While a nonprofit entity is the most typical structure for an organization seeking to create positive social impact, many mission-driven entrepreneurs are choosing for-profit vehicles to achieve their goals. To determine if a nonprofit organization is the right structure for your vision, you must understand what is required to obtain and maintain nonprofit (and tax-exempt) status. 

What Does It Mean to be a Nonprofit Organization? 

First, it is critical to understand the core legal requirements and restrictions of being a nonprofit to determine if it is the right fit for your venture.¹  You may be wondering if “nonprofit organization” and “tax-exempt organization” are interchangeable terms. Although most nonprofit organizations are also tax-exempt, these terms do have different meanings. 

The term ‘nonprofit’ is typically used to refer to an organization’s legal form under state law. Most often, nonprofits are formed as corporations, but other legal forms, such as trusts or unincorporated associations, can be used. A corporation is the most popular legal structure for nonprofits, however, and offers many benefits to mission-driven ventures, including greater liability protection for the incorporated nonprofit’s directors and officers. 

A key distinguishing feature of nonprofit entities from for-profit entities is that nonprofit entities cannot distribute profits to individuals who control the organization. Unlike a for-profit corporation, a nonprofit corporation is not owned by anyone and does not have shareholders. 

Federal Tax-Exempt Status

The purposes and activities of the nonprofit will help determine whether it will qualify for exemption from federal income tax. Many nonprofit organizations are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), which is the designation for charitable organizations. 501(c)(3) organizations are classified as either public charities or private foundations, depending mostly on whether they are diversely funded (public charity) or primarily funded by one or a few sources (private foundations). Other sections of the Code provide tax-exempt status to non-charitable nonprofits, the most common of which are 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, 501(c)(6) business leagues, and 501(c)(7) social clubs. For this article, we will focus on the requirements of the 501(c)(3) public charity.

To obtain 501(c)(3) public charity status, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes. Exempt purposes under section 501(c)(3) of the Code include those that are charitable, educational, religious, scientific, literary, fostering national or international sports competition, preventing cruelty to children or animals, and testing for public safety. To be organized exclusively for exempt purposes means that the organization’s governing documents must describe its exempt purposes and limit the use of its assets exclusively to those exempt purposes. To be operated exclusively for exempt purposes is, in large part, a negative test, i.e. an organization will not be considered to be operated exclusively for exempt purposes if (1) more than an insubstantial part of its activities is in furtherance of a non-exempt purpose, or (2) its net earnings inure in whole or in part to the benefit of private individuals. 

If more than an insubstantial part of the organization’s activities is not in furtherance of an exempt purpose, the IRS may deny or revoke the organization’s exempt status. To maintain 501(c)(3) status, an organization must do the following. 

• Not participate in political campaigns of candidates for local, state, or federal office
• Restrict its lobbying activities to an insubstantial part of its total activities
• Ensure that its earnings do not inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual;
• Not operate for the benefit of private interests such as those of its founder or the founder’s family
• Not operate for the primary purpose of conducting a trade or business that is not substantially related to its exempt purpose

Key Reasons Why You Should, or Should Not, Form a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Organization

Deciding on whether a 501(c)(3) nonprofit entity is the right legal structure requires consideration of both the advantages and constraints of this legal form and tax status. While any decision should ideally be made in consultation with legal counsel, here are a few practical considerations that may help guide your assessment. 

Advantages of 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Status

Tax-Deductibility of Donations and Eligibility for Grants or Government Contracts 

Tax-deductibility is an important incentive for donors. Donations made to a 501(c)(3) nonprofit are generally tax-deductible for the donor, whereas donations to for-profit entities or most other types of exempt organizations are not. Similarly, many institutional funders only make grants to 501(c)(3) organizations, and 501(c)(3) status may be a prerequisite for certain government contracts. If you envision donations or grants being a significant source of funds for your organization, and the requirements of public charity status don’t unduly limit the core activities you seek to engage in to accomplish your mission (e.g., lobbying activities), then 501(c)(3) status may be beneficial for your organization. 

Exemption from Income Taxes

Generally, the income generated by a nonprofit organization from revenue-generating activities is exempt from federal income taxation if the generation of that revenue actually accomplishes the organization’s tax-exempt purposes (e.g., college tuition or hospital service fees). It’s important to understand when revenue is “substantially related” to accomplishing an exempt purpose, an evaluation that’s heavily driven by facts and circumstances, and best undertaken with advice of legal counsel. 

Public Transparency/Accountability 

Choosing the nonprofit form can signal trustworthiness, in part, because a nonprofit is legally required to operate exclusively in furtherance of the organization’s charitable purposes and is subject to regulatory scrutiny. In fact, studies have shown that nonprofits are among the most trusted institutions in the U.S. and are relied upon to shape better policies and deliver better results in local communities.² A 501(c)(3) nonprofit is subject to significant operational requirements and restrictions as well as public disclosure obligations under both state and federal laws. At the federal level, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofits must annually file Form 990 financial informational returns, which are publicly available on the IRS’s website. At the state level, most states require charitable organizations which are soliciting or otherwise conducting charitable activities in the state to register annually. Many of the state charity regulatory databases make even more information available to the public than the IRS makes available, such as organizations’ governance documents, IRS tax-exempt application, Form 990s, and audited financial statements. 

Disadvantages or Constraints of 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Status

Limits on Leveraging Commercial Market Strategies

If you want to use a more traditional market approach to accomplish a social impact objective, e.g., leveraging investor capital to expedite innovation and growth, a tax-exempt nonprofit vehicle may not be an ideal structure. However, there are creative structuring options that can involve tax-exempt entities, including joint venture or subsidiary structuring options.

Limits on Ability to Maximize Profit and Compensation

If your goals involve simultaneously maximizing profit and social impact (even if the profit generated does not benefit any insiders or investors), a tax-exempt vehicle that’s subject to numerous regulatory restrictions may limit the organization’s strategic options when trying to maximize profit, as you must simultaneously ensure that those strategic options do not require the organization to engage in activities that may jeopardize its tax-exempt status. Nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations must also pay “reasonable compensation” for services, which may limit the organization’s ability to compete with for-profit entities for talent in certain fields. 

Limits on Founder Control

If founder control is paramount, a nonprofit may not be ideal. No individual(s) can “own” a nonprofit or its assets. A founder may be voted out of their position by the board of directors if the board does not agree with the direction of the founder. In addition, while rare, if a state attorney general (“AG”) determined that a founder was failing to uphold their fiduciary duties, the AG could petition the court to remove the founder from any leadership roles with the organization. 

Limits Based on What the IRS Considers a “Charitable” Purpose

There are a number of groups that genuinely believe that their organizational purposes are “charitable” because they provide a significant benefit to the community or the world at large. However, the IRS, which is the gatekeeper of 501(c)(3) status, does not always agree. This difference in perspective has been seen in a number of areas, ranging from farmer’s markets to open-source software initiatives to, most recently, NIL Collectives, as highlighted in tax-exempt application denials and other IRS-issued guidance. Seeking legal counsel is especially important when an organization is seeking to operate in areas where the IRS has previously scrutinized (and denied) qualification for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. 

In our experience we have found that a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit corporation is a good fit for most parties seeking to establish a new charitable project, and that the benefits of nonprofit tax-exempt status outweigh the burden of the regulatory requirements and restrictions. However, given the increasingly creative approaches taken to optimize social impact through charitable initiatives, in order to best achieve your goals, before moving forward it is important to understand the fundamental structural requirements of a tax-exempt nonprofit.

1 For organizational leaders to benefit from the protections of the corporate form, they must maintain appropriate corporate formalities, including properly maintaining corporate records of meetings, and not commingling personal and organizational funds.

2 See “Trust in Civil Society,” a report prepared by Independent Sector in partnership with Edelman Data & Intelligence, published on May 19, 2022.

The post You Have Passion and Purpose – Should You Start a Nonprofit Organization? 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.