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
© 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 AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1Choice-of-Law Issues as the UCC 2022 Amendments Come into Effect
- 2Six Benefits of Taking an Opposing Medical Expert’s Deposition
- 3Ex-Prosecutor’s Trial Ends as Judge Throws Out Her Felony Indictment in Ahmaud Arbery Death Case
- 4Conversation Catalyst: Transforming Professional Advancement Through Strategic Dialogue
- 5Trump Taps McKinsey CLO Pierre Gentin for Commerce Department GC
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