At The Non-Profit Bar
IRS Letter May Spark Regulatory Upheaval
July 31, 2005 at 08:00 PM
8 minute read
History proves that the pen is at least as mighty as the sword. Martin Luther's “95 Theses” sparked the Protestant Reformation. By publishing “Silent Spring,” Rachel Carson gave birth to new environmental awareness. When Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address he redefined the purpose of the Civil War.
These are all familiar works that affected large issues. But a lesser-known document by a relatively minor government official could have a comparable effect on non-profits.
Its genesis was Sen. Charles Grassley's (R-Iowa) rather ordinary request that IRS Commissioner Mark Everson spell out the most significant compliance challenges facing his agency in the non-profit and charitable arena. The resulting 14-page letter amounts to both an indictment and a battle plan. Its remarkably candid language (for a bureaucrat) spells out how too many charities and other organizations have strayed from purely charitable purposes. And, simply by itemizing the many abuses in the sector, it provides Congress a handy guide to cleaning them up.
Everson begins his letter with the expected acknowledgement of the “inspiring work of the tax-exempt community.” But he quickly takes a swipe at what he calls a “less compliant environment” that has fostered a culture that has become more casual about compliance [with the law] and less resistant to noncompliance.” He admits that IRS enforcement “faded” in the 1990s due to budget cuts. That led to what he generously characterized as “opportunities for noncompliance.” Stripped of the niceties, he's saying that non-profits exploited his agency's weakened state and took a mile whenever they were entitled to an inch.
He then moved on to non-profit boards. Again, he alluded to the many good actors before lamenting that some charitable boards have emulated their for-profit brethren's bad corporate practices. Using a tone of “more in sorrow than in anger,” but not without a touch of reprimand he wrote of the “failure of fiduciaries to appropriately manage,” and of an insufficiency of “due diligence and care” in the filing of tax returns. That's a polite way of saying, “we know who you are, and we know what you did.”
The commissioner then proceeded to cite a litany of specific abuses. He mentioned charities that were created to benefit only their donors or their founders, and he singled out the promoters of such shady arrangements. He noted the increased number of credit-counseling organizations that seemed more interested in providing fee-based services (with proceeds going to insiders) than in helping debtors. He fingered the non-profits engaged in political activities. He highlighted the misuse of tax deductions for conservation easements that nevertheless permitted lucrative development. He wrote of historic easements, especially the fa?? 1/2 ade easements, that homeowner's use to get tax deductions without giving up anything of value. He cited the persistent problem of the tendency of taxpayers to over value their non-cash contributions such as donations of cars and clothing. He chided the non-profits that gave their executives much more than reasonable compensation–especially those that let the executives set their own compensation. And so on.
Everson also singled out the so-called charity hospitals “that may not differ markedly from for-profit providers,” and characterized them as merely “tax-exempt holding companies with a charitable grant-making function.” Ouch.
The IRS commissioner's message was well received on Capitol Hill. At a recent Georgetown University conference on tax-exempt organizations, a key Senate staffer responsible for legislation that would regulate the sector called the letter “very significant and seminal.” At that same conference, Everson himself spoke to the assembled charity executives, lawyers and consultants, and wasn't shy about telling them where at least part of the problem lay. His willingness to bluntly blame attorneys and accountants (some of whom, no doubt, were sitting in front of him) for bringing bad practices into the non-profit sector says much about his resolve and the force behind his letter.
Informed observers acknowledge there is something of a gathering storm on the Hill that could engulf the non-profit sector with new regulation. If history is any guide, Everson's letter may well be a trigger that unleashes the storm. It bears reading.
————————-
History proves that the pen is at least as mighty as the sword. Martin Luther's “95 Theses” sparked the Protestant Reformation. By publishing “Silent Spring,” Rachel Carson gave birth to new environmental awareness. When Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address he redefined the purpose of the Civil War.
These are all familiar works that affected large issues. But a lesser-known document by a relatively minor government official could have a comparable effect on non-profits.
Its genesis was Sen. Charles Grassley's (R-Iowa) rather ordinary request that IRS Commissioner Mark Everson spell out the most significant compliance challenges facing his agency in the non-profit and charitable arena. The resulting 14-page letter amounts to both an indictment and a battle plan. Its remarkably candid language (for a bureaucrat) spells out how too many charities and other organizations have strayed from purely charitable purposes. And, simply by itemizing the many abuses in the sector, it provides Congress a handy guide to cleaning them up.
Everson begins his letter with the expected acknowledgement of the “inspiring work of the tax-exempt community.” But he quickly takes a swipe at what he calls a “less compliant environment” that has fostered a culture that has become more casual about compliance [with the law] and less resistant to noncompliance.” He admits that IRS enforcement “faded” in the 1990s due to budget cuts. That led to what he generously characterized as “opportunities for noncompliance.” Stripped of the niceties, he's saying that non-profits exploited his agency's weakened state and took a mile whenever they were entitled to an inch.
He then moved on to non-profit boards. Again, he alluded to the many good actors before lamenting that some charitable boards have emulated their for-profit brethren's bad corporate practices. Using a tone of “more in sorrow than in anger,” but not without a touch of reprimand he wrote of the “failure of fiduciaries to appropriately manage,” and of an insufficiency of “due diligence and care” in the filing of tax returns. That's a polite way of saying, “we know who you are, and we know what you did.”
The commissioner then proceeded to cite a litany of specific abuses. He mentioned charities that were created to benefit only their donors or their founders, and he singled out the promoters of such shady arrangements. He noted the increased number of credit-counseling organizations that seemed more interested in providing fee-based services (with proceeds going to insiders) than in helping debtors. He fingered the non-profits engaged in political activities. He highlighted the misuse of tax deductions for conservation easements that nevertheless permitted lucrative development. He wrote of historic easements, especially the fa?? 1/2 ade easements, that homeowner's use to get tax deductions without giving up anything of value. He cited the persistent problem of the tendency of taxpayers to over value their non-cash contributions such as donations of cars and clothing. He chided the non-profits that gave their executives much more than reasonable compensation–especially those that let the executives set their own compensation. And so on.
Everson also singled out the so-called charity hospitals “that may not differ markedly from for-profit providers,” and characterized them as merely “tax-exempt holding companies with a charitable grant-making function.” Ouch.
The IRS commissioner's message was well received on Capitol Hill. At a recent Georgetown University conference on tax-exempt organizations, a key Senate staffer responsible for legislation that would regulate the sector called the letter “very significant and seminal.” At that same conference, Everson himself spoke to the assembled charity executives, lawyers and consultants, and wasn't shy about telling them where at least part of the problem lay. His willingness to bluntly blame attorneys and accountants (some of whom, no doubt, were sitting in front of him) for bringing bad practices into the non-profit sector says much about his resolve and the force behind his letter.
Informed observers acknowledge there is something of a gathering storm on the Hill that could engulf the non-profit sector with new regulation. If history is any guide, Everson's letter may well be a trigger that unleashes the storm. It bears reading.
————————-
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