifies that directors who are present at a meeting but not at the time of a vote due to a conflict of interest or related party transaction are deemed present at the time of the vote in determining if there is a quorum.

Takeaway

These latest amendments to the N-PCL help to modernize and update the laws around not-for-profit governance structures in a positive way. New York not-for-profit organizations may want to consider updating their certificate of incorporation and/or by-laws to reflect these changes, which may help them streamline their governance procedures.

The post New York Modernizes Nonprofit Law by Enacting Technical Amendments appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

While “pay-for-play” is still prohibited by the NCAA,² these new rules have opened the door for college athletes to explore a new world of sponsorships, endorsements and compensation.  For example, college athletes can now earn money for commercials, appearances, speeches, social media posts, hosting sports camps, giving lessons, writing books and more — all without violating NCAA rules.

“NIL collectives” have emerged as the chief brokers of these opportunities.  This article discusses what NIL collectives are, their legal forms of organization, and the regulatory framework that governs them.

How are NIL Collectives Structured?
NIL collectives are entities that are structurally independent of a school, yet fund NIL opportunities for the school’s student-athletes. They are typically founded by well-known alumni and supporters of the school.  Collectives generate and pool revenue raised through contributions from a wide variety of sources, including boosters, businesses, fans and more.  They use these funds to create opportunities for student-athletes to leverage their NIL in exchange for compensation.

While a number of NIL collectives have been formed as for-profit entities,³ in a growing number of cases, they have been formed as nonprofits. Numerous nonprofit collectives have, in turn, sought and obtained 501(c)(3) public charity status from the IRS, which potentially allows donors to receive a tax-deduction for their contribution to the collective.⁴

Tax-exempt collectives typically use student-athletes as independent contractors to help further their charitable mission.  For example, some provide in-kind contributions of a student-athlete’s services to other charities, including speaking, appearances and other public relations services that help expand the charities’ reach and visibility in their communities.  The student-athlete is paid by the tax-exempt collective to provide the services, while the other charities receive these services on a pro bono basis.

Special Rules Governing Tax-Exempt NIL Collectives
Collectives that obtain tax-exemption should be mindful of special rules that apply to tax-exempt entities.  These rules are enforced not only by the IRS, but also by State Attorneys General, whose responsibility is to ensure that charitable funds are used for charitable purposes. These rules require that tax-exempt cooperatives operate differently from the typical NIL collective.

For example, NIL collectives commonly facilitate endorsement, merchandising and marketing deals that allow for-profit companies to promote their products and services using a student-athlete’s NIL, which helps these for-profit companies increase business and revenues.  Many NIL collectives have the flexibility to promote such commercial interests due to their structure as for-profit (and therefore, taxable) entities.

However, facilitating commercial deals does not constitute a permissible purpose for a charitable, tax-exempt organization.  Therefore, if a tax-exempt NIL collective engages in such activity, revenues from this activity could be taxed by the IRS as unrelated business income – i.e., income from a trade or business, regularly carried on, that is not substantially related to the collective’s charitable mission.

Also, if the IRS finds that these commercial activities constitute a primary or substantial non-exempt purpose of the organization, the IRS could revoke its tax-exempt status.⁵ State Attorneys General could bring enforcement actions for similar reasons.  Therefore, if a tax-exempt collective facilitates marketing or similar NIL arrangements, it should generally avoid arrangements promoting goods and services of for-profit companies.  However, it could use the NIL of student-athletes to help promote and amplify the charitable missions of nonprofits serving communities.⁶

NIL collectives are also becoming well-known for offering lucrative compensation to student-athletes in connection with promotional deals.  For many collectives, their status as for-profit entities give them the flexibility to do so.

But, in the context of a tax-exempt collective, these payments must be reviewed carefully to ensure they do not constitute “excessive compensation” for federal tax law purposes.  NIL collectives should therefore carefully structure athletes’ compensation in accordance with IRS rules to ensure it does not exceed fair market value.  Failure to do so could put the collective at risk of losing its tax-exemption, and lead to potential enforcement actions by State Attorneys General.

However, it should be noted that even if such compensation is determined to be reasonable, a tax-exempt NIL collective could nevertheless lose its exemption if the IRS determines that its primary or substantial purpose is to pay or recruit student-athletes.  For this reason, it’s important that tax-exempt collectives work closely with legal counsel to ensure they have well-constructed charitable programs.

Given the risks outlined above, an NIL collective seeking tax-exempt status should carefully consider whether any of its time and resources will be spent on pursuing commercial (non-exempt) activities.  Collectives considering such activities should consult with counsel to reconsider its structural options, and discuss whether it would be advisable to create a for-profit subsidiary to house any commercial activity.

NCAA Interim Rules
Aside from understanding the regulatory framework discussed above, NIL collectives (no matter their legal form) should have an understanding of the NCAA rules which, as of the time of this writing, consist of interim rules adopted in July 2021.  These interim rules will remain in effect until federal legislation creates a national standard (which is what the NCAA is calling for), or until new NCAA rules are adopted.  While the purpose of the interim rules is to suspend NCAA restrictions on athletes’ profiting off their NIL, the rules maintain certain guardrails to prevent “pay-for-play” and similar arrangements.  Subject to state law, the following is prohibited under the interim rules:

• NIL opportunities cannot be used as a recruiting tool for prospective student athletes.  Such an action is considered an “improper recruiting inducement.”  Therefore, NIL collectives should refrain from making offers of NIL opportunities contingent upon a student-athlete’s enrollment at a particular school.
• As discussed above, NIL arrangements that constitute “pay-for-play” are also prohibited.   This rule prohibits any kind of arrangement that constitutes compensation in exchange for a student-athlete’s participation or performance in college athletics.
• NIL agreements should be specific about the NIL work being performed by the athlete in exchange for compensation, and such compensation should be paid only for work performed.  Such compensation must be determined through an independent analysis, based upon the facts of each specific case and the value each athlete offers to an NIL arrangement.
• The NCAA interim rules prohibit compensation from any school in exchange for the use of a student athlete’s name, image or likeness.  In addition, schools may not direct how student-athletes use NIL compensation.  (For example, schools may not require a student-athlete to use NIL compensation for financial aid.) Athletic department staff are not allowed to represent student-athletes in marketing their athletic ability or reputation.  They also may not communicate with a recruit on behalf of an NIL collective.  In addition, such staff may not facilitate a meeting between an NIL collective and a student-athlete, including, for example, by sharing a recruiting list or watch list.

State Laws and School Policies
As noted above, the NCAA’s interim rules are subject to state law, which varies depending on the state.⁷  Therefore, NIL collectives should take steps to ensure compliance under any applicable state law, including any state law that applies to the collective, the school where the student-athlete is enrolled, as well as the state where the NIL activity will take place.

The collective should also look at any specific NIL policies established by the college.

Both state laws and school policies may include reporting requirements that NIL collectives should be aware of, and some state laws prohibit athletes from entering into a contract that conflicts with the student-athlete’s team contract.

Understanding the regulatory framework governing NIL collectives will help avoid missteps that can lead to punitive actions by the IRS, NCAA or State Attorneys General, or scrutiny from Congress, which has also taken an interest in these entities.  As the NIL’s regulatory environment continues to evolve, it is incumbent on both collectives and student-athletes to take affirmative steps, including consulting with legal counsel, to ensure compliance.

1 This dramatic shift by the NCAA also came on the heels of its loss before the U.S. Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021). Though NIL compensation was not the subject of this case, Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion which suggested that the NCAA’s NIL compensation rules could be in violation of antitrust laws, and stated that “the NCAA is not above the law.”  The NCAA’s change also follows action by numerous states that, since 2019, had led the way in creating NIL rights for student athletes.

2 As discussed later in this article, “pay-for-play” refers to any kind of arrangement that constitutes compensation in exchange for a student-athlete’s participation or performance in college athletics.

3 Other legal forms taken by NIL collectives have included formation as for-profit limited liability companies (“LLCs”), which provides more flexibility in a number of ways.  For example, unlike tax-exempt nonprofits, for-profit LLCs are not subject to a cap on what’s considered reasonable compensation.  They may therefore offer student-athletes NIL work at any compensation structure.  For-profit LLCs are also not subject to limitations on the type of activities they can facilitate.  Therefore, unlike tax-exempt entities, for-profit LLCs may facilitate NIL arrangements for student-athletes such as merchandising or endorsement deals which promote commercial activities.  NIL collectives should consult with counsel to discuss the various pros and cons of these options.

4 On September 29, 2022, Senators John Thune (R-S.D.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) introduced the Athlete Opportunity and Taxpayer Integrity Act which, if passed, would “prohibit individuals and organizations from using the charitable tax deduction for specific contributions that compensate college or incoming college athletes for the use of their (NIL).”   They argue that “(s)uch activity is inconsistent with the intended purpose of the charitable tax deduction, and it forces taxpayers to subsidize the potential recruitment of – or payment to – college athletes based on their NIL status.”  As of the time of this writing, this federal legislation is the latest of more than a handful of NIL proposals introduced, but not yet passed, in Congress.  Congress’ appetite for eventually passing NIL legislation is unclear, though these proposals do indicate that NIL collectives are facing increased scrutiny from Congress.

5 Regs. Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(e)(1) and Sec. 1.501(c) (3)-1(c)(1).

6 One example of this approach is discussed in the previous section – i.e.,  tax-exempt collectives that provide in-kind contributions of a student-athlete’s services to other charities to help them promote their charitable missions.

7 As discussed above, the NCAA is lobbying Congress for legislation that would create a national standard, and thereby pre-empt differing state laws.

The post Seeking Tax-Exemption for a Name, Image and Likeness Collective (NIL)? What to Know. appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

Current Trends and Issues in Charitable Regulation

Regulators
Conference panels presented by various state regulators covered ongoing trends and issues. Public trust of the charitable sector was a topic of general concern, based on surveys indicating a decrease in the trust in the nonprofit sector.  The regulators noted that they play an important role in enhancing trust by providing meaningful oversight of the sector.

Noteworthy topics included the importance of Board governance and oversight, particularly in monitoring the organization’s finances. The panelists noted a rise in for-profit entities soliciting in-kind disaster relief, particularly those that do not have a nonprofit partner. This trend has been largely observed in connection with the rise of natural disasters and the war in Ukraine.   Regulators are also troubled by the balloon and bust of opioid-crisis relief organizations. This is threatening given the importance these organizations play in their local communities. Such failures have been attributed to their overly rapid growth.

Several state regulators noted an increase in mergers and acquisitions filings of hospitals. Approval of these transactions generally turns on the question of whether the transaction is in the best interest of the community. As for charity care, regulators noted that nonprofit hospitals have a duty to provide subsidized care to patients in need, something they say they have seen too little of.

A notable increase of fraud, committed in the name of charities or directed at charities, is also of concern. It is reported that there has been a rise of bad actors using the name and information of known and respected charities to commit fraud.  One typical scheme is the impersonation of regulators claiming that registration fees are past due. Charities that receive such calls are admonished to use best efforts to confirm the identity of caller.

NASCO puts out an annual report detailing trends on state regulation and enforcement.

Nonprofit Sector and Practitioner Panelists
In the afternoon, other stakeholders in the charitable sector spoke on the trends they have observed during the past year. Jan Masaoka, CEO of the California Association of Nonprofits, discussed the Association’s concerns with donor-advised funds (DAFs) arising from the delay in time between donor benefit (i.e., the donor’s tax-deduction) and the donation reaching its target community. Erin Bradrick, Principal of NEO Law Group, spoke on the growth of fiscal sponsorships and the lack of sector education and oversight that exists. She observed that Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) have the theoretical ability to seek 501(c)(3) status without having a governing body (the core distinguishing characteristic of DAOs).  Ms. Bradrick also noted an upward trend in the politicization of issues directly tied to key nonprofit areas, which have created a tension between state and federal law., naming the recent cannabis and abortion access laws as prime examples.

NFT and Cryptocurrency
Sara Hall, Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel of ALSAC, Andrea Kramer, Partner of McDermott, Will & Emory, Ruth Madrigal, Principal of the Exempt Organizations Group at KPMG, and Beth Short, Director of Outreach and Education, Charitable Law Section of the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, discussed cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and other emerging forms of donation.  The panel noted that these forms are not suitable for all organizations, as there is significant risk and several complex issues to consider in accepting donations of cryptocurrency.

It was noted that organizations that decide to accept NFT or cryptocurrency donations should ensure they have a detailed donation acceptance policy and procedure in place.  The policy should include how the organization will protect the security of the crypto wallets through which they accept the donation, how to appraise the cryptocurrency or NFT, and whether to use an intermediary service like a Donor Advised Fund (DAF). Including the development department on any decision on acceptance of these donations is critical.

Now and Next in Charitable Giving
In her keynote address, Dr. Una Osili, Associate Dean for Research and International Programs at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, made a deep dive into the data to identify donor trends. Among those Dr. Osili highlighted are that giving is at an all-time high, that individuals remain the largest group of donors, and that fewer households are donating. She also pointed to a downturn in religious donations, historically the largest generator of donations, and an upturn in donations to racial identity and environmental groups. Donors are moving from a trend of making passive donations to getting more involved in the causes they support through active engagement and education.

Dr. Osili ended by sharing some of her key findings, notably that giving is the great equalizer. Adjusted for gross income, charitable giving is the same across all groups. Technology, specifically crowdfunding websites and social media, has become one of the strongest vehicles for attracting donations, making up 40% of all giving. Finally, charities should start thinking of the value of donating one’s testimonial and network of connection, not just time and gifts. For more information, visit the Indiana University website at Generosity for Life.

Establishing a Healthy Board
Dr. Gerri King, President of Human Dynamics Associates, taught board mediation and communication techniques. Her talk centered on the five states of group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning. Dr. King explained that at each stage, there are unique challenges affecting Board dynamics, and that any change to the make-up of the Board can be a setback.

Dr. King emphasized the importance of creating a no blame, no gossip environment among the team and the organization, noting that although it sounds simple, it can be intensely difficult to achieve. The benefits, as she noted, are indispensable., creating higher accountability, cohesion, trust and efficiency.

Update on the California Charitable Fundraising Platform Law
Brian Armstrong, Deputy Attorney General of the California Attorney General’s Office, discussed Assembly Bill 488, which is set to take effect on January 1, 2023. This is the first law in the U.S. specifically designed to regulate online charitable fundraising platforms, including through a new registration and reporting requirement, specific required public disclosures, and other provisions designed to safeguard charitable donations received through these platforms.

The proposed regulation is currently in the “review of public comments” stage. Armstrong indicated that a second, 15-day period for public comments will open up again once the review is complete, but did not specify when that would be.  During the follow-up Q&A, our team learned that the registration portion of the law is not likely to go into effect on January 1, 2023. Still pending would be final regulations and the development of the new registration forms. However, the AG’s office intends to begin enforcement of those portions of the law which are not dependent upon the passage of final regulations (e.g., the disclosure requirements).

Charitable fundraising platforms and platform charities should take time to carefully review their current platform disclosures (including disclosures made throughout the user/donor flow, as well as the platform Terms of Use) and ensure they are in compliance with these new requirements.  For more details on the legislation, please read California Enacts New Law to Regulate Charitable Fundraising Platforms by firm partner Karen Wu.

The post Takeaways from the 2022 NAAG/NASCO Conference appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

Navigating the types of activities that tax-exempt nonprofits are allowed to engage in (and how much) without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status can be tricky.  Many charities engage in types of activities that are important to the organization’s mission, donors, and people they serve.  Two activities that charities may use to influence public policy include “advocacy” and “lobbying.”  While advocacy and lobbying are terms that are sometimes used synonymously, the two are distinct in important ways, most notably because federal tax law limits the amount of lobbying that charities may engage in.

How Does Advocacy Differ from Lobbying?

Advocacy can take many forms that do not constitute lobbying, including: leading, directing, conducting, and publishing research; and disseminating educational information.  Charities may engage in many different types of advocacy, and so long as that activity does not constitute lobbying, 501(c)(3) organizations are generally not limited in the amount of time or money they can spend on advocacy.

Lobbying, on the other hand, is subject to specific, restrictive rules.  Charities may engage in only an insubstantial amount of lobbying, and must take care not to jeopardize their tax-exempt status or run afoul of other lobbying restrictions.  Lobbying is any attempt to influence legislation, which can include acts, bills, resolutions, or ballot initiatives by Congress, state legislatures, local councils, or similar governing bodies.  An organization whose employees contact or urge others to contact members or employees of one of these bodies for the purpose of influencing (by encouraging them to adopt, reject, support, or oppose) legislation, is engaging in lobbying.

State and Local Lobbying Registration, Reporting, and Disclosure Requirements

In addition to following the strict federal tax rules governing the type of lobbying and amount of lobbying an organization can engage in,  charities should also be aware of any state and local requirements to register (including registration of certain employees as lobbyists, or registration of the organization itself, which retains and pays lobbyists) and to report lobbying expenditures and activities on a regular basis.¹ Federal and state lobbying rules can be confusing and complicated, and often depend on several factors, including: (1) whether the organization employs an in-house lobbyist or an outside lobbyist; (2) whether any of the organization’s employees are lobbying; (3) the total amount of expenses the organization spends on lobbying activities; and (4) the timing of any contacts or communications made with federal or state officials.

After the organization makes a determination about which federal and state registration requirements apply to its lobbying activities, the organization and its lobbyists must file regular reports (often quarterly or semi-annually) until the registration terminates (the method by which registrations are terminated also varies from state to state), or otherwise expires.

If an organization decides to engage in lobbying activities, it is critical to ensure that executive staff are aware of the applicable requirements for registration, reporting, and disclosure.  Failure to comply can result in fines, censure from the regulatory agency, and possible negative press exposure for the organization.

1 While this article is focused on the lobbying rules as they pertain to 501(c)(3) public charities, it is worth noting that 501(c)(4) organizations, which may engage in unlimited lobbying in furtherance of their tax-exempt missions, are more likely to trigger lobbying registration and disclosure requirements.

The post Is Your Charity Engaged in Lobbying? Make Sure You Know the Rules! appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

While most nonprofits are required to register in many states to conduct charitable fundraising, religious organizations are generally exempt from the registration requirement. It’s important to be aware, however, that the scope of the states’ religious exemption varies. Therefore, religious organizations should carefully review each state’s statutory exemption to determine where they are exempt, and where they are not exempt and therefore may need to register to solicit contributions.

Overview of Charitable Solicitation Registration & Religious Exemptions

Charitable fundraising activities are primarily regulated at the state level, through the offices of the Attorney General, Departments of State, Consumer Protection and the like. Charitable solicitation regulations were established to protect the public from fraudulent fundraising and assist prospective donors in making well-informed giving decisions. Each state’s statutory framework typically requires charities to register with the state, disclose information about their finances and fundraisers, and provide certain oral or written disclosures to their prospective donors. Currently, forty-one (41) states and the District of Columbia require most organizations to register before soliciting charitable contributions in their respective jurisdictions.

Most states exempt or exclude religious organizations from their charitable solicitation registration and reporting requirements. Keep in mind, however, that each state defines the scope of its exemption for religious organizations differently. As a result, some religious organizations may be required to comply with a state’s registration requirements while others may not. Several states require that religious organizations make a written request to confirm that they are exempt from the state’s registration requirements, while others consider it a legal determination to be made by the organization, and explicitly advise that they do not provide legal advice or make a formal determination as to whether or not an organization is exempt.

For some states, the religious exemption provisions are broadly constructed, and exempt any “duly organized religious corporation, religious institution or religious society.” Other exemption provisions are more narrowly drafted, exempting only those religious organizations that are not required to file the Form 990 with the IRS, which primarily includes churches¹, their integrated auxiliaries², and ecclesiastical or denominational organizations. Churches and other non-990 filers are exempt from registering in all states unless they use the services of a professional fundraiser.

As a general matter, religious organizations that are required to file the Form 990 with the IRS will be exempt in some, but not all, states. Many religious organizations that are required to file Form 990 describe their mission as both religious and charitable as together these constitute an expression of their religious faith and values. Direct services for human needs may include the provision of food, shelter, education, and medical support to vulnerable populations. Oftentimes, they incorporate prayer and religious instruction in their programmatic work, and will require their employees to agree to an organizational statement of faith.

It is worth noting that the laws of a few states continue to include a provision in their religious exemption law which the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. These unenforceable provisions limit the scope of the religious exemption to only those religious organizations that are primarily supported by contributions from their members or congregation.³

Impact of Religious Exemptions on Fundraising Professionals

Even when a religious organization is exempt from registering in a state to solicit contributions, in most states, when a fundraising professional provides their services to the organization, the fundraiser must be registered with the state. In a few states, the religious organization’s exemption also extends to the fundraiser’s contract filing and reporting obligations, thereby relieving them of any such filing requirements.

Professional fundraisers (also known as commercial fundraisers or paid solicitors) that directly solicit funds on behalf of charitable organizations are required to register in up to forty-four (44) states. In addition, they must post surety bonds in each state, file copies of their fundraising contracts, and file annual financial reports relating to each fundraising campaign conducted in the state. There are ten (10) states that extend the religious organization’s exemption to their professional fundraiser’s contract filing and reporting obligations.

Fundraising counsels (also known as fundraising consultants) that help plan, manage, advise, or produce and design solicitation campaigns, but do not directly solicit or have custody or control of contributions, are also required to register in twenty-seven (27) states, file contracts, and in a few states, post bonds. There are seven (7) states that extend the religious organization’s exemption to their fundraising counsel’s contract filing and reporting obligations.

Fundraising professionals need to understand the scope of a religious organization’s registration or exemption status in those states in which they will be providing fundraising services to the organization. Not only must they comply with their corresponding filing obligations, but they must also ensure compliance with collateral obligations, such as solicitation disclosures. Thus, it would be prudent for religious organizations to ensure that they have appropriately assessed their exemptions, have documentation to support the exemption in each applicable state, be registered to solicit where required, and communicate with their fundraising professionals to ensure alignment on the impact of their status as a religious organization on both parties’ filing obligations.

Does a religious organization need to register if it solicits on the internet?

In addition to ascertaining whether a religious organization is exempt from registration based on its religious status, a separate analysis should be undertaken to determine if the organization’s solicitation activity creates a jurisdictional nexus that would trigger a state’s registration requirement. For example, a website with a donate button that is accessible to residents in all states does not necessarily create a sufficient jurisdictional nexus. In many cases, it makes sense to undertake a jurisdictional analysis based on the organization’s targeted and/or online fundraising activities before delving into the religious exemption analysis as there may only be a few states where the organization has a jurisdictional nexus based on its fundraising activities. In such cases, the organization may simply review the applicability of the religious exemption in those relevant states.

For more information on how to assess an organization’s registration requirements based on its online fundraising activities, please read this article.

What are the practical steps for religious organizations to determine their registration requirements?

Assess whether registration is necessary or not based on a jurisdictional analysis, taking into account both traditional forms of fundraising (e.g., direct mail, telemarketing, events) and online fundraising activities.
Review with your legal counsel whether your organization qualifies for the religious exemption in the relevant states.
Apply for religious exemptions where applicable and appropriate.
Follow the exemption application procedures in the states that have such procedures in place.
For states that take a “self-determination” approach, and will not formally confirm an organization’s qualification for the state’s religious exemption, it may nevertheless be prudent to submit a letter, putting the states on notice of the organization’s position that it is statutorily exempt from registering as a religious organization.
Register in all applicable states where: (1) a registration requirement exists; (2) the organization is soliciting (and the state has jurisdiction over their solicitation activity); and (3) the organization does not qualify for the religious exemption. Note that charitable solicitation registration must be renewed annually in each applicable state.

The post When are Religious Organizations Exempt from Charitable Registration? appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

The bill follows New York’s passage in 2019 of another diversity related law which calls for a study of the number of women serving on certain corporate boards.

The bill’s sponsors say ethnic diversity is critical to a nonprofit board’s ability to understand its community’s needs.  They say when the ethnic makeup of a nonprofit board mirrors that of the community it serves, the board is more able to relate to the shared experiences of its community, and is therefore better equipped to identify problems and feasible solutions.   The bill makes an analogy to ethnically diverse police departments, stating that as data bears out that diverse police forces provide better service to diverse communities, the same may be true for nonprofit boards.

On January 5, 2022, the bill was referred to the Senate’s Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Committee.  It’s unclear whether this bill will gain traction during this legislative session.  Nevertheless, the call for more diversity on boards is trending not only in New York, but in California, Maryland, Illinois and other states where board diversity requirements have either been enacted or proposed.  Given the growing expectation for greater inclusion of underrepresented minorities on boards, nonprofits should consider familiarizing themselves with best practices for board diversity.

The post New York State Legislature Considers Bills Requiring Diversity for Nonprofit Boards appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.