At The Non-Profit Bar
Congress Buries Non-Profits In Paperwork
June 30, 2005 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
I don't know when the wheel was invented, but I'm pretty sure it was a long time ago. The wheel was a good idea at the time and still is, but we should stop trying to reinvent it.
As Congress considers proposals to clean up the mess in the non-profit sector, it seems fixated on one that looks a lot like a wheel. Specifically, both the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation have proposed to clean up non-profits by requiring charities to submit to IRS reviews of their exempt status every five years. A charity would have to demonstrate that it continues to deserve its tax exemption by filing information with the agency, such as its articles of incorporation; financial statements; bylaws; salaries of top-ranking executives; and a detailed narrative of prior, current and contemplated activities. The government would make this information available to the public and failure to file would allow the IRS to revoke the charity's tax-exempt status.
On the face of it, this five-year review idea seems perfectly reasonable. The information Congress is asking for is just the kind the IRS needs to properly assess a charity, and it's information to which the public deserves access. The proposal also zeroes in on a little-appreciated wrinkle in the process of getting a tax exemption: The IRS will recognize an organization as tax-exempt simply on the basis of what it says it intends to do in the future. Once the IRS grants the exemption, it rarely reviews that status (much less revokes it), no matter how much the organization departs from its original plans. So, it makes sense for the IRS to check up from time to time to ensure the organization is actually feeding the hungry, healing the sick, or whatever. A five-year interval seems fair too.
And it would be fair, except that most charities of any significant size already submit detailed information on their activities to the IRS on an annual basis. Tax-exempt organizations are familiar with Form 990 because every year they have to provide the IRS financial statements, salaries of top-ranking executives, payments to the highest-paid consultants, records of lobbying expenses, lists of major contributors, details of major transactions, a detailed narrative of their activities, and much more. And, all of this information is publicly available right now on the Internet. So why create another filing requirement every five years when we have a perfectly adequate one now? The answer is we shouldn't.
If Congress really wants to rein in charities gone wild, it can do so simply by beefing up the exempt organizations division of the IRS so it has enough staff to take a close look at the hundreds of thousands of Form 990s that come in every year. The IRS doesn't need more information about charities–it needs the manpower to make good use of the wealth of information it already has. It would take only a few audits of Form 990s, and even fewer revocations of tax exemptions based on such audits for the entire non-profit sector to sit up and take notice. Rather than reinvent this particular wheel, Congress would do much better to use the spare it already has in the trunk.
Still, a case can be made for a one-time five-year review for new charities. It would be reasonable, for example, to recognize a startup organization as tax-exempt on a provisional basis with the requirement that five years later it show the IRS it's still operating as a charity. This “training wheels” rule for new organizations would keep them focused and would be a reasonable means of IRS oversight.
Beyond that, however, a repeating five-year review for all charities–including well-established hospitals, universities and museums–amounts to regulatory overkill that rewards lawyers and accountants while stealing scarce program dollars from charitable purposes to accomplish a dubious public benefit. Congress should not be reinventing wheels. And the IRS shouldn't be forced into spinning them.
——————-
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Senate Panel Postpones Vote on Reconfirmation of Democrat Crenshaw to SEC
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250