Greening Form 990
If the federal government wants non-profits to go green, just add a few questions to the tax form.
March 31, 2009 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
Good governance policies became the rage in the wake of the Enron scandal and other instances of corruption, including several in the non-profit sector. Now the new thing is to “go green,” as well we should, considering we have only one planet to live on.
But as the song says, “It's Not Easy Being Green,” so not every institution is completely on board with it, even among traditional do-gooder charities. I have a solution. If the IRS wants a quick fix for getting non-profits to “green” their operations, it should do for the environment what it did for non-profit governance–just add a few questions to Form 990.
As I noted last month (“Passive-Aggressive Regulation,” March 2009), even though it had no statutory authority to impose new obligations, the IRS added several new questions for every charity to answer about governance issues. Since no tax lawyer in her right mind wants to answer “no” to any of the questions, the new form effectively prods the entire sector to create policies on issues including conflicts of interest, whistleblower protections and document retention. And they're doing it, even though the form itself says, “[This section requests] information about policies not required by the Internal Revenue Service” [emphasis added].
That's a pretty clever way for government to compel behavior without the hassle of making a new regulation. So the IRS should try it again to save the planet. To that end, I propose several new questions for the next version of Form 990:
1 Do the officers, directors, trustees or key employees of the organization drive hybrid vehicles?
1a If “No,” use Schedule W to describe the rationalizations used by each to continue driving his or her gas-guzzler.
2 Does the organization have a full-time professional employee with the title of “green czar”?
2a If “Yes,” use Schedule W to describe the background, training and personality quirks of this employee who was willing to accept a job title derived from a failed Russian ruling class.
2b If “No,” feel relieved.
3 Do any of the organization's employees pretend to turn their computers off at the end of the workday by turning off only the monitor and taping over any visible blinking lights on the CPU?
3a If “Yes,” use Schedule W to describe (i) how you know and (ii) what you're going to do about it.
3b If “No,” use Schedule W to explain (i) why you believe them or, alternatively, (ii) why you don't have any computers.
4 Does the organization have an established recycling program for its office and other operations?
4a If “Yes,” use Schedule W to list the items recycled and how you prevent employees from putting glass bottles in the aluminum can bin and aluminum cans in the glass bottle bin.
4b If “No,” explain why you don't feel bad about that, using Schedule W.
5 Do any of the officers, directors, trustees or key employees of the organization think global warming (or climate change) is hooey?
13 If the organization's answers to the questions in this section trigger an audit, on what basis will you challenge the authority of the IRS to ask them? Use Schedule W for your answer, being sure to include applicable citations to the Tax Code, the Administrative Procedure Act and other authorities you think relevant.
I am confident that merely asking these questions will immediately change the behavior of the tax-exempt charities. The entire sector will probably rise up as one to file strong objections and even lawsuits, using recycled paper of course.
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
- 1The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 2Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 3For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 4As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 5General Warrants and ESI
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