ABC Foundation (the “Foundation”) is a private foundation in a major city in the United States. The Foundation has been renting office space in the city’s commercial district, for which it has entered into a lease with an unrelated third party at a market rate. The Foundation is expanding, and its staff requires additional space, actively seeking office space in the local area. One of the Foundation’s directors informs the Executive Director that his son owns a building in the heart of the commercial district and is willing to rent office space to the Foundation at a significantly discounted rate. Aside from the steeply discounted rent, the Foundation would reimburse the director’s son for its share of janitorial services. The Foundation’s Executive Director signs a lease for office space with the director’s son and has paid the necessary deposits.  

On its face, this hypothetical appears harmless. The Foundation stands to gain a significant financial benefit. Although it seems advantageous, this hypothetical contains a number of prohibited transactions under the United States Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) known as acts of self-dealing. Before I explore why, let’s review the basics.

Self-dealing involves any direct or indirect transaction between a private foundation and a disqualified person that personally benefits the disqualified individual. The rules governing such transactions are meant to prevent insiders from improperly benefiting from the foundation’s assets.

More specifically, section 4941 of the Code imposes an excise tax on any “disqualified person” who engages in self-dealing with a private foundation and any foundation manager involved in such self-dealing. An initial tax of 10% of the transaction amount is applied to the disqualified person, while the foundation manager faces an initial tax of 5% of the same amount. If the self-dealing is not corrected, it results in a second-tier tax of 200% on the disqualified person and 50% on the foundation manager.

What is Self-Dealing?

Under section 4941 of the Code, the following transactions constitute acts of self-dealing. 

1. Sale, Exchange, or Leasing of Property

Any sale, exchange, or leasing of property between a private foundation and a disqualified person is considered self-dealing. 

2. Lending of Money or Other Extension of Credit

The lending of money or other extension of credit between a private foundation and a disqualified person constitutes self-dealing. However, loans without interest or other charges from a disqualified person to a foundation are exceptions if the proceeds are used exclusively for charitable purposes.

3. Furnishing of Goods, Services, or Facilities

The furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between a private foundation and a disqualified person is self-dealing unless they are provided by the disqualified person to the foundation without charge and used exclusively for charitable purposes.

4. Payment of Compensation

Payment of compensation or reimbursement of expenses by a private foundation to a disqualified person is self-dealing unless it is for “personal services” that are reasonable, necessary, and not excessive.

5. Transfer or Use of Income or Assets

 Any transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of, a disqualified person of the income or assets of a private foundation is self-dealing. This includes transactions that affect the price of securities to benefit a disqualified person.

6. Payments to Government Officials

Agreements by a private foundation to make payments to government officials are self-dealing, with certain limited exceptions for specific types of payments such as scholarships or awards.

It’s important to understand that the self-dealing rules apply regardless of whether the transaction benefits the private foundation. There is also no minimum threshold—even minor transactions can trigger a violation.

Common Inadvertent Acts of Self-Dealing

Private foundations can inadvertently engage in self-dealing when attempting to operate efficiently or fulfill their charitable mission—often without realizing they’re crossing legal boundaries. Here are five common self-dealing transactions that foundations most commonly run afoul of.

1. Paying personal expenses of a disqualified person
2. Leasing office space from a disqualified person 
3. Loans between a foundation and a disqualified person
4. Excessive or improper compensation to a disqualified person
5. Improper use of foundation assets by a disqualified person

Who is a Disqualified Person?

Generally, a disqualified person regarding a private foundation is anyone or any entity that has significant influence over the foundation’s activities or finances, or who might improperly benefit from the foundation’s assets.

More specifically, section 4946(a) of the Code defines “disqualified persons” (for purposes of the self-dealing rules) as any of the following. 

1. “Substantial contributors” to the foundation. 

2. Owners of more than 20% of the (i) total combined voting power of a corporation, which includes voting power represented by holdings of voting stock, actual or constructive, but does not include voting rights held only as a director or trustee; (ii) profits interest of a partnership; or (iii) beneficial interests of a trust or unincorporated enterprise; if the corporation, partnership, trust or enterprise is a “substantial contributor” to the foundation.

3. Certain foundation managers

4. Family members of any individual described in paragraphs 1, 2, or 3 above. 

5. Corporations, partnerships, trusts, or estates in which persons described in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4 above own more than 35% of the total combined voting power, profits interests, or beneficial interests, respectively.

6. Government officials

Under the Code, a foundation manager is an officer, director, or trustee of a private foundation (or an individual having powers or responsibilities similar to those of officers, directors, or trustees of the foundation). Generally, independent contractors, such as lawyers, accountants, and investment managers and advisors, acting in their respective capacities as such, are not considered officers of the foundation they advise. 

The Code defines “family members” as spouses, ancestors, lineal descendants, and spouses of lineal descendants of substantial contributors, foundation managers, and 20 percent owners. Legally adopted children of an individual are the lineal descendants of the individual under this definition. The notable exception here is siblings. Siblings of anyone in the first three categories are not considered disqualified persons.

Key Exceptions to the Self-Dealing Prohibition

Although the self-dealing rule is broad, there are several important exceptions to it.  These include the following.  

1. A disqualified person can loan funds to a private foundation provided the loan is without interest or charge and the proceeds are used exclusively for charitable purposes. 
2. The furnishing of goods, services, or facilities by a disqualified person to a private foundation is not an act of self-dealing if the furnishing is without charge and if the goods, services, or furnished facilities are used exclusively for charitable purposes. 
3. In addition, the furnishing of goods, services, or facilities by a private foundation to a disqualified person is not an act of self-dealing if such furnishing is made on a basis no more favorable than that on which such goods, services, or facilities are made available to the general public. 
4. A foundation’s sharing of office space, equipment and supplies, support staff, and group insurance with a disqualified person is not an act of self-dealing when the foundation contracts with and pays for such services, etc., directly to lessors and vendors who are not disqualified persons. 
5. Generally, naming opportunities and favorable publicity that benefit a disqualified person due to the private foundation’s payment or grant are considered incidental and tenuous benefits that do not give rise to an act of self-dealing.
6. The payment of compensation (and the payment or reimbursement of expenses) by a private foundation to a disqualified person for personal services that are reasonable and necessary to carry out the exempt purpose of the private foundation is not an act of self-dealing if the compensation (or payment or reimbursement) is not excessive. For example, legal services and investment counseling are considered personal services; however, it is prudent to consult with legal counsel to determine what types of services can be considered personal services.

Correction

The Code allows a private foundation to “correct” an act of self-dealing by undoing the transaction to the extent possible, but in any case, placing the private foundation in a financial position not worse than that in which it would be if the disqualified person were dealing under the highest fiduciary standards. Returning to our hypothetical situation, we can now re-evaluate which options would and wouldn’t be considered self-dealing.

The director’s son, who owns the office building, is a disqualified person in relation to the Foundation. Therefore, he cannot rent space to the Foundation for a fee, no matter how favorable the deal might be for the Foundation. Furthermore, the Foundation cannot reimburse the director’s son for the janitorial expenses; this would be considered self-dealing even though it is only paying its share of the expense. Had the Foundation paid its share of the janitorial services directly to the vendor, that may have been allowed. Several individuals and entities, including the executive director of the Foundation, and the son of the director, who owns the building, could face excise taxes.

In Closing

Sometimes doing a good deed isn’t that simple. Given the complex and extensive tax rules that govern self-dealing transactions, foundations and their disqualified persons should proceed cautiously and seek proper tax guidance before engaging in transactions with disqualified persons.

The post Private Foundations: Be Careful to Avoid Self-Dealing appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

While there is no actual codified definition, MRIs are generally understood to be risk-adjusted or “prudent” market-rate investments.  It is a financial vehicle made out of the organization’s investment assets (e.g., its endowment) rather than its program assets.  Unlike its counterpart, the Program Related Investment (PRI), which has the primary goal of accomplishing a charitable purpose, an MRI seeks to generate a market rate of return on capital while also furthering a social purpose.  Put another way, PRIs offer solutions where the markets do not have a solution, while MRIs use the power of the market to create impact. 

It’s important for foundations seeking to establish their investment strategy to understand the key legal and structural differences between PRIs and MRIs.  Since the requirements to qualify as a PRI are more stringent than an MRI, a PRI avoids being classified as a jeopardizing investment, and can be counted towards a foundation’s annual distribution requirement.  

An MRI, on the other hand, is a commercial investment that also has a goal to create social impact but is not subject to the stringent standards of the PRI.  Consequently, an MRI does not count towards a foundation’s annual requirement and is not excluded from the rules governing jeopardizing investments.  In addition, in calculating the amount of a foundation’s five percent annual distribution requirement, MRIs are not excluded from the foundation’s assets, as is the case with PRIs. (For an in-depth discussion of PRIs, please read Are You Looking to Make an Impact? Consider a Program Related Investment).  

While the rules governing the MRI are not as rigid as those governing PRIs, there are a few key ones that MRIs must comply with. The “Jeopardizing Investments” rule, found in Section 4944 of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), imposes an excise tax on private foundations that invest “any amount in such a manner as to jeopardize the carrying out of its exempt purposes.” A private foundation and its management may be subject to excise taxes for making a jeopardizing or imprudent investment.  Because the Jeopardizing Investments rule applies to MRIs, MRIs must be comprised of prudent investments.

MRIs must also comply with the “Excess Business Holdings Rule.” Section 4943 of the Code states that a foundation, together with its disqualified persons, may own no more than twenty percent of the voting stock of a business enterprise (some exceptions may apply). 

Since MRIs are not treated as a charitable activity but rather as commercial investments, they must meet the prudent investor standards under state and federal law.  The applicable State-enacted version of The Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA) applies a standard for prudent investments whereby “each person responsible for managing and investing an institutional fund shall manage and invest the fund in good faith and with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances.”  In addition, UPMIFA lists a number of factors that must be considered, if relevant, when making an investment.  Most states have adopted a form of UPMIFA. 

Developing an MRI Strategy

The board of an organization that is considering embarking on an MRI strategy should, as a matter of good governance, consider its rationale. Whether as a stand-alone policy or a policy that is incorporated into the organization’s investment policy, drafting a written MRI Policy should be the board’s first step.  The discipline of drafting an MRI policy will ensure that everyone is in agreement when it comes to incorporating MRIs into the overall investment strategy. 

The substance of the MRI Policy will depend in part on the organizational view of MRIs and their purpose.  Some may view MRIs from a programmatic standpoint, wherein the MRI serves as a tool available to the organization in implementing its philanthropic strategy.   Other organizations may view MRIs from an investment perspective and consider it as an opportunity to make a market rate investment that also happens to foster social impact.    

The following is a list of important questions that should be asked when drafting an MRI Policy. 

• Why Does the Organization Want to Make an MRI? 

It’s helpful for an organization to consider what it believes is the key objective for entering into an MRI strategy.  The organization should consider what it hopes to accomplish by making an MRI.  If the full board is in agreement regarding the rationale or objectives for entering into MRIs, it will help support the development of a uniform set of metrics used by the organization when assessing the success of MRIs in achieving those goals.

• Does the organization have the skills and staffing within the organization to carry out an MRI Strategy?  

In order to implement an MRI, organizations will need to rely on individuals with various expertise including investment, programmatic and legal experience.  Executives and the board should determine whether they can utilize in-house staff or board members, or whether they should consider engaging consultants.

The board should take into consideration if it will require a legal opinion that the potential MRI does not qualify as a jeopardizing investment. The size of the MRI relative to the organization’s investment portfolio may be a factor for consideration when determining whether a legal opinion is warranted.  

• Who will be responsible for oversight?  

Prior to entering into an MRI strategy, the board should consider who will be responsible for oversight of the strategy.  If the organization is considering the MRI as a key tool in accomplishing its philanthropic objectives, it may make sense to have both an advisor with programmatic experience as well as one with investment experience onboard. 

On the other hand, if the foundation views the MRI primarily as a market rate investment that also has social impact, a person or committee with investment experience, guided by a board-approved statement of social impact objectives, may suffice.  The investment committee of the board may be an appropriate oversight body for this responsibility when aligned with the foundation’s MRI objectives.  

• What will the balance be between investment risk and social return?

In advance of embarking on an MRI strategy, the board should determine whether it is willing to take a greater financial risk (while still complying with UPMIFA) to the extent the social returns of the investment have the potential to be great.  It may be that, regardless of the potential for social impact results, the board’s appetite for investment risk will remain the same.   Making a riskier investment may require altering existing investments within the organization’s portfolio in order to comply with UPMIFA’s requirement that each individual investment be reviewed in the context of the entire portfolio, in accordance with prudent investor standards.   

Consider the scenario in which the financial rewards are substantial, but the social impact is not as significant.  The answer to these questions will largely depend on how the Board views mission-related investing and why it has decided to enter this arena.  A board would be well-advised to determine in advance of entering into an MRI how it feels about risk and what the appropriate balance is in guiding its MRI strategy.  

• How will the organization measure the success of a Mission Related Investment? 

In reviewing the performance of an MRI, members of the board and management of the foundation should discuss how they intend to measure success.  The foundation could establish that success is based on the investment generating a minimum level of return, while achieving a loosely defined social impact.  For example, investing in a clothing manufacturer that uses environmentally friendly dyes for its fabrics could result in generous returns to its investors but only modest results in terms of reducing harmful environmental impact.  

With a benchmark focusing significantly on market rate returns, an investment that generates modest financial returns but generates substantial social impact may be considered unsuccessful because the return on investment was too low.  The members of the board should consider how much of a social impact they are looking to make through any MRI.   

In Conclusion

The philanthropic sector has come to understand that aligning investments with mission and values can be financially rewarding.  A greater number of foundations have decided to take a portion of their endowment and invest it in ways that align with their mission. Some have decided to invest their entire investment portfolio or endowment in line with their mission.

I predict that in the next few years we are going to see a dynamic shift in the way funders and their boards view their fiduciary obligations. Foundations contemplating entering into MRIs would be well advised to create a policy that articulates how MRIs can be thoughtfully carried out to achieve the desired investment and social objectives.

The post Mission Related Investments – Advantages, Rules, and Risks appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

The IRS prohibits tax-exempt organizations from engaging in activities that are illegal or contrary to public policy. Given the nature of the rally (an attempt to rally support to overturn the results of a presidential election) and its aftermath (an illegal and violent insurrection at the Capitol), some nonprofits that helped organize the rally could have their tax-exempt status revoked under the illegality and public policy doctrines. In this piece, I review the IRS’s rules, discuss how they might apply to the rally, and offer suggestions for nonprofits that want to avoid getting in trouble with IRS.

The Background
Under longstanding IRS rules, tax-exempt organizations must be organized and operated for exempt purposes. An organization is deemed to NOT be organized and operated for exempt purposes if its activities are illegal or contrary to public policy. (For a more detailed discussion of Illegality & Public Policy, see the IRS’s EO CPE Texts from 1985 and 1994). The illegality doctrine acts as a check to assure that the federal government does not support through tax exemption an organization engaged in behavior the government is charged with preventing. Similarly, the public policy doctrine ensures that the federal government isn’t supporting behavior that adds to government’s burdens. To determine whether a nonprofit might lose its exemption, the IRS looks to the nature and extent of the activities carried on by the organization.

The centrality of the improper activities to the nonprofit’s overall purpose is important. If the nonprofit is organized to accomplish an illegal purpose, it should never qualify for tax-exemption in the first place. In other words, if any of the nonprofits that sponsored the January 6 rally had as their central purpose “the armed overthrow of the U.S. government”, they would never have been recognized by IRS as tax-exempt in the first place.

Even if a nonprofit qualifies for tax-exemption, if its activities are illegal or contrary to public policy, the nonprofit may have its tax-exemption revoked. In determining whether illegal activity will lead to revocation of tax-exempt status, the IRS looks at whether the illegal activities were “substantial”, both in terms of how much time and attention were spent on the illegal activity, including the extent to which the illegal activity can be attributed to the organization by virtue of the involvement of its directors or officers or through clear ratification of the organization’s governing body (i.e., quantitatively substantial), as well as the seriousness of the illegality involved (qualitatively substantial). If a group is organized around a permissible exempt purpose, but engages in an isolated egregious illegal act, it could have its tax-exempt status revoked, notwithstanding the fact that a majority of its other activities are law-abiding.

The Seminal Case – Bob Jones University (461 U.S. 574 (1983))
The case that is often cited to explain the illegality doctrine is Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, a case from the 1970s and early 1980s, in which the Internal Revenue Service sought to revoke the University’s tax-exemption because it denied admission to applicants who were either “engaged in interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating.” The case was joined with another, involving the Goldsboro Christian Schools, which maintained “a racially discriminatory admissions policy based on its interpretation of the Bible, accepting… only Caucasian students.”

In the combined Bob Jones cases, the IRS had laid the groundwork by first telling all tax-exempt organizations in a Revenue Ruling that it could no longer justify tax-exempt status for any school that operated in a racially discriminatory manner. (Rev. Rul. 71-447). The IRS determined that to qualify under traditional understandings of the term “charity”, an organization must not act illegally or contrary to public policy. In the IRS’s opinion, the United States had a compelling interest in eradicating racial discrimination in schools.

Both Bob Jones University and Goldsboro Christian Schools claimed that their religious beliefs required the racially discriminatory policies. The Supreme Court nonetheless found that national policy was clearly in favor of racial nondiscrimination and, therefore, the IRS was justified in its requirement that schools operate without discriminatory policies. In other words, the Court determined that the government’s interest in overseeing racially nondiscriminatory schools was so compelling that it overrode the First Amendment interests asserted by the schools.

Holding Groups Responsible For Actions by Members
Next, we should look at whether and how the IRS would hold an organization responsible for the actions its members (or attendees) take. As a general matter, an organization is not responsible for the actions of its members except where the organization “authorizes, advocates for, or ratifies” the members’ acts. If an organization urges its members to commit illegal acts, the organization may find itself subject to consequences, either through revocation of its tax-exempt status or civil action. The standard used in at least one IRS ruling (Rev. Rul. 75-384) was that those illegal activities “which violate the minimum standards of acceptable conduct necessary to the preservation of an orderly society, are contrary to the common good and the general welfare of the people in a community” would disqualify an organization from exemption under 501(c)(4). Similarly, if an organization “induces or encourages the commission of criminal acts by planning or sponsoring” events and, through criminal acts committed by its members, increases the burden on government, the IRS may revoke exemption under 501(c)(3).

Much of the guidance on illegality and public policy revocations is dated, but a new case related to protest activity and liability is instructive to see how our modern courts view organizer liability for actions by attendees at a protest event. A civil case currently winding its way through the courts, McKesson v. Doe, deals with the bounds of First Amendment protection for organizers. In the McKesson case, a police officer was injured by a rock thrown by an unknown protestor at an event where the attendees illegally occupied a roadway. There was no allegation that the organizers intended or foresaw that a rock would be thrown at the protest, but the court recognized that a jury may find that blocking the roadway was authorized, directed, or ratified by the organizers. The Fifth Circuit determined that because rock throwing was a consequence of the illegal activity that the organizers “authorized, directed, or ratified” (blocking the roadway), the organizers could potentially be held liable.

While McKesson v. Doe is far from finished and rests heavily on Louisiana civil law, the discussion by the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court is instructive for the organizers of the March to Save America who may try to invoke the First Amendment as a shield from being held responsible for their attendees’ actions, whether in a civil case or for possible action by the IRS. If the violence that erupted at the March was more foreseeable than the rock throwing in the McKesson case – if the March’s organizers had notice that violence was a likely consequence of their event and if the March’s organizers invited speakers who they knew, or should have known, would increase the risk of violence – the McKesson case suggests that the First Amendment may not shield the March’s organizers from liability.

The March To Save America
Organized and supported by tax-exempt 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations, among others, much of the content of the speeches at the March was a continuation of what those speakers and the nonprofits’ leaders had been saying since the November election – that the election result was somehow invalid (despite no evidence), should be overturned (despite numerous failed attempts in court to do just that), and that supporters of the outgoing President should “fight” to make sure the electoral college votes were tallied appropriately. This history is important under the IRS’s tests to determine whether the attendees’ violent and illegal insurrection at the Capitol is attributable to the organizers (discussed above). If the attendees’ behavior was “authorized, advocated for, or ratified by” the organizers, the IRS may try to attribute the violence in the Capitol to the organizing groups as it assesses whether to revoke their exemption. This might also be the case if a civil litigant injured in the melee and seeks recompense.

The nonprofits involved in the March might argue that the attendees’ later violent behavior should not be attributed to them.  As discussed earlier, the default rule is that organizations are not held accountable for unauthorized activities of their members. Should the IRS pursue any action against the groups, some important considerations will be whether the March’s nonprofit organizers can demonstrate that they did not authorize, advocate for, or ratify the violent actions of their attendees. How they must show this is less clear; they may try to show that they took steps to consider and minimize the likelihood of violence when they invited certain speakers, to try to avoid inflammatory rhetoric at the event, or simply miscalculated the levels of security and other precautions typically required of an event of this size.  Because many of the groups and their leaders have condemned the violence at the Capitol, it could undercut IRS’s argument that the groups condoned or ratified the resultant violence.  Whether that is sufficient to avoid liability or a revocation by IRS remains to be seen.

It’s important to note that the illegality and public policy doctrines are related, but separate.  Consider, then, whether the nonprofits’ peaceful and intentional activities at the March, namely a rally to protest a free and fair election, could be sufficient reason for a revocation as a violation of public policy. The Bob Jones case established that a nonprofit’s exemption can be revoked where no illegality is alleged but because the nonprofit’s activities are so contrary to public policy that they should not be condoned by the federal government with tax exemption. Challenging the tallying of the electoral votes without any real basis, even without illegality and acts of violence, may amount to a violation of the public policy doctrine – it is hard to think of a more central public policy in a democracy than the peaceful transfer of power. The IRS would never provide tax-exemption to an applicant whose stated purpose was to “challenge federal elections and undermine public faith in our democratic institutions, regardless of whether there is any basis to do so.” Yet that appears to be what those groups did, notwithstanding that they would argue they were simply ensuring all “legal” votes were counted.

Lessons to Be Learned
A nonprofit that plans to organize an event that deals with a topic likely to inflame the passions of its supporters must carefully consider how they will manage the risk of aggressive behavior by participants.  The goal is not only to avoid violence, but also to avoid any attribution of it to the organization.  The following are suggested steps to ensure both the protection of the public and the nonprofit organization.

1. Carefully vet the speakers

It may be tempting to invite a popular figure who is supportive of the cause.  If that person has a history of advocating violence, illegal behavior, or is prone to fiery language, it will likely creates a greater risk of inciting the crowd to dangerous behavior. Researching potential speakers before invitation is crucial, including a review of news coverage, social media accounts and other speaking engagements.

2. Develop written guidelines for the speakers

This is useful in many contexts (for instance, many nonprofits want to ensure their events don’t stray into politics, which is strictly prohibited for 501(c)(3) organizations). The guidelines will differ based on the nature of the event, but in general make should sure that speakers specify whether they are speaking on behalf of any organization and that they avoid topics or statements that could get the nonprofit in trouble (or are otherwise contrary to the views or interests of the organization).

3. Monitor the speech and have a plan to pull the plug on any speakers who violates the guidelines.

This step is a last resort in case the speaker makes statements that are inflammatory, advocate illegal activity, or otherwise overstep the guidelines the nonprofit has established. The organizers must monitor the speakers’ statements and be prepared to step in the immediately. If improper statements are made, the nonprofit should swiftly disavow any language considered improper if it were spoken by the nonprofit or its executives.

4. Make sure other safeguards are in place.

Large events require infrastructure.  A reliable vendor can help assess how best to safeguard participants and the public.  However, the organization that sponsors the event bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that basic issues are taken care of – the safety and security of the attendees, speakers, and surrounding community being the foremost concern. The organizers should give ample notice to potential attendees that certain guidelines must be followed – for instance, no weapons. And the organizers should coordinate with local authorities not just to secure any necessary license but also to ensure that adequate manpower is available to oversee and support the event.

Conclusion
We don’t know yet whether there will be any consequences for the organizations involved in the January 6 March for America. If IRS chooses to enforce its illegality and public policy doctrines, the nonprofits may have left themselves vulnerable. Nonprofit professionals can use the episode as a learning experience to avoid such catastrophe in the future and protect their organizations.

The views expressed here are those of the author which, do not necessarily represent the views of the Firm.

The post Nonprofits and the “March to Save America”– Lessons for Responsible Nonprofits appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

That means that organizations and companies that choose to take this payroll tax deferral would then withhold additional amounts from those affected employees’ paychecks from January 1, 2021 through April 30, 2021 to repay that deferred tax obligation.  The payroll tax deferral would not excuse the requirement of payment of such taxes. Additionally, the deferral is not retroactive meaning that an employer may only defer payment of taxes prospectively through December 31, 2020 (it may not include deferral of taxes or reimbursement of taxes to employees that were already withheld starting September 1).

There remain questions about the legality of President Trump’s memorandum in the absence of approval from Congress which constitutionally holds the power over the federal “purse strings”— to tax and spend public money for the national government. Although the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued guidance on August 28, 2020 (Notice 2020-65), employers are still awaiting further IRS guidance regarding how the deferral would be implemented, including whether (or how) an employee’s obligation to pay those deferred taxes or an employer’s obligation to withhold will be forgiven in the absence of Congressional approval, written confirmation that the choice of whether to implement deferrals rests with the employer, not the employee, and employer obligations with respect to such taxes if an employee is no longer employed with that employer at the time that repayment is due.

The payroll tax deferral is simply a deferral, not a forgiveness of taxes.  If an employer does not pay the deferred payroll tax to the IRS by April 30, 2021, it could potentially be liable for penalties, interest and late fees.

Organizations should confer with their legal counsel and accountant before deciding to defer payroll tax withholding and to discuss structuring any agreements with affected employees concerning repayment if those organizations do decide to defer payroll tax withholdings.

The post Employee Payroll Tax Deferral Causes Confusion and Uncertainty for Employers appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

I. Federal Tax Code Limitations on Public Charity Lobbying and Political Campaign Activities

Advocacy
A public charity can engage in an unlimited amount of advocacy in furtherance of its exempt purposes as long as that advocacy does not constitute lobbying or political campaign activity. This type of unrestricted advocacy may take many forms, including public education, nonpartisan research, and nonpartisan voter education, and can lay the groundwork for future lobbying activity.

Lobbying
What is Lobbying?
The Code recognizes two types of lobbying – direct lobbying and grassroots lobbying. In order for advocacy to be considered direct or grassroots lobbying, the communication must reflect the organization’s view on specific legislation.  “Legislation,” in this context, includes action by Congress, a state legislature, local council or similar governing body, and the general public in a referendum, initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It generally does not include action by an executive branch of government or independent regulatory agencies.

Direct lobbying refers to attempts to influence specific legislation through communication with a member or employee of a legislative body or a government official who participates in the formulation of legislation.  A “member of a legislative body” generally includes members of Congress, state legislators, county supervisors and commissioners, city council members, members of international bodies with legislative power, legislative staffers, and the general public when voting on a ballot measure. Communication with other government employees, such as executive or administrative officials and staff, will be considered lobbying if those officials participate in the formulation of legislation and the purpose of the communication is to influence legislation. However, in general, communication with judges, executive branch officials, school board members, members of other similar local special purpose bodies, and members of the public when not voting on ballot measures do not qualify as communication with a member of a legislative body, and are therefore excluded from  the definition of “direct lobbying.”

Grassroots lobbying refers to attempts to influence specific legislation by urging the public to take action with respect to the legislation. Common actions that constitute grassroots lobbying include: (1) directing the public to contact a legislator for the purpose of influencing legislation, (2) providing the contact information for a legislator, (3) providing a means to contact the legislator (e.g., a petition or postcard), or (4) publicly identifying a legislator as being opposed to or undecided about the organization’s view on the legislation.

Public Charity Lobbying Limits
A section 501(c)(3) public charity may engage in direct or grassroots lobbying as long as it does not devote a substantial part of its overall activities to lobbying activities (the “substantial part test”). There is no bright line rule stating what constitutes a “substantial” amount of lobbying activity. Whether an organization has devoted a substantial part of its activities to lobbying depends on all facts and circumstances, including the time of both compensated and volunteer workers devoted to lobbying activity and lobbying expenditures. If a public charity engages in a substantial amount of lobbying activity in any one year, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can revoke its tax-exempt status causing all of the organization’s income to be subject to tax. In addition, the IRS may impose a tax equal to 5% of lobbying expenditures on the organization and, separately, on any manager who agreed to make the expenditures knowing the organization would likely lose its tax-exempt status.

There is little guidance about what constitutes “substantial” lobbying activity and the consequences resulting from a violation of the substantial part test are severe. As a result, many organizations desire a more definite set of rules. Fortunately, Congress responded in 1976 when it enacted Code Sections 501(h) and 4911 setting forth the “expenditure test” as an alternative to the substantial part test. Charities seeking clearer limitations for their lobbying activities may elect to be subject to the “expenditure test” instead of the substantial part test by filing Form 5768 with the IRS (also known as making “a 501(h) election”).

While the substantial part test takes into consideration all facts and circumstances, including time spent by volunteers on lobbying activity, the expenditure test is concerned only with an organization’s lobbying expenditures. Under the expenditure test, lobbying will not jeopardize a charity’s tax-exempt status unless the organization’s lobbying expenditures exceed 150% of the lobbying expenditure allowance set by the Code taking into account the current year and the previous three years. For the first three years of its first election an organization need only take into consideration the years in which the election has been in effect as long as its lobbying expenditures do not exceed 150% of the lobbying expenditure allowance for those years . A public charity that has made a 501(h) election can spend up to twenty-five percent (25%) of its lobbying expenditure allowance on grassroots lobbying or up to the entire amount on direct lobbying. Lobbying expenditures in excess of this allowance will be subject to a 25% tax. Also, for electing charities, the Code exempts certain activities from the definition of lobbying including nonpartisan analysis or research, discussions of broad social, economic, and similar problems, requests for technical advice, and certain “self-defense” communications made by the organization to a legislative body or its representatives.

Political Campaign Activity
In addition to placing limits on lobbying activity, the Code prohibits a public charity from engaging in political campaign activity. An organization engages in political campaign activity when it participates or intervenes, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. Whether an organization is participating or intervening in a political campaign depends on all of the facts and circumstances of each case. The IRS often looks for whether the communication, in content, structure, or distribution, evidences a bias or preference with respect to the views of any candidate or group of candidates. A “candidate for public office” is anyone who offers himself or herself, or is proposed by others, as a contestant for an elective office at the federal, state or local level. Participation in a political campaign might include actions such as endorsing or supporting financially a candidate for public office, a political party or a political action group or making statements in favor of or in opposition to a candidate. Certain voter education activities, such as releasing voter guides or legislative scorecards can, if structured appropriately, be conducted in a non-partisan manner and not constitute political campaign activity. A public charity that engages in any political campaign activity will lose its tax-exempt status.

II. Creating an Affiliated 501(c)(4) Organization

The limitations placed on public charity lobbying and political campaign activity may not allow a charity to engage in the level of advocacy necessary to achieve a desired policy outcome.  One option in this instance is to establish a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. Contributions to a 501(c)(4) are not deductible as charitable contributions, but 501(c)(4)s may engage in an unlimited amount of lobbying as long as the issues relate to the exempt purpose of the organization. In addition, 501(c)(4) organizations may engage in limited political campaign activities, subject to campaign finance laws, as long as these activities are not its primary activity. Charities should consider the operational and strategic implications of this decision, including:

• if there is a sufficient donor base to support a new 501(c)(4) organization;
• if additional advocacy tools will complement the 501(c)(3)’s advocacy efforts;
• whether the organization’s policy issue has been politicized in a way that makes it difficult to discuss in a non-partisan manner; and
• the effect of establishing an affiliated 501(c)(4) on the organization’s reputation.

Below are a few more considerations for public charities that plan to establish an affiliated 501(c)(4) organization.

Legal Separation
The 501(c)(4) must be a separate legal entity from the 501(c)(3). Usually, 501(c)(4) organizations are established as corporations under state law and, as such, are required to observe corporate formalities. The two organizations should maintain their own books and records, bank accounts, mailing addresses, and file their own tax returns and applications for tax-exempt status.

The board of directors of the 501(c)(4) organization must operate independently from the 501(c)(3), including holding distinct meetings. The 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) may have board members in common. If the boards completely overlap, careful attention must be paid to keep meetings and decisions separate so that it is clear which board is acting at a given moment. Even with careful recordkeeping, there are reasons to keep board overlap to a minority of the board. Minority overlap will allow the disinterested majority of the board of each entity to approve financial transactions (e.g., grants or loans) between the entities and protect the interests and separate existence of both entities. Further, if the 501(c)(4) will engage in any political campaign activity, it is often advisable to increase the separation between the two entities to reduce the risk that any political activity of the (c)(4) may be attributed to the 501(c)(3).

Financial Separation
A 501(c)(3) must not subsidize the day-to-day operations of an affiliated 501(c)(4). If the two entities will share office space, equipment, and/or staff, the (c)(4) must pay its share of the cost. Typically, this arrangement is memorialized in a written cost-sharing agreement.

Shared employees should keep written time records in order to support allocation of salary between the two organizations. This is critical if the (c)(4) will engage in political campaign activity since the (c)(3) may not directly or indirectly support the political activity of the (c)(4).

As in the case with employee time, the (c)(4) should pay its fair share for any office space or equipment used so that the (c)(3) is not subsidizing the (c)(4)’s activities. The (c)(4) might sublease office space from the (c)(3) at fair market value, pay its share of the rent to the landlord directly, or even pay the full amount of rent and allow the (c)(3) to occupy the space free of charge.

Operational Separation
The charity may not control or give the appearance that it controls the everyday activities of the (c)(4). The (c)(3)’s and (c)(4)’s purposes may align, but each organization should maintain and document its own levels of authority and responsibility in day-to-day operations. Set up good legal compliance systems from the beginning and train staff so they know these systems and can make sure they function effectively.

There are a number of other considerations when establishing an affiliated 501(c)(4) organization, including issues related to applying for tax-exempt status, startup costs, joint fundraising, grants or loans between the organizations, and whether the two entities can share other resources, such as donor lists or a website.  To navigate these issues, it is helpful to seek qualified counsel.

The post Public Charities, Lobbying Limits, and Affiliated 501(c)(4)s appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

An IRA allows an individual to save for retirement using pre-tax money. Generally speaking, the earnings and gains in an IRA aren’t taxed until distribution. Once the individual reaches 70½, they must to begin taking distributions from their IRA. Failure to do so may subject them to penalties from the IRS.  Distributions from the IRA are taxable in the year they’re received.

Alternatively, there is a happy exception that benefits both charities and donors! The individual can make a “qualified charitable distribution” to a charity, which is not taxable, up to a maximum amount of $100,000 per year. If the donor exceeds the $100,000 cap, the excess distribution is taxable. Sadly, this option is not available for ongoing SEPs (wherein contributions continue to be made) or SIMPLE IRAs.

There are a few restrictions – the donation can’t go to a supporting organization, nor can it go into a donor-advised fund. The charity needs to treat the donation like any other, by issuing an acknowledgement. Most importantly, the donor (and the IRA trustee) should confirm that the recipient organization is a tax-exempt public charity.

The post Qualified Charitable Distributions from an IRA – It’s not too late! appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

Some donor advisors request the DAF to purchase a ticket to a charitable event, such as a gala, in order to support a charity of their choice. Typically, such tickets cost more than the fair market value of what the purchaser receives in return, such that when purchased directly (not through a DAF), the purchaser enjoys a tax deduction on the price of the ticket exceeding the fair market value.

The charitable community sought guidance on a DAF’s purchase of tickets, specifically regarding whether DAFs could pay the charitable portion of the ticket cost (i.e., the part above fair market value). According to the proposed regulation, however, the prohibition would be absolute. The DAF cannot pay for any portion of the ticket, regardless of the fact that if a person bought the ticket directly, he or she would receive a charitable deduction for the portion of the ticket over and above fair market value.

The proposed IRS regulations place the primary burden of compliance on the donor advisor, who would be fined if the funds in the DAF were used for ticket purchases. Potential excise taxes may also be imposed on any fund manager of the sponsoring organization who authorizes such a payment knowing it would confer a prohibited benefit. Charities and DAFs should take note and bar these types of payments, as donors may unwittingly advise DAFs to pay for tickets and in so doing, putting the donor advisor and the sponsoring organization at risk of being fined. This might sour relations between the donor and the sponsoring organization. Charities and DAFs are therefore advised to take affirmative steps to ensure that any donations made by DAFs are prohibited from being used to purchase event tickets.

The post Stop! Purchase of an Event Ticket with DAF Dollars Could Land You in Hot Water with the IRS appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

On July 16, 2018, the IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2018-38. Under the pending rule modification, many nonprofits, including 501(c)(4), (5), and (6) organizations, that  must include the donor information  on Schedule B  will no longer be required to do so. (Other organizations formed under Section 501(c)(3) or Section 527 will still need to provide it on Schedule B.) The change takes effect for tax years ending on or after December 31, 2018. The move by IRS to limit its collection of contributor information has been met with both cheers and jeers, which I summarize below.

Cheers

In the eyes of those supporting the change to the reporting requirements, the collection of contributor information represents a chilling of free speech and a donor’s right of association and privacy. The supporters also point to the IRS’ occasional inadvertent disclosure of donor information, making the case that removing the requirement to submit it will further insure protection of the contributors’ speech and privacy rights. The argument is also made that the IRS has no need for the information except in the case of an audit. For its part, the IRS reasons that the reporting and redacting of donor information is a waste of time and resources for both the agency and nonprofits.

Jeers

Critics of the move argue that the IRS is inviting additional improper funding into so called “dark money” groups (such as 501(c)(4) organizations) which have become increasingly active in American elections since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision in 2010. Since donors to these groups already avoid much of the public disclosure required of traditional political organizations, the fear is that the new rule invites abuse of existing campaign finance laws, including foreign contributions. Critics are also quick to point out that the IRS’ change came on the same day news outlets reported an arrest of a Russian national accused of attempting to improperly influence American politics through, among other things, the influence of U.S. nonprofit organizations.

Further, the adversaries note that inadvertent disclosures made by the IRS of protected information have been rare and do not appear to have chilled the free speech activity of those organizations. As to the IRS’ rationale that its rule change protects limited resources, they counter that the Schedule B change will increase initial investigatory costs as the request for donor information will have to be assessed and handled on a case-by-case basis. When the IRS needs to audit an organization’s financials, it will create even more work for IRS agents and nonprofits and could result in more frequent and invasive audits.

States Seek to Shine a Light on Dark Money

The new rules by the IRS may be made less relevant by state legislatures. New York, as an example, recently enacted a statute requiring both 501(c)(3) organizations (public charities and private foundations) who provide support to 501(c)(4) organizations (advocacy organizations) in excess of $2,500 in any six  month period, regardless of the purpose and the form of that support, to reveal its major donors on a public website established by the Attorney General’s office. In addition,  the new law requires that 501(c)(4)s that expend more than $10,000 in any one year on broadly communicated lobbying type activities also report their donors on the Attorney General’s  public website. (For a more in-depth discussion see:  Shining a Light on Dark Money: Floodlight or Flashlight ).  Although they are unlikely bedfellows, Citizen’s United and the ACLU have each challenged the new statute, resulting in a stay of its implementation.

Practical Effect

One thing the supporters and critics agree on is that IRS rarely uses the contributor information it currently collects, and nonprofits will still be required to keep records of their donations. The rules regulating the nonprofit sector are under-enforced at the federal level.  State charities regulators tend to be on the front lines of enforcement. The IRS’s change may have the effect of encouraging proactive states, as New York has done, to begin requiring contributor information as part of state filing and disclosure requirements. Regardless of how the states react to the decreased disclosure and transparency, the clear message to the nonprofit sector is that the current administration places less of an emphasis on transparency than its predecessors.

Just In

In late breaking news, the Governor of Montana, Steve Bullock (D), sued the Trump administration to void the new rules stating that it would  undermine the state’s ability to regulate nonprofits and make it harder to police illegal spending in political campaigns. It should be noted that Montana has some of the least rigorous oversight of charitable activities of any state in the country and as a result they depend heavily on the information filed with the IRS.  Undoubtedly, other states are likely to follow Montana’s lead as well.

The post Left In the Dark, IRS Moves to Limit Donor Transparency appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

Newman’s Own Foundation needed the new law to avoid a requirement that it divest itself of at least 80% of No Limit under the “excess business holdings rule” of Internal Revenue Code Section 4943. The excess business holdings rule generally prohibits a private foundation from owning more than 20% of a for-profit company. It imposes extreme penalties on a foundation that are equal to twice the value of the holdings above the 20% limitation. In most cases, this will completely destroy the value of the “excess” holdings to the foundation. The new law creates an exception to the excess business holdings rule for foundations that own 100% of a business and devote all profits to charity.

Foundations that acquire more than 20% of a company normally have a five-year deadline to sell their excess holdings before the penalties apply. Newman’s Own originally faced that deadline in 2013 but was able to get a five-year extension that would have expired this year. The passage of the new law relieves Newman’s Own from the requirement that it divest itself of No Limit, meaning it can continue operating as it always has without interruption.

New law, new rules
The new law, Section 4943(g) of the Internal Revenue Code, permits a private foundation to own 100% of a company under the following conditions:

1. The foundation must own 100% of the shares. There cannot be any other shareholders, and the shares must have been donated to the foundation or acquired in some manner other than by purchase.
2. All profits must go to charity. The company has to distribute 100% of its net operating income to the foundation within 120 days of the end of each fiscal quarter. Net operating income is defined as gross income minus taxes, deductions directly attributable to the production of income, and an amount for a reasonable reserve.
3. The for-profit company is operated independently of the foundation. First, no substantial donor to the foundation can be a director, officer, or employee of the company. A substantial donor is someone who donates more than 2% of the foundation’s total contributions in a given year, and it includes these who donated shares or anything else of value to the foundation, if their donations exceed 2% of contributions to the foundation for the year. Second, a majority of the company’s directors have to be persons who are not also on the foundation’s board. Finally, the company may not make loans to substantial donors of the foundation.
4. Donor-advised funds and some supporting organizations cannot take advantage of the new law. Donor-advised funds and non-functionally integrated Type III supporting organizations are specifically excluded from the new law, thus are still subject to the 20% rule.

The new law, which took effect December 31, 2017, opens a world of possibilities for founders of companies that want to devote all profits from their businesses to charity, allowing them to place their companies under the ownership of a private foundation and permanently devote all profits to charity.

One way to adopt this model is to have the founder or the shareholders donate their shares to a foundation. They get a tax deduction for the value of their shares, but no buy-out. Since this is a gift, not a purchase, donating the shares satisfies the requirements of the new rule. The donations can happen anytime or even over time, but the new rule does not apply until 100% of the shares have been transferred to the foundation.

Under the new law, a total separation of the two entities is not required. The for-profit company will continue to be governed by its own board and managed by its own managers, with appropriate separation from the foundation. The new law permits the foundation, as the sole shareholder, to appoint the board, and the foundation may also hold other rights, depending on the jurisdiction where it was formed. For example, in many states, a sole shareholder has the right to inspect the books and records of the company and to sue the directors for breach of fiduciary duty (including the duty to pursue a social mission, if the company is a benefit corporation.) The shareholder may also reserve to itself the right to approve mergers, sales of assets, dissolutions, and to veto other fundamental decisions.

Profits of the business will be up-streamed to the foundation in the form of after-tax corporate dividends or, in the case of a pass-through LLC, as partnership distributions, in which case the tax on unrelated business income may apply.

We are sure to see a growing number of private foundations take ownership of profitable businesses as a result of this new law. It also offers another option for founders of mission-oriented companies who want a philanthropic exit that locks mission into the company on a permanent basis.

The post Newman’s Owns Gets a New Life appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.

In the latest denial, the charity applicant was formed to promote local agricultural products within the restaurant and hospitality industry by establishing and operating food hubs across the state. Its clientele consisted primarily of farmers, restaurants, and retailers. In its ruling, the IRS said the applicant did not qualify for exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code because it was not operating exclusively for charitable purposes. Quoting a revenue ruling from 1972, the IRS said that “an organization is not exempt merely because its operations are not conducted for the purpose of producing a profit.” Stating that the services, in this case, were provided at cost and solely for exempt organizations “is not sufficient to characterize this activity as charitable within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3).” The IRS concluded that more than an insubstantial part of the applicant’s activities was devoted to a non-exempt (i.e., commercial) purpose, and was therefore not organized exclusively for charitable, educational or religious activities within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Code.

In other words, according to the IRS, you can be charitable, or commercial, but not both. However, there is a growing segment of the charitable sector actively engaged in revenue-generating activities without any problems.

The primary conflict resides in how the IRS defines “commercial” and how the commercial facets of the organization are utilized. Whether the activity is a “trade or business ordinarily carried on for profit” dictates its status (B.S.W. Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 352 (1978). Another factor is whether the activity competes with other for-profit businesses and if it does, is it distinguishable from those other commercial entities?

In Denial 201641027, another tax-exemption denial based on the presence of too much commercial activity by a charity, the IRS decided that a group organized to assist community residents to gain access to quality patient care was commercial, not charitable. This despite the fact that such efforts have generally been granted exemption in the past, and there is a series of revenue rulings upholding such exemption. The IRS did not explain why they thought this case was different.

The IRS’s hostility to nonprofit commercial activity inhibits charities that want to deliver good works using a commercial model. In the last year alone, the IRS has handed down denials to groups that operated a public market (to ensure the availability of fresh, healthy food in the community); a record label (to provide at-risk youth the resources to intern in the entertainment industry); a farmer’s market (to contribute to the sustainability and development of markets that make fresh and healthy foods available to all people); and selling laptop computers (above cost but below market) to students to further educational objectives. These rulings have been based primarily on a determination that the charities were using commercial means to accomplish admittedly charitable and educational ends.

In issuing these rulings, the IRS appears to be resurrecting the obsolete, discredited “commerciality doctrine,” which says that a nonprofit cannot be charitable if it engages in activities which are primarily commercial, even if the activity benefits only the general public or a charitable class. The commerciality doctrine was abandoned years ago because it stifled innovation and did not reflect changes that were happening in the philanthropic sector. If unchecked, the doctrine would threaten the exemption of community health centers, university bookstores, the NCAA, technical assistance groups, and any other charity that competes with private business or relies primarily on earned income to sustain itself. Quite simply, the doctrine is outmoded and is bad tax policy, hence its abandonment.

There are ways to avoid the clash between commercial and charitable facets of these organizations. One option is separating highly commercial activities into subsidiaries or affiliated service organizations. And in many other cases, charities can conduct the commercial activity in-house, so long as they have a substantial amount of other activity. There may be other reasons to perform commercial activity outside of the charity entity, but jeopardizing the charity’s tax status does not have to be one of them.

We’ll be writing more about private benefit and commerciality for nonprofits and hybrids in the next few months. Stay tuned as the story develops.

The post IRS Declares War on Commercial Charities appeared first on Perlman & Perlman.