Passive-Aggressive Regulation
New IRS governance questions threaten non-profits' tax exempt status.
February 28, 2009 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
One of the worst things that could happen to a charity's in-house lawyer would be the loss of his organization's tax-exempt status during his watch. It would be like a NASCAR driver running out of gas mid-race. You don't want it to happen to you.
Fortunately, the law about how to keep that tax exemption has stayed pretty consistent. All you have to do is make sure your organization is “organized and operated exclusively” for exempt purposes–understanding, of course, that “exclusively” really means “primarily.” This is the language of the Tax Code and it provides much-needed wiggle room to accommodate the wide range of activities that could constitute an exempt purpose. These are the words Congress used, and, as such, they are our ultimate authority.
So what does document handling have to do with maintaining an exempt purpose? The IRS seems to think there is some connection because its new Form 990 asks every charity, “Does the organization have a written document retention and destruction policy?” This is just one of the so-called corporate governance questions on the new form, each requiring either a yes or a no answer. Others ask about written conflict of interest and whistleblower policies, and whether corporate minutes are kept. Obviously, the only acceptable answer to these questions is “yes.” It is also obvious that the IRS added these questions in response to recent governance problems in both the for-profit and non-profit sectors. But here's my question: How can the IRS pre-empt both Congress' role and state corporation law?
I, for one, don't see how a charity's failure to have a document retention policy means that it is or is not “organized and operated exclusively” for exempt purposes. In fact, I am willing to bet there are literally thousands of true-blue charities operating today without any idea of what document retention means. The hungry are being fed and the sick being healed, two clearly charitable activities deserving of a tax exemption. What is the connection between those activities and a paperwork policy?
There is no statutory connection, which means the IRS is acting beyond its authority by requiring answers to such questions in the Form 990, which almost all charities must file annually. Not only is the IRS going beyond what Congress told it to do, I think it is also treading on the states' traditional jurisdiction over corporations.
This fine legal point is relevant because too many (or even one?) “no” answers to these questions is like waving a red flag in front of the IRS auditors. Let's say an audit reveals your charity has no documents policy, has no whistleblower policy, keeps no minutes, has no written conflicts policy, etc. But the audit also reveals it is nevertheless “organized and operated exclusively” for exempt purposes. That would mean all of these governance questions on the Form 990 are completely irrelevant. If that is so, why are they there?
It must be because the IRS now believes that you cannot be “organized and operated exclusively” for exempt purposes unless you comply with all these policies implied by the governance questions. If so, the IRS is rewriting the statute. No matter how closely I read the Tax Code, I cannot find “whistleblower policy” anywhere in it, and I don't think a judge would, either.
If these governance policies are such a good idea (and I think they are), Congress should require them expressly. Then we can do away with what amounts to passive-aggressive regulation in the form of these insidious questions.
Try a direct question: “Does the organization comply with the document retention policy requirement?” A “yes” would be the right answer. A “no” would be the wrong answer. Simple.
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