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
© 2025 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 AllGOP Now Holds FTC Gavel, but Dems Signal They'll Be a Rowdy Minority
6 minute readTrump's Inspectors General Purge Could Make Policy Changes Easier, Observers Say
Keys to Maximizing Efficiency (and Vibes) When Navigating International Trade Compliance Crosschecks
6 minute readCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
Trending Stories
- 1How I Made Partner: 'Take Every Opportunity to Get Involved in the Business Side of the Firm,' Says Alyssa Domzal of Ballard Spahr
- 2People in the News—Feb. 5, 2025—Eckert Seamans, Rawle & Henderson
- 3Librarian's Termination Violated First Amendment Protections, Lawsuit Claims
- 4Choice-of-Law Issues as the UCC 2022 Amendments Come into Effect
- 5Six Benefits of Taking an Opposing Medical Expert’s Deposition
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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