E-Postcard Problems
Online requirement for new filing law creates a dilemma for small non-profits.
September 30, 2009 at 08:00 PM
8 minute read
In 2006, Congress passed the Pension Protection Act. And it included an idea that seemed simple at the time. The idea was that the IRS should know how many tax-exempt organizations existed in the country. The result (part of the Pension Act) is known as the 990 e-Postcard Notification Law, which became effective this past July. It was aimed at all those small (sometimes very small) organizations that generate less than $5,000 each year, never have had to file for tax-exempt status and don't have to file a Form 990 annually.
To keep it simple, the law said the e-Postcard had to be filed online. In fact, there is no other way to make the filing. There is no paper equivalent of the e-Postcard–everything about it is supposed to be electronic, including the IRS's replies.
And so begin the e-Postcard's troubles. First, a small group such as a hunt club probably doesn't have a computer, much less a staff. Sure, it can go to the local library, but according to the IRS each filer has to have an e-mail address. The hunt club doesn't have an address, but one of its members might, and his address (and computer) will suffice–until he quits or dies. Second, each filing organization must enter an EIN (Employer Identification Number) on the e-Postcard site to begin the process. But very few of these groups have an EIN because they don't employ anybody.
Just to see how it worked, I logged in to the IRS site to test the system. I was ready to make an imaginary filing (without clicking on “send”) but was stopped dead in my tracks on the first page. I was asked for an EIN which I didn't have and didn't know how to get one quickly. I imagined that my imaginary charity had only me to handle this task. This leads to a fundamental problem and an odd result.
The problem, of course, is that without an EIN the group cannot comply with the law. An entity without an EIN is, in effect, wrapped in a Harry Potter invisibility cloak as far as the IRS is concerned. Without an EIN, the IRS has no record of the group's existence. If that is so, what is the IRS supposed to do with the e-Postcard it might get from our little hunt club?
It wouldn't help to compare the club's information against a master list of tax-exempts because the club isn't on the master list. It could start a new list of the e-Postcard filers, and it probably will, but that seems at odds with one of the statute's purposes, which was to clean up and straighten out the IRS's records, not to create more records.
Our little hunt club could easily just not file an e-Postcard this year or any other year. It could ignore the law. Should it?
Think about it. If you're invisible to the IRS, what possible negative consequence, either legal or moral, might follow from not letting the IRS know you exist? You won't lose your tax exemption because the government doesn't know you exist. Besides, even if the IRS somehow found you out, another provision of the Tax Code gives you an exemption regardless of your failure to file. You won't have to file the e-Postcard next year or any subsequent year.
You won't have to get an EIN number or find out how to get its equivalent. You won't need Internet access or an e-mail address. You won't have to pay anybody to do those things for you. You won't be receiving replies or reminders from the IRS. And, because there is no record of misuse of assets or tax status among groups as small as your hunt club, there is no public purpose frustrated by a failure to file.
A first response to this accurate, but perhaps cynical, analysis could be: Just because you won't get caught is no reason to flout the law. I grant you that. However, another adage applies equally well: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
In 2006, Congress passed the Pension Protection Act. And it included an idea that seemed simple at the time. The idea was that the IRS should know how many tax-exempt organizations existed in the country. The result (part of the Pension Act) is known as the 990 e-Postcard Notification Law, which became effective this past July. It was aimed at all those small (sometimes very small) organizations that generate less than $5,000 each year, never have had to file for tax-exempt status and don't have to file a Form 990 annually.
To keep it simple, the law said the e-Postcard had to be filed online. In fact, there is no other way to make the filing. There is no paper equivalent of the e-Postcard–everything about it is supposed to be electronic, including the IRS's replies.
And so begin the e-Postcard's troubles. First, a small group such as a hunt club probably doesn't have a computer, much less a staff. Sure, it can go to the local library, but according to the IRS each filer has to have an e-mail address. The hunt club doesn't have an address, but one of its members might, and his address (and computer) will suffice–until he quits or dies. Second, each filing organization must enter an EIN (Employer Identification Number) on the e-Postcard site to begin the process. But very few of these groups have an EIN because they don't employ anybody.
Just to see how it worked, I logged in to the IRS site to test the system. I was ready to make an imaginary filing (without clicking on “send”) but was stopped dead in my tracks on the first page. I was asked for an EIN which I didn't have and didn't know how to get one quickly. I imagined that my imaginary charity had only me to handle this task. This leads to a fundamental problem and an odd result.
The problem, of course, is that without an EIN the group cannot comply with the law. An entity without an EIN is, in effect, wrapped in a Harry Potter invisibility cloak as far as the IRS is concerned. Without an EIN, the IRS has no record of the group's existence. If that is so, what is the IRS supposed to do with the e-Postcard it might get from our little hunt club?
It wouldn't help to compare the club's information against a master list of tax-exempts because the club isn't on the master list. It could start a new list of the e-Postcard filers, and it probably will, but that seems at odds with one of the statute's purposes, which was to clean up and straighten out the IRS's records, not to create more records.
Our little hunt club could easily just not file an e-Postcard this year or any other year. It could ignore the law. Should it?
Think about it. If you're invisible to the IRS, what possible negative consequence, either legal or moral, might follow from not letting the IRS know you exist? You won't lose your tax exemption because the government doesn't know you exist. Besides, even if the IRS somehow found you out, another provision of the Tax Code gives you an exemption regardless of your failure to file. You won't have to file the e-Postcard next year or any subsequent year.
You won't have to get an EIN number or find out how to get its equivalent. You won't need Internet access or an e-mail address. You won't have to pay anybody to do those things for you. You won't be receiving replies or reminders from the IRS. And, because there is no record of misuse of assets or tax status among groups as small as your hunt club, there is no public purpose frustrated by a failure to file.
A first response to this accurate, but perhaps cynical, analysis could be: Just because you won't get caught is no reason to flout the law. I grant you that. However, another adage applies equally well: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
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 AllGC 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'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Trending Stories
- 1The Pusillanimous Press
- 2Contract Lifecycle Management Company ContractPodAi Unveils Leah Drive
- 3'Great News' for Businesses? Judge Halts Transparency Mandate
- 4Consilio Announces ‘Native AI Review,’ Expanding Its Gen AI E-Discovery Offerings
- 5Federal Judge Hits US With $227,000 Sanction for Discovery Misconduct
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