Joint Ventures Involving Tax-Exempt Organizations, 2022 Cumulative Supplement E-Book
Michael I. Sanders
115,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
A comprehensive, revised, and expanded guide covering tax-exempt organizations engaging in joint ventures Joint Ventures Involving Tax-Exempt Organizations, Fourth Edition examines the liability of, and consequences to, exempt organizations participating in joint ventures with for-profit and other tax-exempt entities. This authoritative guide provides unbridled access to relevant IRC provisions, Treasury regulations, IRS rulings, and pertinent judicial decisions and legislative developments that impact exempt organizations involved in joint ventures. * Features in depth analysis of the IRS's requirements for structuring joint ventures to protect a nonprofit's exemption as well as to minimize UBIT * Includes sample models, checklists, and numerous citations to Internal Revenue Code sections, Treasury Regulations, case law, and IRS rulings * Presents models, guidelines, and suggestions for structuring joint ventures and minimizing the risk of audit * Contains detailed coverage of: new Internal Revenue Code requirements impacting charitable hospitals including Section 501(r) and related provisions; university ventures, revised Form 990, with a focus on nonprofits engaged in joint ventures; the IRS's emphasis on good governance practices; international activities by nonprofits; and a comprehensive examination of the New Market Tax Credits and Low Income Housing Tax Credits arena Written by a noted expert in the field, Joint Ventures Involving Tax-Exempt Organizations, Fourth Edition is the most in-depth discussion of this critical topic.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 768
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Preface
Acknowledgments
CHAPTER 1: Introduction: Joint Ventures Involving Exempt Organizations
§ 1.4 UNIVERSITY JOINT VENTURES
§ 1.5 LOW‐INCOME HOUSING AND NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT JOINT VENTURES
§ 1.6 CONSERVATION JOINT VENTURES
§ 1.8 REV. RUL. 98‐15 AND JOINT VENTURE STRUCTURE
§ 1.10 ANCILLARY JOINT VENTURES: REV. RUL. 2004‐51
§ 1.14 THE EXEMPT ORGANIZATION AS A LENDER OR GROUND LESSOR
§ 1.15 PARTNERSHIP TAXATION
§ 1.17 USE OF A SUBSIDIARY AS A PARTICIPANT IN A JOINT VENTURE
§ 1.22 LIMITATION ON PRIVATE FOUNDATION'S ACTIVITIES THAT LIMIT EXCESS BUSINESS HOLDINGS
§ 1.24 OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Notes
CHAPTER 2: Taxation of Charitable Organizations
§ 2.1 INTRODUCTION
§ 2.2 CATEGORIES OF EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS (REVISED)
§ 2.3 § 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATIONS: STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
§ 2.4 CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
§ 2.5 CATEGORIES OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS (NEW)
§ 2.6 APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
§ 2.7 GOVERNANCE
§ 2.8 FORM 990: REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS (REVISED)
§ 2.9 REDESIGNED FORM 990 (NEW)
§ 2.10 THE IRS AUDIT (REVISED)
§ 2.11 CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS (REVISED)
Notes
CHAPTER 3: Taxation of Partnerships and Joint Ventures
§ 3.1 SCOPE OF CHAPTER
§ 3.3 CLASSIFICATION AS A PARTNERSHIP (REVISED)
§ 3.4 ALTERNATIVES TO PARTNERSHIPS
§ 3.7 FORMATION OF PARTNERSHIP
§ 3.8 TAX BASIS IN PARTNERSHIP INTEREST
§ 3.9 PARTNERSHIP OPERATIONS
§ 3.10 PARTNERSHIP DISTRIBUTIONS TO PARTNERS
§ 3.11 SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF ASSETS OR INTERESTS
§ 3.12 OTHER TAX ISSUES
Notes
CHAPTER 4: Overview: Joint Ventures Involving Exempt Organizations
§ 4.1 INTRODUCTION
§ 4.2 EXEMPT ORGANIZATION AS GENERAL PARTNER: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
§ 4.6 REVENUE RULING 2004‐51 AND ANCILLARY JOINT VENTURES
§ 4.9 CONVERSIONS FROM EXEMPT TO FOR‐PROFIT AND FROM FOR‐PROFIT TO EXEMPT ENTITIES
§ 4.10 ANALYSIS OF A VIRTUAL JOINT VENTURE
CHAPTER 5: Private Benefit, Private Inurement, and Excess Benefit Transactions
§ 5.1 WHAT ARE PRIVATE INUREMENT AND PRIVATE BENEFIT?
§ 5.2 TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH PRIVATE BENEFIT OR INUREMENT MAY OCCUR
§ 5.3 PROFIT‐MAKING ACTIVITIES AS INDICIA OF NONEXEMPT PURPOSE
§ 5.4 INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS (REVISED)
§ 5.7 STATE ACTIVITY WITH RESPECT TO INSIDER TRANSACTIONS
Notes
CHAPTER 6: Engaging in a Joint Venture: The Choices
§ 6.1 INTRODUCTION
§ 6.2 LLCs
§ 6.3 USE OF A FOR‐PROFIT SUBSIDIARY AS PARTICIPANT IN A JOINT VENTURE (REVISED)
§ 6.5 PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS AND PROGRAM‐RELATED INVESTMENTS (REVISED)
§ 6.6 NONPROFITS AND BONDS
§ 6.7 EXPLORING ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURES (REVISED)
§ 6.8 OTHER APPROACHES
Notes
CHAPTER 7: Exempt Organizations as Accommodating Parties in Tax Shelter Transactions
§ 7.2 PREVENTION OF ABUSIVE TAX SHELTERS
§ 7.3 EXCISE TAXES AND PENALTIES
Notes
CHAPTER 8: The Unrelated Business Income Tax
§ 8.1 INTRODUCTION
§ 8.3 GENERAL RULE
§ 8.4 STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS TO UBIT
§ 8.5 MODIFICATIONS TO UBIT
§ 8.7 CALCULATION OF UBIT
Notes
CHAPTER 9: Debt‐Financed Income
§ 9.1 INTRODUCTION
§ 9.2 DEBT‐FINANCED PROPERTY
§ 9.3 THE §514(C)(9) EXCEPTION (NEW)
§ 9.6 THE FINAL REGULATIONS
Note
CHAPTER 10: Limitation on Excess Business Holdings
§ 10.1 INTRODUCTION
§ 10.2 EXCESS BUSINESS HOLDINGS: GENERAL RULES (REVISED)
§ 10.3 TAX IMPOSED
§ 10.4 EXCLUSIONS (REVISED)
Notes
CHAPTER 11: Impact on Taxable Joint Ventures: Tax‐Exempt Entity Leasing Rules (New)
§ 11.3 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE § 168(H)
CHAPTER 12: Healthcare Entities in Joint Ventures
§ 12.1 OVERVIEW
§ 12.2 CLASSIFICATIONS OF JOINT VENTURES
§ 12.3 TAX ANALYSIS
§ 12.4 OTHER HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY ISSUES
§ 12.5 PRESERVING THE 50/50 JOINT VENTURE
§ 12.9 GOVERNMENT SCRUTINY
§ 12.11 THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT OF 2010: § 501(R) AND OTHER STATUTORY CHANGES IMPACTING NONPROFIT HOSPITALS
§ 12.12 THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT OF 2010: ACOS AND CO‐OPS: NEW JOINT VENTURE HEALTHCARE ENTITIES (REVISED)
Notes
CHAPTER 13: Low‐Income Housing, New Markets, Rehabilitation, and Other Tax Credit Programs
§ 13.2 NONPROFIT‐SPONSORED LIHTC PROJECT
§ 13.3 LOW‐INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (REVISED)
§ 13.4 HISTORIC INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT
§ 13.6 NEW MARKETS TAX CREDITS (REVISED)
§ 13.10 THE ENERGY TAX CREDITS
§ 13.11 THE OPPORTUNITY ZONE FUNDS: NEW SECTION 1400Z‐1 AND SECTION 1400Z‐2 (REVISED)
APPENDIX 13B
Notes
CHAPTER 14: Joint Ventures with Universities
§ 14.1 INTRODUCTION
§ 14.3 COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IRS COMPLIANCE INITIATIVE
§ 14.5 FACULTY PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH JOINT VENTURES
§ 14.6 NONRESEARCH JOINT VENTURE ARRANGEMENTS
§ 14.7 MODES OF PARTICIPATION BY UNIVERSITIES IN JOINT VENTURES (REVISED)
Notes
CHAPTER 15: Business Leagues Engaged in Joint Ventures
§ 15.1 OVERVIEW
§ 15.2 THE FIVE‐PRONG TEST (REVISED)
§ 15.3 UNRELATED BUSINESS INCOME TAX
Notes
CHAPTER 16: Conservation Organizations in Joint Ventures
§ 16.1 OVERVIEW
§ 16.2 CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AS A CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BENEFIT
§ 16.3 CONSERVATION GIFTS AND § 170(H) CONTRIBUTIONS (REVISED)
§ 16.7 EMERGING ISSUES
Notes
CHAPTER 17: International Joint Ventures
§ 17.5 GENERAL GRANTMAKING RULES
§ 17.11 APPLICATION OF FOREIGN TAX TREATIES
Notes
CHAPTER 19: Debt Restructuring and Asset Protection Issues
§ 19.1 INTRODUCTION
§ 19.2 OVERVIEW OF BANKRUPTCY
§ 19.3 THE ESTATE AND THE AUTOMATIC STAY
§ 19.4 CASE ADMINISTRATION
§ 19.5 CHAPTER 11 PLAN
§ 19.6 DISCHARGE
§ 19.7 SPECIAL ISSUES: CONSEQUENCES OF DEBT REDUCTION
Note
Index
End User License Agreement
Guide
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Preface
Acknowledgments
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Index
Wiley End User License Agreement
Pages
ii
iii
iv
v
xi
xii
xiii
xv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
313
314
315
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
351
352
353
354
355
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
joint ventures involving
tax‐exempt organizations
2022 Cumulative Supplement
Fourth Edition
Michael I. Sanders
Copyright © 2023 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per‐copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750‐8400, fax (978) 750‐4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748‐6011, fax (201) 748‐6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.
Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be used without written permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762‐2974, outside the United States at (317) 572‐3993 or fax (317) 572‐4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data is Available:
ISBN 9781118317112 (main edition)ISBN 9781119985204 (supplement)ISBN 9781119985389 (ePDF)ISBN 9781119985372 (ePub)
Cover Design: WileyCover Image: © Felix MAckel/iStockphoto
To my wife of 50+ wonderful years,Judy, whose love, devotion, and patiencehave made this book possible;and to David, Patty, Hayley, and Jacob;Noah, Brooke, Emme, and Ryder Aaron;Adam, Randi, Gabby, and Eva;and Sammy, Rebecca, Benjamin, and Jonah.
Special dedication: This supplement is dedicated to the memory of two giants in the exempt organization field: Tom Troyer and Bruce Hopkins. Tom paved the way for me as a mentor, having followed him to Treasury, teaching Tax Treatment of Charities at Georgetown University Law School, and becoming active in the ABA Tax Section EO Committee. Most importantly, following the passage of the 1969 Tax Reform Act, he, along with Leonard Silverstein, among others, formed the Washington Lawyers Group, at which former Treasury officials met to analyze the legislation and make recommendations to the IRS and Treasury with regard to resolving open issues in the regulations. Much of the language that remains in the foundation language today was drafted during these sessions.
Bruce Hopkins was a lion in the EO field; he authored countless books and journals, and was a true literary giant in the EO tax world. In fact, it was Bruce who recommended me to John Wiley & Sons, the publisher of this text, suggesting that I author a book on joint ventures involving tax‐exempts. Bruce was a contemporary for more 50 years—brilliant, a good friend, and recognized as the dean of the tax‐exempt bar.
Preface
As the new year began I was hopeful that the application of effective vaccines would control the COVID‐19 pandemic and, as a result, we would have a resurging economy that would relieve the financial pressures on the nonprofit sector. Although the pandemic has been somewhat ameliorated, other crises, including inflationary pressures; the Russian attack on Ukraine and its impact worldwide; hurricanes; gun violence; mass shootings in Uvalde, Buffalo, and so forth; and the need the resettle the Afghan refugees and those in the southwest border, all continue to pressure the EO sector. As the demands on the charitable sector have continued—and, indeed, grown—it has responded to the needs of society, including diversity, equity, and inclusion, by developing new workplace strategies and business practices to sustain their missions.
As I have said over the years, charities are being faced with the need to balance their own financial demands and the loss of funding, compounded by inflationary pressures, in the face of growing needs in the communities; accordingly, the sector has been using joint venture structures, impact‐investing, mission‐creating investments, among other techniques to accomplish their charitable goals. The concern is even greater as prominent economists are predicting a downturn in the economy as it moves into full inflation‐fighting mode. As an aside, there is concern within the sector that many successful entrepreneurs are using the LLC for‐profit structures rather than organizing and funding charitable organizations in order to migrate into the philanthropy arena … which muddies the distinction between commerce and charity; its purpose is to work around compliance with the IRS regulatory framework. In this regard, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (“CZI”) and donor‐advised funds sponsored by major investment companies such as Fidelity Charitable are examples of the application of for‐profit philanthropy, which appears to be expanding. Many commentators suggest that this approach threatens the public's trust, which has been central to charity law.
The nondistribution constraints of the existing charity law ensure that entrepreneurs may not enrich themselves at a charity's expense. However, elites have been criticized for setting aside philanthropy laws, including the private foundation rules created by the 1969 Tax Reform Act, which has been one of the cornerstones of the American tax system for decades. The concern is that many entrepreneurs using this LLC structure offer little public benefit as assets accumulate and donors and staff benefit in an unduly manner. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the above, the use of joint ventures continues to maintain a critical role to the sustainability in the charitable sector.
In Chapter 2, as to “charitable organizations,” there is a discussion about whether minority‐owned businesses and individuals connected with primary beneficiaries who are impoverished, underprivileged, or similarly distressed constitute a charitable class. There is also a review regarding the conflict between federal and state and local laws pertaining to cannabis or marijuana distribution. Finally, there is a discussion related to the contributions of cryptocurrencies (which are being used as fundraising vehicles by charities) as capital gain property.
In Chapter 3, there is a detailed analysis (including comments from the American Bar Association and attorneys general) of the recent IRS Notice 2021‐56, which sets forth the first formal guidance on the standards that multiple‐member LLCs must satisfy to be recognized as exempt under Section 501(c)(3).
In Chapter 5, under intermediate sanctions and compensation, there is a discussion of the propriety of college coaching contracts that appear to provide lucrative compensation, and as to whether the structure contributes to the overall educational mission of the university.
In Chapter 6, there is an expanded discussion of benefit and flexible purpose corporations, including conversions, with a checklist and key considerations for the practitioners.
In Chapter 9, under the § 5.14(c)(9) exception, there is a discussion of the recent Sixth Circuit decision in the Mayo Clinic case in regard to the lack of formal instruction as interpreted by the Treasury Regulations.
In Chapter 13, there is an update on opportunity zone (OZ) funds, including an analysis of the legislative proposal (April, 2022), along with a discussion of various “open” OZ issues relative to certification versus noncertification of a qualified opportunity fund; a proposal to stimulate investment in operating businesses to promote job growth; the use of intangible property and the working capital safe harbor and 70 percent tangible property test; valuation of contributed property; and the need to increase investment in affordable housing. Finally, there is a discussion of the 2021 corrective amendments resolving the ambiguity in the application of the 2020 amendments to the start‐up business working capital safe harbor.
In Chapter 14, relative to modes of participation by universities in joint ventures, there is a new subchapter on UBIT implications for universities as a result of the emergence of NIL (name, image, and likeness) deals for college athletes.
In Chapter 16, regarding the area of syndicated conservation easements, there is a discussion of the overvaluation issue; and, further, an update of a number of recent decisions that affect various aspects of the contribution deduction.
The bottom line, once again, is that there is no one paradigm for joint ventures, especially in view of the recent COVID‐19 pandemic and other societal crises including inflationary pressures, the Russian attack on Ukraine, hurricanes, gun violence, mass shootings, and so on, all of which have continued to pressure the charitable organization's budget and impacted fund raising. Accordingly, exempt organizations need to be even more creative and forge new paths to create and solve many issues affecting their future, society, and so on. This text is intended to suggest mechanisms to accomplish the worthy goal of the charitable communities. We also believe that the opportunity zone fund law, which was enacted in 2017, will be modified with new legislation in 2022, requiring additional reporting and disclosure requirements, modifying census tracts, as well as increasing the tax incentives for investors. The legislation should further the application of funds being redirected to low‐income communities and expand start‐up businesses and development opportunities.
Acknowledgments
I want to call attention to the work of DyTiesha Dunson, a graduate tax student at Georgetown University Law School, who has taken the class Special Topics in Exempt Organizations, and has written an excellent paper on NILs that serves to provide substantive materials included in this text. Also, Tyler Buchholz provided research and included materials updating the conservation organization chapter; and Cynthia Paine updated the LIHTC materials. I also want to thank Ronald Schultz at Alliant Group for his outstanding contributions over the years in co‐teaching classes at Georgetown Law Center and editing sections of this text. Ron has recently retired from the practice to devote time to his wonderful family.
I especially acknowledge Linda Schrader, whose extraordinary kindness and sensitivity have been invaluable in the preparation of the manuscript as well as her coordination with the staff at John Wiley & Sons; Linda has been critical to the entire process since the beginning of this treatise.
CHAPTER 1Introduction: Joint Ventures Involving Exempt Organizations
§ 1.4 University Joint Ventures
§ 1.5 Low‐Income Housing and New Markets Tax Credit Joint Ventures
§ 1.6 Conservation Joint Ventures
§ 1.8 Rev. Rul. 98‐15 and Joint Venture Structure
§ 1.10 Ancillary Joint Ventures: Rev. Rul. 2004‐51
§ 1.14 The Exempt Organization as a Lender or Ground Lessor
§ 1.15 Partnership Taxation
§ 1.17 Use of a Subsidiary as a Participant in a Joint Venture
§ 1.22 Limitation on Private Foundation's Activities That Limit Excess Business Holdings
§ 1.24 Other Developments
§ 1.4 UNIVERSITY JOINT VENTURES
p. 11. Add the following new paragraph at the end of this section:
There is continued congressional focus on university endowments in light of the soaring cost of tuition and the perceived relatively low rate of financial assistance provided by colleges and universities with substantial endowments. See Chapter 14 for a discussion on policy changes that are being proposed, including imposing an annual payout requirement on endowment funds, among others.
§ 1.5 LOW‐INCOME HOUSING AND NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT JOINT VENTURES
pp. 13–14. Delete the last paragraph on p. 13 and replace with the following:
The CDFI Fund has made 1,254 allocation awards totaling $61 billion in allocation authority since the NMTC Program's inception. Since inception through FY 2019, CDEs have disbursed a total of $52.5 billion in QEI proceeds to low‐income community businesses (QALICBs).
§ 1.6 CONSERVATION JOINT VENTURES
p. 15. Add the following to the last paragraph of this section:
In January 2014, Treasury and the IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2014‐12, 2014‐3 I.R.B. 414, which established a safe harbor for federal historic tax credit investments made within a single tier through a master lease pass‐through structure. The guidance was issued in response to the Historic Boardwalk decision referenced earlier.
§ 1.8 REV. RUL. 98‐15 AND JOINT VENTURE STRUCTURE
p. 18. Add the following to the end of footnote 65:
PLR 201744019 (revocation of exemption of a § 501(c)(3) exempt hospital that was not operated exclusively for § 501(c)(3) purposes because it lacked the ability to require a for‐profit manager to operate for charitable purposes).
§ 1.10 ANCILLARY JOINT VENTURES: REV. RUL. 2004‐51
p. 21. Add the following new paragraph to the end of this section:
In Section 4.10, there is an analysis of a virtual joint venture hypothetical, as to which a similar rationale should apply in a case in which the IRS proposes the revocation of an existing 501(c)(3) organization, alleging impermissible private benefit following an examination of its relationship with a for‐profit entity. This commentator believes that the rationale should apply, notwithstanding the fact that no formal joint venture arrangement exists between the parties.
§ 1.14 THE EXEMPT ORGANIZATION AS A LENDER OR GROUND LESSOR
p. 28. Insert the following at the end of this section:
The Internal Revenue Service recently issued final guidance for private foundations that updates examples that relate to program‐related investments that pass muster under § 4944(c). The rules (T.D. 9762) provide changes and examples that were first provided in the 2012 Proposed Regulations. See subsection 6.5(b) for a detailed discussion of the new examples.
In April 2016 the IRS issued final guidance for private foundations that updates a number of examples of program‐related investments that won't trigger excise taxes. Final Rules (T.D. 9762) illustrate changes to the examples provided in the 2012 Proposed Rules. In one change involving Example 11, a private foundation that invested in a drug company subsidiary developing a vaccine for disease predominantly affecting poor people in developing countries recognizes that, in addition to distributing the vaccine at affordable prices, the subsidiary is allowed to sell the vaccine to those who can afford it at fair market value prices. In Chapter 6, each of the examples and its revised Treasury guidelines are set forth.
§ 1.15 PARTNERSHIP TAXATION
(a) Overview
p. 30. Add the following new paragraph to the end of this subsection:
In the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, the partnership audit rules have been revised, the effect of which is that adjustments of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit are to be determined at the partnership level and the taxes attributable thereto will be assessed and collected at the partnership level. The new rules are effective beginning taxable years after December 31, 2018, although small partnerships may opt out before then. See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the application of the new rules.
(b) Bargain Sale Including “Like Kind” Exchange
p. 30. Add the following to the end of footnote 101:
See discussions regarding contribution of LLC/partnership interests to charity in subsection 2.11(f), infra, and Section 3.11, Sale or Other Disposition of Assets or Interests.
§ 1.17 USE OF A SUBSIDIARY AS A PARTICIPANT IN A JOINT VENTURE
p. 34. Add the following paragraph after the first full paragraph on this page:
In September 2015, National Geographic Society formed a joint venture with 21st Century Fox, called the National Geographic Partners, a for‐profit media joint venture. In this new venture, Fox contributed a substantial amount of cash to National Geographic, which increased its endowment to nearly $1 billion, in exchange for the contribution of significant assets, including its television channels and related digital and social media platforms. See subsection 6.3(b)(iv) for an analysis of the structure.
§ 1.22 LIMITATION ON PRIVATE FOUNDATION'S ACTIVITIES THAT LIMIT EXCESS BUSINESS HOLDINGS
p. 45. Add the following footnote to the end of this section:
163.1 See discussion regarding the contribution of LLC/partnership interests to charity in subsection 2.11(f).
§ 1.24 OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
p. 47. Add the following as footnote 175 to the last sentence of this section:
175 In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court cited p. 555 in this book, which described Google.org advancing its charitable goals while operating as a for‐profit corporation. See footnote 24 of the Hobby Lobby decision, 134 S.Ct. 2751 (2014). The court recognized that while operating as a for‐profit corporation, it is able to invest in for‐profit endeavors, do lobbying, and tap Google's innovative technology and workforce. It acknowledged that states have increasingly adopted laws formally recognizing hybrid corporate forms.
p. 47. Add the following at the end of the subsection:
With the growing impact of COVID‐19, many business owners are interested in providing financial assistance to their furloughed or terminated employees, even though they cannot afford to keep them on their payroll. An attractive option is the creation of an employer‐sponsored charity to raise tax‐deductible contributions to be distributed to former employees who demonstrate need. In addition, a supplemental unemployment benefit trust under §501(c)(17) can be formed as part of a plan to pay supplemental unemployment compensation benefits. Under section 139, employers can provide assistance directly to an employee free of income tax, provided the funds are used to pay or reimburse amounts that are reasonably expected to be incurred for incremental personal, family, or living expenses as a result of the COVID‐19 crisis.
Under section 139, payments may cover the following expenses: (1) unreimbursed medical expenses and health‐related expenses; (2) home expenses due to telecommuting; (3) housing costs for additional family members; (4) increased childcare and tutoring costs due to school closings; (5) additional commuting expenses; and (6) increased costs of home office supplies.
An employer‐sponsored charity may cover not only those employees who are suffering under the impact of COVID‐19 but may cover future hardships as well. However, charities benefiting individuals are permissible if the class of eligible beneficiaries is broad enough to be considered “indeterminable.” For example, a charity designed to benefit past, current, and future employees of an entire restaurant group due to the pandemic and future disasters is broad enough and the beneficiaries are not immediately identifiable because unknown future employees and current employees who are victims of future disasters are eligible beneficiaries. Secondly, the individuals who are invested with the authority to make the grants—the board of directors or a committee appointed by the board—must consist of a majority of individuals who do not exert “substantial influence” over the business with rank‐and‐file employees and should be included among the decision makers. Finally, individuals who demonstrate a financial need are eligible to receive assistance, but the charity should avoid giving a “one size fits all” grant to every employee. Acceptable purposes for such grants include payment of necessary healthcare expenses; providing cost of childcare or educational expenses for children of employees; or short‐term grants meant to cover basic living expenses.
Caveat
The charity should retain documentation regarding the employee's eligibility for a grant and verification that the employee used the funds for eligible purposes.176
Caveat
Businesses that contemplate severance payments to workers should consider structuring such payments so that they qualify under section 139. If so, the payments would appear to be exempt from income tax and most payroll taxes. However, any payments pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation to pay severance would be difficult to categorize as section 139 payments. Secondly, section 139 contemplates payments commensurate with expenses they intend to offset, while severance payments are often computed based upon years of service and salary levels.
In Notice 2020‐46, the IRS provided guidance to employers for how to exchange employee elections to forgo vacation, sick, or personal leave for cash payments that the employer makes to charitable organizations for COVID‐19 relief. An employee who elects to relinquish aid leave will not be taxed on the value of the leave, if the payments in exchange for the leave are made by the individual's employer prior to January, 1, 2021, to a § 170(c) organization that provides “relief to victims of the COVID‐19 pandemic.”
Caveat
Although not explicit in the IRS notice, the use of the phrase “victims of the COVID‐19 pandemic” can be read to mean that the permissible use of the donations extends not only to assist people who contract the disease, but also to people who lose their jobs or are otherwise financially harmed by the pandemic.177
The CARES Act expanded the definition of educational assistance for purposes of section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, to include certain employer payments made after March 27, 2020 under an “educational assistance program”178 for repayment of employee student loans. As a result, through the end of the 2025 taxable year, an employer can make tax‐free payments to its employees for student loan assistance of up to $5,250 per year. Payments in excess of $5,250 per year (and payments that are not made pursuant to an educational assistance program (as described below)) would be included in the employee's gross income. Additional rules and requirements related to qualified payments and educational assistance programs are described below.
The payments can be made to the employee or directly to the lender, for repayment of either principal or interest, so long as the payments are made with respect to a “qualified education loan” and certain requirements under section 127 of the Code are met. A qualified education loan would generally include any student loan that is part of a federal postsecondary education loan program that is incurred for “qualified education expenses” of the employee's education, such as tuition and fees, room and board, books, certain supplies and equipment, and certain other necessary expenses for the employee's education. The qualified education expenses must generally be paid or incurred with student loan proceeds within a reasonable period of time before or after the employee takes out the loan.
In order for the payments to employees to qualify for the gross income exclusion, the payments must be made pursuant to a separate written educational assistance program established for the exclusive benefit of the employer's employees so as to provide them with educational assistance.
The employer can establish certain restrictions (subject to the nondiscrimination rules under section 127 of the Code, discussed below) on an employee's eligibility under the program such as job relationship requirements, limitation on when and where the courses can be taken, preapproval by the program manager or the employee's supervisor, proof of completion of the course, minimum course grades, and completion of a certain period of employment after completion of the course.
The following are additional requirements of the educational assistance program under section 127 of the Code:
The program benefits employees who qualify under rules set up by the employer (such as those described above in the immediately preceding bullet point) that do not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees (i.e., an employee who (i) during the current or preceding tax year is or was a more than 5 percent owner with respect to the employer, or (ii) earned compensation in excess of $130,000 (for the 2021 tax year) unless such employee was not also in the top 20 percent of employees by pay for the preceding year and the employer chooses not to treat such individual as a highly compensated employee);
The program does not provide for more than 5 percent of its total benefits during the year to its more than 5 percent shareholders or owners (or their spouses or dependents);
The program does not allow the employees to receive cash or other benefits that must be included in gross income instead of educational assistance; and
The employer must give reasonable notice of the program to its eligible employees.
An employer can choose to treat the following individuals as employees for purposes of the income exclusion rules: a current employee; a former employee who retired, left on disability, or was laid off; a leased employee who provided services under the employer's primary direction or control on a substantially full‐time basis for at least a year; and self‐employed individuals (such as an owner of a business if the employer is a sole proprietorship, or a partner who performs services for a partnership if the employer is a partnership).
The program does not need to be funded to qualify.
The employer may, but is not required to, obtain a determination letter from the IRS that the program is a qualified educational assistance program.
Notes
176
It is important to note that as an alternative, employers may be able to assist their employees by making qualified disaster relief payments on a tax‐free basis under section 139 of the Code, previously discussed.
177
Employers will have the choice of deducting these contributions either under the rules of Code § 170, as a charitable contribution deduction, or under section 162, which relates to the deduction for ordinary and necessary business expenses. The benefit of taking a deduction under Code § 162 as opposed to Code § 170 is that the employer will not be subject to certain limitations that section 170 imposes on the amount of the payment that is deductible in the year of the payment.
178
The term “educational assistance” means (a) the payment, by an employer, of expenses incurred by or on behalf of an employee for education of that employee (including, but not limited to, tuition, fees, and similar payments, books, supplies, and equipment); (b) in the case of payments made before January 1, 2021, the payment by an employer, whether paid to the employee or to a lender, of principal or interest on any qualified education loan (as defined in § 221(d)(1)) incurred by the employee for education of the employee; and (c) the provision, by an employer, of courses of instruction for such employee (including books, supplies, and equipment), but does not include payment for, or the provision of, tools or supplies that may be retained by the employee after completion of a course of instruction, or meals, lodging, or transportation. The term “educational assistance” also does not include any payment for, or the provision of, any benefits with respect to any course or other education involving sports, games, or hobbies. (See § 127(c)(1).)
CHAPTER 2Taxation of Charitable Organizations
§ 2.1 Introduction
§ 2.2 Categories of Exempt Organizations (Revised)
§ 2.3 § 501(c)(3) Organizations: Statutory Requirements
§ 2.4 Charitable Organizations: General Requirements
§ 2.5 Categories of Charitable Organizations (New)
§ 2.6 Application for Exemption
§ 2.7 Governance
§ 2.8 Form 990: Reporting and Disclosure Requirements (Revised)
§ 2.9 Redesigned Form 990 (New)
§ 2.10 The IRS Audit (Revised)
§ 2.11 Charitable Contributions (Revised)
§ 2.1 INTRODUCTION
p. 50. Insert quotation marks around IRC on line 8 and add a comma after contributions and churches in footnote 2.
p. 52. Insert the following after the last paragraph of this section:
In the 2017 Tax Act (Pub. L. No. 115‐97) (the “Tax Act”), the following changes affect tax‐exempt organizations:
New 2017 Legislation
Charitable contributions are likely to decline as a result of the lowering of the individual income tax brackets (a maximum rate of 37 percent) while doubling the standard deduction. These rates and the standard deduction sunset after December 31, 2025. It is projected that only 5 percent of taxpayers will have sufficient itemized deductions that exceed the standard deduction that will enable them to continue to claim a charitable contribution deduction, which may curtail charitable giving. Moreover, the estate tax exemption was doubled so that individuals now have $11 million of exemption and married couples are able to exclude $22.4 million from their estate tax. This provision also sunsets after December 31, 2025. Finally, there is a reduction in the C Corporation rates to 21 percent, which is a permanent change. It is important to note that C Corps have been the largest investor in joint ventures, including the low‐income house tax credit and new market tax credits. (See
Chapter 13
.)
The AGI annual limitation has been increased to 60 percent for cash contributions; the provision also sunsets after December 31, 2025. There is obvious concern that major donors are likely to be the only taxpayers in a position to give away up to 60 percent of their AGI in a given year. In addition, the rule that requires contemporary written acknowledgment (§ 170(f)(8)(D)) no longer applies if the donee organization files a return that includes similar content. See
subsection 2.11
(f). The charitable sector benefits because they have been pressured by donors to fill forms out in lieu of providing a standard acknowledgment. The proposed regulations required the reporting of the donors’ tax ID numbers/FNS, and charities were concerned that it could lead to theft.
Code § 4960 proposes a new 21 percent excise tax on tax‐exempt organizations (modeled on § 162(m)) for (i) any “remuneration” paid to a covered employee that exceeds $1 million (whether or not such amounts are reasonable) and (ii) on “excess parachute payments” paid to a covered person under a separation agreement (i.e., severance payments that exceed 3 times the person's annual compensation averaged over the past five years). In this regard “covered employees” include the top five most highly compensated employees (or former employees) from the tax year or anyone who was a covered employee from any preceding taxable year beginning in 2017. “Remuneration” is defined as “all wages” under § 3401(a), excluding Roth contributions, paid by a tax‐exempt organization or related party with respect to employment of the covered person. See
subsection 5.4
(b).
5.1
Caveat
The intermediate sanctions and excess benefit rules of Code § 4958 still apply.
Caveat
The Act extends these new executive compensation limitations to tax‐exempts not limited to 501(c)(3)s or 501(c)(4)s, but including businesses, federal and state and local entities under § 115(1), and political organizations. Unlike the intermediate sanctions excise tax, § 4960 tax applies to the organization itself, not a covered employee or organizational manager.
The excess tax applies to deferred compensation remuneration, which is viewed as paid where it is no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture under § 457(f)(3)(B). Thus, amounts that are “vested” but not yet received by a covered employee will be subject to tax.5.2
There is a new, unrelated business income tax (UBIT) on transportation, parking, and gym fringe benefits unless the amounts are deductible under Code § 274 because they are treated as part of the employee's taxable compensation. Note that this has been repealed under the Taxpayers Certainty and Disclosure Act of 2019.
The unrelated business income tax rate is now 21 percent, which will provide relief to many exempt organizations that have been paying as much as 35 percent on unrelated taxable income. However, this rate reduction may be offset by the new rule that net operating losses from one activity may no longer offset income from another activity. Tax‐exempt organizations will need to calculate tax on each unrelated business separately.
Query
May all “investment” activities be treated as one activity for offsetting purposes? Will each of the gains and losses have to be separately stated? Treasury will need to publish regulations to resolve this issue.
There is now a new 1.4 percent tax on net investment income of certain colleges and universities defined as “applicable educational institutions” (i) that have at least 500 tuition‐paying students, (ii) that have more than 50 percent of tuition‐paying students located in the United States, and (iii) whose assets aggregated at fair market value are at least $500,000 per student at the end of the preceding taxable year. See
Section 14.1
. Related organizations to colleges and universities are required to have their assets and net income considered when determining whether the institution meets the asset‐per‐student threshold and for purposes for determining net investment income.
Caveat
This new legislation is targeted at highly compensated college and university athletic coaches and presidents, some of whom have million‐dollar salaries.
Caveat
The new Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 clarifies the Tax Act to provide that the “at least 500” and “more than 50 percent” of students tests both refer only to tuition‐paying students.
Caveat
This new excise tax is estimated to raise approximately $1.8 billion in revenue over ten years and affect only about 35 institutions.
A related organization will include one in which the educational institution (a) controls or is controlled by (b) one or more persons who control the institution or (c) are supported organizations or supporting organizations with respect to the institution. The foregoing rules will require Treasury Regulations to clarify the scope of the new provision.
Section 170(l) is amended to eliminate the special rule and now denies deductions for college booster seats including season tickets.
Provisions That Did Not Survive the Tax Act
It is important to examine a number of provisions that were considered by the House and Senate but that did not survive the Conference Committee. The following provisions may well be reconsidered the next time extensive tax legislation is considered by Congress. Beware of the potential that some, if not all, of these provisions will be in play in the near future.
In the application of the initial tax on a disqualified person pursuant to the intermediate sanctions rules, the rebuttable presumption of reasonableness would have been eliminated. (See
subsection 5.4
(c)(ii).) Procedures would be promulgated by the IRS to establish that an organization has performed minimum standards of due diligence (essentially the same as those that pertain in connection with the previously described presumption) with respect to a transaction or other arrangement involving a disqualified person (proposed IRC § 4958(d)(3)). The existing rule by which an organization manager's participation in a transaction ordinarily is not “knowing” participation for purposes of the intermediate sanctions rules if the manager relied on professional advice would be eliminated (proposed IRC § 4958(g)). The definition of a disqualified person, for purposes of the intermediate sanctions rules, would be expanded to include investment advisors and athletic coaches at private educational institutions (see proposed IRC § 4958(f)(1)(G), proposed revision of IRC § 4958(f)(8)(B)).
5.3
The private foundation's excise tax would be reduced to a single rate of 1.4 percent (revised IRC § 4940(a), proposed repeal of IRC § 4940(e)). Also a rule would be enacted stating that an entity cannot be a private operating foundation as an art museum unless the museum is open during normal business hours to the public for at least 1,000 hours annually (proposed IRC § 4942(j(6))).
A sale or licensing by an exempt organization of the entity's name or logo (including any related trademark or copyright) would be treated as an unrelated business regularly carried on (proposed IRC §§ 512(b)(20), 513(k)). Income derived from such licensing would be included in the organization's gross unrelated business income, notwithstanding the exclusion for certain types of passive income (including other forms of royalties). See
subsection 8.5
(d). The unrelated business income tax would not apply to research limited to publicly available research (see IRC § 512(b)(9)). The application of UBIT to state and local retirement plans (proposed IRC § 511(d)) would be clarified.
Charitable organizations would be allowed to make statements relating to political campaigns in the ordinary course of program activities, where the expenses are de minimis (proposed IRC § 501(s)), a very controversial proposal opposed by both the Independent Sector and the Council on Foundations.
The tax exemption for professional sports leagues (IRC § 501(c)(6)) would be repealed.
The standard mileage rate for the use of an automobile for charitable purposes would be adjusted to take into account the variable costs of operating the vehicle rather than the existing law's 14‐cents‐per‐mile deduction.
Additional reporting requirements for sponsoring organizations of donor‐advised funds would be enacted, consisting of the average amount of grants expressed as a percentage of asset value and a statement as to whether the organization has a policy as to the frequency and minimum level of distributions (proposed IRC § 6033(k)(4)).
At the end of its spring term, the Supreme Court issued a decision that some have speculated could lead to governmental outsourcing of more activities to nonprofits. The case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck et al., 587 U.S. ___ (2019), involved the question of whether a nonprofit was a “state actor” when New York City delegated the operation of public access channels to it. A cable operator typically operates public access channels itself unless the local government elects to operate them or selects a private entity to do so. If found to be a state actor, the organization would be subject to the First Amendment. In this case, New York City designated a nonprofit to operate the public access channels of a New York cable system. The nonprofit, MNN, aired a film that was critical of it, but later barred the film's producers from future access to the channels. The producers brought suit on grounds that this action violated their First Amendment free‐speech rights. The five–four split focused on whether operating public access channels is a traditional, exclusive public function, with the majority ruling that very few functions are exclusive public functions. Consistent with this ruling, if the government delegates an activity to a private organization, such as a nonprofit, and does not direct its operations or act in partnership with it, the nonprofit's speech‐related activities will not be subject to First Amendment limits.
CARES Act
The newly enacted Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (commonly known as the “CARES Act”) includes a number of provisions designed to encourage charitable contributions of cash to both individuals and corporations. Individual donors making gifts to qualified charities may deduct up to 100 percent of their 2020 adjusted gross income over and above the usual cap of 60 percent (or 50 percent if charitable contributions are made through a combination of cash and other assets). Corporate taxpayers that make qualified contributions can deduct such contributions up to 25 percent of adjusted taxable income, rather than the 10 percent limitation from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Excess contributions may be carried forward for the next five taxable years; however, various deduction limitations should be restored in 2021 and thereafter. Qualified contributions do not include contributions for the establishment of new or maintenance of an existing donor‐advised fund, or for gifts to private foundations (other than pass‐through foundations and private operating foundations).
For tax years beginning in 2020, individual taxpayers who claim the standard deduction on their federal tax return as opposed to itemizing deductions are permitted to make qualifying contributions up to $300 annually and to use such contributions as an above‐the‐line deduction in computing their adjusted income.
§ 2.2 CATEGORIES OF EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS (REVISED)
p. 52. Delete the last two sentences in footnote 9 and replace with the following:
According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, there were 1,202,719 § 501(c)(3) organizations as of April 2016. http://nccs.urban.org/statistics/quickfacts.cfm.
p. 54. Delete the last sentence in this subsection and insert the following:
See Section 2.3 and subsequent sections for analysis and discussion of these rules. The following presents a brief comparison of § 501(c)(3) and § 501(c)(4) organizations, social welfare organizations that are being formed with increasing frequency.
(a) § 501(c)(4) Organizations: A Brief Overview
Section 501(c)(4) organizations have greater organizational and operational flexibility than § 501(c)(3) organizations. Their numbers have substantially increased since the Supreme Court Citizens United case,22.1 with further growth anticipated as a result of the 2017 increase in the standard deduction. See subsection 2.6(c). In light of changes in the Tax Act reducing the numbers of taxpayers eligible to claim a deduction for contributions to § 501(c)(3) organizations, there is an expectation of increased donations to § 501(c)(4) organizations that can, as described later, engage in unlimited lobbying and a certain amount of political activity on behalf of candidates and issues they support.
Section 501(c)(4) provides tax exemption for civic organizations and local associations of employees that are not organized and operated for profit and are operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.22.2 Like § 501(c)(3) organizations, the earnings of § 501(c)(4) entities cannot inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual,22.3 and the § 4958 excise tax is imposed on excess benefit transactions between a disqualified person and § 501(c)(4) organization.22.4 See Section 5.4.
Contributions to § 501(c)(4) organizations are not deductible as charitable contributions under § 170(c),22.5 although dues or contributions to § 501(c)(4) organizations may be deductible as business expenses under § 162.22.6
A § 501(c)(4) organization must be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.22.7 However, regulations under § 501(c)(4) have defined “exclusively” to mean “primarily” engaged in the promotion of social welfare.22.8 Accordingly, unlike the absolute prohibition on political activity by § 501(c)(3) organizations, a § 501(c)(4) organization may engage in political activity provided that the organization's political activity does not constitute its primary activity. If a § 501(c)(4) organization's political activities exceed this restriction, the organization may be subject to a tax on expenditures made for political activities under § 527(f).22.9
Neither the IRC nor the regulations contain a numerical definition of “primarily.” Some practitioners advise § 501(c)(4) organizations that “primarily” may be interpreted as 51 percent of their total expenditures, in effect allowing § 501(c)(4)s to allocate up to 49 percent of total expenditures to political activity.22.10 Other practitioners take a more conservative approach to minimize risk of a challenge to tax exemption or imposition of excise taxes and advise limiting political activity to less than 40 percent of total expenditures to political activity.
Section 501(c)(4) organizations may also engage in an unlimited amount of lobbying, provided that the lobbying is related to the organization's exempt purpose to promote social welfare.22.11 Consequently, an organization whose substantial lobbying activities would cause it to be characterized as an action organization under § 501(c)(3), and therefore disqualified as a § 501(c)(3), may nonetheless qualify for exemption under § 501(c)(4).22.12
Political advocacy has become an essential way for policy to be shaped in the United States in order to better represent communities across the country. In view of the limitations that charitable organizations face in order to participate in this political process, organizations formed under § 501(c)(4) may fill the gaps left by public charity spending as well as respond to corporations with incentives to advocate for policy that is counteractive to a charitable purpose, even if inadvertent. Section 501(c)(4) organizations provide essentially the same services as a § 501(c)(3) charity without the benefit of tax deductibility of donations. With regard to this growing requirement to participate in some form of policymaking influence, the § 501(c)(4) organization stands as a critical element to serve those in need by maximizing the activities that will help benefit the underprivileged.
Furthermore, in the wake of COVID‐19, billions of lives have been impacted all over the world, many adjusting to a new reality when it comes to social norms of each society as well as the potential economic hardships that lie ahead. The need for representation is essential with regard to the enactment of stimulus packages that benefit large corporations to a greater extent than the average American taxpayer.22.13 This is one of the challenges that organizations that engage in charitable activities must face as the political class is dividing up the slices of pie and the traditional § 501(c)(3) public charities cannot compete with the level of lobbying and political participation permitted. The § 501(c)(4) organization stands ready as a David to many Goliaths that appear to pillage and enjoy the spoils of legislative victories at the expense of many needy Americans. While the highly politicized Supreme Court decision Citizens United has plagued § 501(c)(4) organizations as a veil to hide corporate and super PAC influence, social welfare organizations are an important part of serving communities at large. COVID‐19 has brought a new understanding of what it means to be a community, and hopefully the next tax‐exempt organizations that “rise out of the flames” of COVID‐19 will help illuminate the community good provided by § 501(c)(4) organizations as well as the need to be politically involved.
The IRS has issued final regulations, effective July 19, 2019, addressing the requirement of § 501(c)(4) organizations to submit Form 8976, “Notice of Intent to Operate Under Section 501(c)(4).” The final regulations are consistent with the temporary regulations in requiring that the form be filed within 60 days of the date the organization is formed (T.D. 9873). In addition, if an entity seeks a determination letter from the IRS recognizing its exempt status, it can elect to file Form 1024‐A.22.14 Section 501(c)(4) organizations are also subject to annual filing requirements using Form 990 or 990EZ.22.15 See subsection 2.6(c) and Section 2.8. See Rev. Proc. 2000‐8 regarding electronic filing of Forms 1024. The IRS revised and updated Form 1024 and provided for it to be electronically submitted at www.pay.gov. Organizations seeking determination under § 501(a) (other than those described in § 501(c)(3) or § 501(c)(4) and those seeking group rulings), including those organizations that have been required to submit letter requests to seek determination, are generally required to electronically submit the Form 1024 effective date of January 3, 2022. There is a 90‐day transition period for late filings provided as well.
As a general rule, § 501(c)(3) organizations could qualify under § 501(c)(4), whereas not all § 501(c)(4) organizations would qualify as a § 501(c)(3) under the more stringent rules placed on § 501(c)(3) organizations.22.16
In a bow to pressure from conservative groups in Congress, the IRS changed longstanding policy in regard to disclosure of donor names by § 501(c)(4) organizations, which traditionally has been done on Form 990 for transparency. Following the 2010 Citizens United decision, there has been a substantial uptick in the formation and political activity of § 501(c)(4) organizations, which would no longer have to disclose their donors on Form 990. The names of donors disclosed on Schedule B of Form 990 were not made available to the public, only to the IRS; nevertheless, many commentators were critical of the new rules as facilitating “dark money” in politics. According to a former director of the IRS's exempt organizations division, donor information “is of material importance for determining whether organizations are operating appropriately and within the boundaries of the rules” (Rev. Proc. 2018‐38, 2018‐31 I.R.B., July 17, 2018).22.17 However, on July 30, 2019, a federal judge overturned the IRS ruling. The state of Montana, joined by the state of New Jersey, brought a lawsuit alleging that the IRS could not simply waive the donor disclosure requirements, which were established by IRS regulation, without providing an opportunity for public comment in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
In May 2020, the IRS issued final regulations on donor disclosure, providing that social welfare organizations as well as § 501(c)(6) trade associations are no longer required to report large donors ($5,000 or more) on Schedule B on Form 990. Section 501(c)(3) organizations and section 527 political organizations remain subject to statutory requirements for donor disclosure.22.18
Gifts to a 501(c)(4) organization, whether in cash or appreciated securities, are not subject to gift tax; however, such amounts are not deductible from the donor's taxable income regardless of whether the gifts are in the form of cash, securities, or other assets. If the gift is in the form of appreciated securities, the subsequent sale of the securities does not cause the § 501(c)(4) organization to be liable for tax on the appreciation. See subsection 2.11(e) regarding charitable contributions to SMLLCs.
§ 2.3 § 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATIONS: STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
(a) Organizational Test
(iii) Dedication of Assets. p. 57. In footnote 36, change brackets to parentheses.
(b) Operational Test
p. 57. In footnote 38, change note 40 to note 37.
p. 58. Add the following to the end of footnote 42:
The IRS will revoke the exempt status of an organization that conducts no activities at all. See PLR 201623011.
(i) Operating Exclusively for Exempt Purposes. p. 59. The second paragraph under this section is a continuation of the first paragraph and should not be indented.
p. 60. The first full paragraph on this page is a continuation of the previous paragraph and should not be indented.
p. 61. Delete the citation in footnote 65 and replace with the following:
Kentucky Bar Foundation, 78 T.C. at 930.
(ii) Prohibition against Inurement. p. 62. Delete the citation in footnote 72 and replace with the following:
American Campaign Academy, 92 T.C. at 1068.
p. 63. Combine footnotes 74 and 75 into one footnote 74.
(iii) The Commensurate Test. p. 69. Add the following at the end of the subsection (following Note) and renumber current (iv) to (v):
In view of the recent COVID‐19 pandemic and the budgetary pressures that followed, charities are pursuing more diverse means of generating revenues, including impact investing (Section 6.8), tax credit structures (Chapter 13), and opportunity zone funds (Section 13.11
