More IRS Audits Will Keep Non-Profits Honest
The majority of non-profits avoid audits, but is this really a relief?
December 31, 2010 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
The good news, I suppose, is that there is almost no chance your non-profit organization will ever face an IRS audit. This is not my opinion. The numbers don't lie.
In 2009 the IRS audited approximately 1,723 of the existing 800,000 tax-exempt organizations. The arithmetic is pretty straightforward: The chances of any single organization facing an audit during any year are about two in a thousand. When you consider that lately the IRS has tended to focus its audits on specific categories of non-profits (e.g. universities, credit counseling groups, etc.), your risk of an audit diminishes to infinitesimal if you aren't in one of the categories.
Consider also that the already thinly staffed IRS simply can't keep up with the workload. In one recent three-year period, the number of charities increased by 38 percent even as the IRS staff available for audits actually declined. By one calculation, there is only one IRS enforcement agent available for every 4,000 tax-exempt entities. The prospect that this ratio will change for the better is highly unlikely with a proposed federal employee wage freeze and a new Congress looking to cut the size of the government.
These numbers may be good news for in-house non-profit lawyers like us, but they aren't good for the common good. Non-profits now employ 12.9 million people, which means the sector accounts for fully 10 percent of the jobs in this economy. That is greater than the combined employment of the finance, insurance and real estate industries. And, the sector's total annual revenue is nearing $2 trillion. If just the sector's investment income were taxed, it would produce at least $60 billion for the U.S. Treasury. These numbers are evidence of just how important non-profit organizations are to the economy and to society as a whole.
Yet, we are doing precious little to protect the non-profit sector from itself. The situation is not unlike the village that made a big show of lowering speed limits to reduce accidents, but spent nothing on enforcement (except for new signs). Guess what happened? People felt safer for a while, until drivers realized the signs didn't mean a thing. With no enforcement from the IRS, the non-profit sector amounts to a legal free-fire zone where ne'er-do-wells can, and do, exploit the government, other non-profits and the public. The stories of outlandish executive compensation are well known to the point they got the attention of Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa. But the effect of his strong intervention is ephemeral at best without significant and sustained enforcement. Since 2003, the IRS has imposed fines for excessive pay and benefits only about 10 times a year.
The audit of the legitimate-sounding U.S. Navy Veterans Association illustrates the weakness of the enforcement mechanisms the IRS is able to mount. According to independent reporting by the St. Petersburg Times, the IRS gave the charity a clean bill of health two years ago, which allowed it to raise another $27.6 million from the public to help vets and troops overseas. But the audit did not uncover the fact that the founder was a fake Navy veteran who used “his elaborately constructed but phony [charity] to swindle the gift-giving public” and had been doing so for years, in part to funnel donated money into political campaigns. That's not even like giving a reckless driver a warning instead of a ticket–it's more like giving him a free tank of gas and a pat on the back. The IRS has to do better.
The truth is, we need better enforcement across the board. First, we will catch some bad guys. But second, and more important, the deterrent effect of regular enforcement will improve compliance. When that happens the public will not think their donations are misused, and the government may allow us to keep our tax exemptions a while longer.
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 AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
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