Thursday, October 13, 2016
Bloomberg reports that a new bill (H.R. 6195) has been introduced that would allow 501(c)(3) organizations to make statements about political campaigns, if the statements “are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax-exempt purpose.” Many believe this exemption is overly broad, creating issues with enforcement. Ms. Kinglsey, a Washington attorney, stated that “you’re creating a loophole for people to drive a truck through . . . .” A particular concern related to broadness comes with the lack of a definition of what exactly is an organization’s “regular and customary activities.” Under the bill, a 501(c)(3) organization could not hold a specific fundraiser for a candidate, but they could encourage their constituents to donate to political candidates.
To abate the possibility of an influx of financial donations, the bill states that organizations may not incur more than “de minimis incremental expenses” in the process of making a political statement.
Many church leaders believe they have a fundamental right to voice their political opinion. Erik W. Stanley, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, said “No tax exemption can be based on a requirement that a church or any other non-profit organization give up a constitutionally protected freedom, including free speech. With regard to churches, they can decide for themselves what they should or shouldn’t say from the pulpit.”
Will Congress view this proposal as a necessary expansion of speech, or as an overly difficult rule to enforce?
In, PBBM-Rose Hill v. Commissioner, Bench Op. (Oct. 7, 2016), the Tax Court sustained the IRS’s disallowance of a $15,160,000 deduction that a partnership claimed with regard to the donation of a conservation easement encumbering a golf course. The court determined that the easement had a value of only $100,000, the partnership failed to satisfy certain requirements in IRC § 170(h) and the accompanying Treasury Regulations, and the partnership was subject to a 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty.
A Tax Court judge is authorized to issue a Bench Opinion in a regular or S case when the judge is “satisfied as to the factual conclusions to be reached in the case and that the law to be applied thereto is clear.” To issue a Bench Opinion, the judge orally states the findings of fact and opinion in court during the trial session and a transcript reflecting the findings of fact and opinion is sent to the parties. Bench Opinions cannot be relied upon as precedent in other cases. See U.S. Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 152 and Taxpayer Information: After Trial.
In 2002, PBBM-Rose Hill, Ltd., a partnership (PBBM), purchased a 241-acre, 27-hole golf course located in Beaufort County, South Carolina, from Rose Hill Country Club, Inc., for $2.4 million. The golf course was largely interspersed among the houses of a gated community.
PBBM ceased all business operations on the golf course in January 2006, and two months later filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition.
On December 28, 2007, PBBM contributed a conservation easement to the North American Land Trust (NALT) with respect to 234 acres of the golf-course property (7 acres were excluded from the easement for golf course maintenance and clubhouse areas). Three days later, on December 31, 2007, PBBM sold the golf course to a subsidiary of the Rose Hill Plantation Property Owners Association (a homeowners association) for $2.3 million.
The IRS challenged the deduction claimed for the conservation easement donation on numerous grounds.
The IRS argued that that the donation failed to satisfy the “granted in perpetuity” and “protected in perpetuity” requirements of § 170(h)(2)(C) and § 170(h)(5)(A) because the gift was made without bankruptcy court approval and could have been voided by the bankruptcy trustee. The Tax Court determined that it was unclear whether the gift could have been voided given the facts. It also declined to reach the question of whether the possibility of avoidance caused the easement to fail to satisfy the perpetuity requirements because the easement failed to qualify for the deduction on other grounds.
The IRS argued that the donation failed to satisfy the “granted in perpetuity” and “protected in perpetuity” requirements because the rights reserved to the landowner in the easement allowed for inconsistent uses. Among other things, the easement reserved to the landowner the rights to alter the golf course, build twelve clay tennis courts, build a tennis pro shop, build two houses, create a driveway, create 6,000 square feet of parking areas, and build six-foot high fences.
The IRS presumably argued that the donation did not comply with Treasury Regulation § 1.170A-14(e) (the “no inconsistent use” regulation). This regulation provides, in part, that “a deduction will not be allowed if the contribution would accomplish one of the enumerated conservation purposes but would permit destruction of other significant conservation interests,” and “a use that is destructive of conservation interests will be permitted only if such use is necessary for the protection of the conservation interests that are the subject of the contribution.”
Rather than analyzing whether the retained rights caused the easement to violate the no inconsistent use regulation, the Tax Court stated that the easement permits the majority of the acreage to be used as a golf course; the reserved rights "do not impair the conservation purpose any more than the use of the property as a golf course, which is also permitted by the easement”; and, thus, the "reserved rights alone did not cause the easement to fall outside the definition of a qualified conservation contribution.” Unfortunately, this analysis does little to illuminate the parameters of the no inconsistent use regulation.
The IRS argued that the donation failed to comply with Treasury Regulation § 1.170A-14(g)(6), which requires that a tax-deductible easement be extinguishable only in a judicial proceeding, upon a finding of impossibility or impracticality, and with a payment of a minimum proportionate share of post-extinguishment proceeds to the holder to be used by the holder in a manner consistent with the conservation purposes of the original contribution.
The Tax Court agreed with the IRS on this point. The court first explained that this regulation “elaborates on the protected-in-perpetuity requirement of section 170(h)(5)(A) by setting forth substantive rules to safeguard the conservation purpose of a contribution.” It then noted that the clause included in PBBM’s easement to comply with the “proceeds” component of the regulation was written such that, in some circumstances, the holder would not receive a minimum proportionate share of post-extinguishment proceeds as is required. Accordingly, the easement did not meet the requirements of the regulation and PBBM was not entitled to a deduction for the donation. For a similar holding, see Carroll v. Commissioner.
Conservation Purposes Test
The IRS argued that the easement did not satisfy any of the conservation purposes tests set forth in § 170(h)(4)(A) and the Tax Court agreed.
Outdoor Recreation by the General Public. One conservation purpose for which a tax-deductible easement may be donated is “the preservation of land areas for outdoor recreation by...the general public.” IRC § 170(h)(4)(A)(i). Treasury Regulation § 1.170A-14(d)(2)(ii) provides that this conservation purpose test will not be met “unless the recreation...is for the substantial and regular use of the general public.”
The Tax Court found that the conservation easement failed to satisfy this test. The court noted that, although the easement required that the underlying property be open for substantial and regular use by the general public for outdoor recreation, and NALT could enforce this requirement in court (if it chose to do so), the easement also provided that it did not create any right of access by the public to the easement area. In addition, after the sale of the golf course to the homeowners association, (i) the association converted 9 holes of the golf course into a driving range and a park and operated the remaining 18 holes as a golf course, (ii) the entire area covered by the easement was accessible by car only by a single road and access was monitored by a guarded gatehouse owned and operated by the homeowners association, (iii) members of the public were allowed vehicular access to the property only if the occupants were in the area to play golf or tennis or eat at the clubhouse, and the restricted pass they received warned that any use of the pass for another purpose was not authorized and constituted trespassing, and (iv) a sign on the road to the park read: “Property owners, residents & guests only beyond this point.”
The Tax Court determined that “a significant portion of the property governed by the easement, the park, [was] relatively inaccessible to the public,” and the creation of a private park out of a substantial portion of the property demonstrated that the easement failed to preserve land for outdoor recreation by the general public.
Preservation of Open Space. A second conservation purpose for which a tax-deductible easement may be donated is the preservation of open space (including farmland and forest land) where such preservation is for the scenic enjoyment of the general public, or pursuant to a clearly delineated Federal, State, or local governmental conservation policy, and, in either case, will yield a significant public benefit. IRC § 170(h)(4)(A)(iii).
The Tax Court held that the easement did not preserve the property for the scenic enjoyment of the public. Only a small part of property was visible from off the property, the non-golfing general public was not allowed vehicular access to the golf course, and the general public was not allowed to drive to the park. Accordingly, the easement preserved open space mainly for the benefit of the owners of the houses abutting the golf course and the benefit to the public was not significant.
The Tax Court also held that the easement did not preserve open space pursuant to a clearly delineated governmental conservation policy. Although there were several potentially applicable governmental conservation policies, the court determined that the easement did not promote any of those policies because the land’s ecological value was low and it appeared that the homeowners association could impede (block) public access to walking trails on the property, the use of which by the public might have been compatible with a local “greenway plan.”
Habitat Protection. A third conservation purpose for which a tax-deductible easement may be donated is “the protection of a relatively natural habitat of fish, wildlife, or plants, or similar ecosystem.” IRC § 170(h)(4)(A)(ii).
The Tax Court found that the easement also did not satisfy this conservation purpose test. The court noted that the IRS’s expert ecologist witness testified credibly that most of the bird species on the property are common backyard species; the wood stork, a threatened species, forages on the property but does not visit the area frequently compared to other areas of the county; most of the property is golf-course area; the diversity of species on the property is limited; the golf course is dominated by non-native grass species; the golf course requires continued application of fungicides and pesticides, resulting in pollution; the golf course is not conducive to wildlife; although alligators live on the protected property, this is a relatively unimportant species ecologically; the quality of the ponds on the property is similar to that of waterways in urban areas; and many of the trees on the property are in isolated patches or thin strips. The court also specifically rejected the proposition that the property was habitat for wood storks, noting that foraging activity did not convince the court that the property was habitat for the storks.
The Tax Court concluded that the donation did not satisfy any of the conservation purposes tests in § 170(h) and, thus, no deduction was allowable.
Form 8283 (Appraisal Summary)
The IRS argued that PBBM failed to attach a completed Form 8283 to its tax return as required by Treasury Regulation § 1.170A-13(c)(2)(i)(B). The court noted that the following items were missing from Section B, Part I of PBBM's Form 8283: a summary of the physical condition of the property, the date the property was acquired, how the property was acquired, the donor's cost, and the amount claimed as a deduction. However, the court agreed with PBBM that “it is unclear whether a taxpayer donating an intangible right should fill out Section B, Part I, and if so, how these blanks should be filled out for such a contribution.” The court also found that the missing information could be found in other parts of PBBM’s tax return and its attachments. Accordingly, the court held that PBBM substantially complied with the appraisal summary requirement.
The IRS argued that PBBM fail to obtain a qualified appraisal as required by IRC § 170(f)(11)(C) because the appraisal it submitted with its tax return was missing some of the required information. The Tax Court summarily disagreed, noting that it found that the appraisal contained all of the required information.
The appraisal that PBBM submitted with its tax return valued the easement at $15,610,000. PBBM hired the same appraiser to serve as its expert valuation witness at trial, and the appraiser testified at trial that the easement had a value of $13,380,000. In coming up with this figure, the appraiser assumed that the highest and best use of the property before the easement was for commercial and residential (multifamily and single family) use.
The IRS’s expert witness concluded that the easement had a value of only $100,000. He maintained that the highest and best use of the property before the easement was a golf course. He assumed that current zoning restrictions allowed the property to be used only for open space or recreational use, that it was highly unlikely the property could be rezoned for development, and that the owners of adjoining houses would likely oppose development.
The Tax Court agreed with the IRS’s expert. It found that it was uncertain that the owner of the property could have developed the property without permission of the county; it was uncertain that the county would have given its permission had such permission been required; the adjoining homeowners were opposed to development of the property; the opposition would have reduced the chance that the county would have permitted development had its permission been required; and the opposition would also have put economic pressure on the property owner to leave the property undeveloped. The court found that the uncertainties about the possibility of developing the property were so great that an owner would have been discouraged from pursuing development.
The Tax Court concluded that if PBBM had thought the property was worth roughly $15.6 million because of its development potential, it would not have sold the property to the homeowners association for $2.3 million. Although PBBM suggested that environmental concerns motivated it to give up over $13 million of value, the court was unconvinced. It concluded that PBBM donated the easement because it did not think that developing the property was feasible. This conclusion was further supported by the fact that PBBM had assured the bankruptcy court that selling the property for $2.3 million was in the best interests of the bankruptcy estate and the creditors.
The court held that PBBM was liable for the 40% strict liability gross valuation misstatement penalty because the value it reported on its tax return for the easement ($15,160,000) was more than 15 times (or 15,160%) of the court-determined correct value ($100,000). This penalty was applied to the underpayment of taxes resulting from PBBM’s reporting of a $15,610,000 deduction instead of a $100,000 deduction.
PBBM was found not liable for a 20% negligence penalty with regard to the underpayments resulting from the difference between a deduction of $100,000 and a deduction of $0 because PBBM qualified for the reasonable cause and good faith exception. The court explained that the possibility that the gift could have been voided by the bankruptcy trustee did not demonstrate that PBBM acted in bad faith; the proceeds clause was an imperfect, but good faith, attempt to satisfy the extinguishment regulation; and, although the easement did not satisfy any of the conservation purposes tests, BPPM appeared to have made a good faith attempt to meet the requirements of § 170(h).
Nancy A. McLaughlin, Robert W. Swenson Professor of Law, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
A recent article by Martin Levine highlights the struggle to define the line between providing education about issues and lobbying for specific legislative outcomes. The center of the controversy revolves around a complaint filed in 2012, when the Center for Media and Democracy and the Common Cause complained to the IRS that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was incorrectly classified as a 501(c)(3) organization.
The ALEC characterizes itself as an organization “dedicated to advancing and promoting the Jeffersonian principles of limited government, free markets and federalism at the state level. ALEC accomplishes this mission by educating elected officials on making sound policy and providing them with a platform for collaboration with other elected officials and business leaders.”
The ALEC’s opponents, however, paint a different picture of the organization, claiming “the primary purpose of the organization is to provide a conduit for its corporate members and sponsors to lobby state legislators.”
As evidence of this lobbying, opponents of the ALEC point to a string of tax deductible donations from EXXON to the ALEC totaling over $1.7 million. The ALEC’s official position on climate change only leads to increased suspicions. According to the ALEC, there is no threat to the public from climate change or increased greenhouse gasses. In fact, the ALEC has stated that global warming is beneficial, claiming that “during the warming of the past 100 years global GDP has increased 18-fold, average life span has doubled, and per capita food supplies increased.”
While this information is certainly not determinative of foul play, it does provoke one to question the line between information providing and lobbying.
Monday, October 10, 2016
With the Election approaching, many are voicing their opinion on the Johnson Amendment, which denies 501(c)(3) organizations the ability to actively campaign or lobby for a political candidate. Currently, in addition to being unable to support a candidate for political office, nonprofit organizations are also unable to oppose political candidates.
Proponents of the rule fear that allowing nonprofits to advocate for candidates could create unhealthy political factions within their organizations and communities at large. A larger concern is that donations from these organizations would be tax deductible and could exacerbate the level of spending and the political power of large scale donors, heavily influencing electoral outcomes. A statement from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State exclaimed “If individual organizations came to be regarded as Democratic charities or Republican charities instead of the nonpartisan problem solvers that they are, it would diminish the public’s overall trust in the sector and thus limit the effectiveness of the nonprofit community.”
Opponents of the rule, like Republican Party Nominee Donald Trump, believe that organizations have a right to voice their opinion for leaders they believe would best represent them. In a speech to Christian leaders Trump stated “if you like somebody or want somebody to represent you, you should have the right to do it.” Opponents also believe freeing 501(c)(3) organizations from these regulations would increase voter participation and elevate levels of political debate.
It is unlikely that this debate will be solved in the near-term, and certainly not in time to impact the nearing election. However, a fundamental change to the Johnson Amendment could drastically change the way campaigns are ran and financed.
As noted last week, charities that solicit a significant amount of funds from residents of a state are required to register with the state’s attorney general, and provide some financial information. Complying with all of the nuances of the varied state requirements is burdensome, and many organizations fail to follow all of the rules.
Deciphering all of the state laws is hard enough; now add to this complexity the reality that the tens of thousands of cities, counties, and other local governments often can impose their own requirements in addition to those imposed by their states. For example, the City AND County of Los Angeles, for example, have a lengthy set of regulations for charitable solicitors that differ from those of the State of California.
Compliance with all of these city laws is expensive and enforcement spotty, but there are many dutiful organizations that spend tremendous energy on trying to comply, lest they be the next target of a suddenly-energetic Attorney General or City Solicitor.
Below the jump, I’ll profile the uniquely burdensome—and doubtlessly unconstitutional—set of charitable registration requirements that the City of Toledo, Ohio continues to implement.
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
New York AG issues Notice of Violation to Trump Foundation for Failing to Register before Soliciting Donations
Late last week (and widely reported yesterday), New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued an order (with a press release) to the Trump Foundation directing it to cease soliciting donations until it complies with state registration requirements. New York is one of all but a handful of states require that charities planning to ask for donations in their state (under various circumstances) register with the state. Under these laws, charities are typically required to disclose some basic information about the charity, such as the percentage of raised funds that go to fundraising expenses, and the expenses charged by any professional fundraisers hired. For charities that raise funds from multiple states, registration can be an onerous burden, and there has long been a push to streamline multi-state registration to make compliance easier for nonprofits. Yet this is an unusual case, as I'll explain below the break.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Shlomit Azgad-Tromer has posted The Virtuous Corporation: On Corporate Social Motivation and Law on SSRN with the following abstract:
Above and beyond their traditional financial roles, contemporary corporations are increasingly assuming a normative role, promoting social agendas. The myriad normative roles assumed by the corporation, from profit-centered corporate goodness, to environmental and human rights corporate agendas and to corporate philanthropy, comprise an emerging corporate social identity. This article asks what induces corporations to pursue social agendas and provides an initial taxonomy for corporate social motivation, showing that the incentives to normative corporate conduct are often rooted in the business purpose itself. Central policy challenges are discussed, outlining the promise and the peril of emerging corporate social identities.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Luigi Butera and Daniel Houser have posted Delegating Altruism: Toward an Understanding of Agency in Charitable Giving on SSRN with the following abstract:
Philanthropy, and particularly ensuring that one’s giving is effective, can require substantial time and effort. One way to reduce these costs, and thus encourage greater giving, could be to encourage delegation of giving decisions to better-informed others. At the same time, because it involves a loss of agency, delegating these decisions may produce less warm-glow and thus reduce one’s charitable impulse. Unfortunately, the importance of agency in charitable decisions remains largely unexplored. In this paper, using a laboratory experiment with real donations, we shed light on this issue. Our main finding is that agency, while it does correlate with self-reported warm-glow, nevertheless seems to play a small role in encouraging giving. In particular, people do not reduce donations when giving decisions are made by algorithms that guarantee efficient recipients but limit donors’ control over giving allocations. Moreover, we find participating in giving groups − a weaker form of delegation − is also effective in that they are appealing to donors who would not otherwise make informed donations, and thus improves overall effective giving. Our results suggest that one path to promoting effective giving may be to create institutions that facilitate delegated generosity.
Monday, September 26, 2016
Michael J. Rushton (Indiana University Bloomington - School of Public & Environmental Affairs) has posted Should Public and Nonprofit Museums Have Free Admission? on SSRN with the following abstract:
A common pricing structure for American art museums is to offer a choice between an admission fee for a single visit, and the purchase of an annual membership that would allow the member an unlimited number of visits with no additional charge. This paper evaluates this particular method of museum pricing in terms of efficiency and equity. It concludes, drawing from the economic analysis of two-part pricing, that there is a strong rationale for the membership model, and that this is so even in cases where the museum experiences an increase in unrestricted endowment such that “free” membership would be financially sustainable.
--Eric C. Chaffee
Thursday, September 22, 2016
I just wrote this CNN Op Ed comparing the two foundations. It begins:
Journalists and commentators across the political spectrum have subjected both the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and the Donald J. Trump Foundation to a withering barrage of criticisms. Without a doubt, both foundations and their managers, including Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump, have made mistakes. The critical question, however, is whether those mistakes are illegal.
Fan Fei (Michigan), James R. Hines Jr. (Michigan), and Jill R. Horwitz (UCLA) have published Are PILOTs Property Taxes for Nonprofits?, 94 Journal of Urban Economics 109 (2016). This is a significantly revised version of the paper with the same title that they posted on SSRN last year. Here is the abstract:
Nonprofit charitable organizations are exempt from most taxes, including local property taxes, but U.S. cities and towns increasingly request that nonprofits make payments in lieu of taxes (known as PILOTs). Strictly speaking, PILOTs are voluntary, though nonprofits may feel pressure to make them, particularly in high-tax communities. Evidence from Massachusetts indicates that PILOT rates, measured as ratios of payments to the value of local tax-exempt property, are higher in towns with higher property tax rates: a one percentage point higher property tax rate is associated with a 0.2 percentage point higher PILOT rate. PILOTs appear to discourage nonprofit activity: a one percentage point higher PILOT rate is associated with 0.8% lower real property ownership by local nonprofits, 0.2% lower total assets, and 0.2% lower revenues of local nonprofits. These patterns are consistent with voluntary PILOTs acting in a manner similar to low-rate, compulsory real estate taxes.
Thursday, September 15, 2016
The Chicago-Kent Law Review has posted its Symposium Issue on Nonprofit Oversight Under Siege:
Dana Brakman Reiser, Brooklyn Law School
91 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 843 (2016).
Exile to Main Street: The I.R.S.’s Diminished Role in Overseeing Tax-Exempt Organizations
Evelyn Brody, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
91 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 859 (2016).
Politics, Disclosure, and State Law Solutions for 501(c)(4) Organizations
Linda Sugin, Fordham Law School
91 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 895 (2016).
Fragmented Oversight of Nonprofits in the United States: Does it Work? Can it Work?
Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, Notre Dame Law School
91 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 937 (2016).
The Charity Commission for England and Wales: A Fine Example or Another Fine Mess?
Debra Morris, School of Law and Social Justice, Liverpool
91 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 965 (2016)
European Non-profit Oversight: The Case for Regulating From the Outside In
Oonagh B. Breen, Sutherland School of Law
91 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 991 (2016).
Australia – Two Political Narratives and One Charity Regulator Caught in the Middle
Myles McGregor-Lowndes, Queensland University of Technology
91 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 1021 (2016).
Reforming the Regulation of Political Advocacy by Charities: From Charity Under Siege to Charity Under Rescue?
Adam Parachin, Western University
91 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 1047 (2016).
Does Work Law Have a Future if the Labor Market Does Not?
Noah D. Zatz, UCLA School of Law
91 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 1081 (2016).
Looks like a fascinating set of articles and outstanding group of authors (including our own Lloyd Mayer)!
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
In a CNN interview on Tuesday, Schneiderman said his office had now brought Trump's charitable foundation under scrutiny.
"My interest in this issue really is in my capacity as regulator of nonprofits in New York state. And we have been concerned that the Trump Foundation may have engaged in some impropriety from that point of view," the elected Democratic official said.
He added: "We have been looking into the Trump Foundation to make sure it's complying with the laws that govern charities in New York." He did not elaborate on what wrongdoing Trump's nonprofit might have committed.
Here's hoping that this election season doesn't completely destroy the public's confidence in our sector.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Nonprofit Quarterly reports that Wounded Warrior Project, America's largest veterans charity, has lost $90 million to $100 million in donations, or 25 percent of its donations revenue, following reports of extravagant spending on overhead and Senate Judiciary Committee investigation earlier this year.
While the organization’s board was still in denial mode, donors began to express their disappointment, with some declaring that they would not give themselves and that they would no longer organize others to give. It was inevitable that there would be some loss, but $100 million is a lot of donations. It would clearly take a big shift to recapture the trust of donors, and Linnington seems to be all about making radical moves to refocus and rebalance the organization.
Current cost-cutting measures include about 85 people (15 percent of the agency’s workforce) being laid off, including 50 percent of its executive staff, and the closing of nine satellite offices.
The Boston Globe reports the story of a longtime librarian at the University of New Hampshire who lived a frugal lifestyle and left his $4 million estate to the university:
Robert Morin worked nearly 50 years at the University of New Hampshire library and never seemed to spend any money.
He lived alone, rarely bought clothes, had Fritos and soda for breakfast, drove a 1992 Plymouth, and spent spare time reading almost every book — in chronological order — that had been published in the United States from 1930 to 1938.
Now, more than a year after his death at age 77, a lifetime of frugality has become UNH’s unexpected gift: Morin left his alma mater his entire estate of $4 million — a gold-plated nest egg that few people knew he had.
While a gift of this size may have allowed Morin to require that a building or other area on campus bear his name, Morin's restrictions imposed on the use of the gift by the university were as modest as his lifestyle.
The university will use $2.5 million from the estate on an expanded career center and $1 million for a new video scoreboard at the football stadium. An additional $100,000 will go to the university’s Dimond Library, the only gift specified by the will.
[Morin's financial advisor,] Mullen said he spoke with Morin about using some of the money to fund a scholarship related to library science but said his client wanted UNH to spend almost all of the gift in any way it chose.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
Ji Ma (PhD student) and Assistant Professor Sara Konrath, both of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) - Center on Philanthropy, have posted their research paper, Thirty Years of Nonprofit Research: Scaling the Knowledge of the Field 1986-2015, to SSRN. Below is the abstract for their paper:
This empirical study examines knowledge production between 1986 and 2015 in the research field of nonprofit and philanthropic studies using science mapping and network analysis. This is essential to understand the “Third Sector” better, which along with the business sector and government, forms and underpins the function of society at large.
Results suggest that scholars in this field have been actively generating a considerable amount of literature. The rapidly growing intellectual base suggests a solid backing for continuing development of this field as a new discipline. Knowledge produced in this field is not only growing in number, but also forming several main themes which have been actively developed since the mid-1980s – a signal of knowledge cohesion. Our findings are significant from numerous perspectives. The study provides empirical evidence for this field developing into a new discipline, and its future advancement faces a critical challenge: the lack of geographic and cultural diversity resulting from the domination of research taking place in the “Anglosphere.” This study also emphasizes the importance of new paradigms in mitigating the tension between theory and practice – a challenge commonly faced by academic disciplines.
Methodologically, our paper provides an example of applying network analysis and science mapping in studying the knowledge of a new social science field. Pedagogical implications, limitations, and future directions are also discussed.
Monday, August 29, 2016
Big news from Monongalia County, West Virginia (and I don't mean its party school ranking of number 2... ), but add West Virginia University to the list of charitable institutions making PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) payments. WVU has done a significant amount of development in downtown Morgantown (yes, we have a downtown...) through private-public partnerships. As a result, a good deal of private property has gone off the tax rolls in this standard issue university town.
Of course, the issue of PILOTs has received a significant amount of discussion as of late (including on this website), as strapped state and local communities look for alternative sources of revenue. For more information, I strongly recommend starting with the Urban Institute website, which has a number of studies on PILOT issues (many of which are authored or co-authored by Evelyn Brody.) In that regard, this really shouldn't be much in the way of new ground... but...
(I am totally dating myself here...)
What I find interesting is that WVU is a public university. I've been searching on the interwebz (to no avail) for more information on how many public institutions - presumably, universities and hospitals - have agreed to PILOTs. (Anyone have any info? I found this helpful article by Langley, Kenyon and Bailin from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, circa 2012, that has a number of appendices - a very quick review doesn't seem to show any public institutions.) Part of the rationale for a private nonprofit to enter into a PILOT agreement and voluntarily pay not-taxes is that the alternative could be much, much worse. If a government changes the applicable laws granting nonprofit property tax exemption, the nonprofit will have little control over what happens next, so the devil you know and negotiate is probably better than what is behind Door Number 2.
I would think that with a public university, that calculus would be much, much different. After all, a public university is branch of government, it seems as if it would be much more difficult to muck with the property tax exemption for the University itself - both legally and politically. According to the press release from WVU, its 50 year payment agreement applies only to "private commercial establishments operating on University property for activities that are not a critical part of or integral to serving the academic needs of students." Therefore, while there may be limits on the ability to change the University's tax exemption, query how much play actually exists with attacking the property tax exemption for the University's leased property? (see section 10 versus sections 14 or 17, for example).
Betsy Schmidt publishes second edition of "Nonprofit Law: The Life Cycle of a Charitable Organization"
Betsy Schmidt has published the second edition of her helpful and well-received "Nonprofit Law: The Life Cycle of a Charitable Organization." From the publisher's website . . .
In a concise and readable format, Nonprofit Law, 2nd Edition provides up-to-date information about the legal issues that can arise at every turn—from inception to termination—of a Section 501(c)(3) organization. This second edition continues and builds upon the comprehensive features of the first edition, including:
- A reader-friendly presentation that does not assume earlier background with tax, trusts, or corporations
- A balanced treatment between theory and practical reality
- Cradle-to-grave organization of topics
- Notes, questions, and problems in each chapter that add context to the text
- All relevant statutes and regulations within the text
- Optional exercises for creating a virtual nonprofit, which become the basis for further hypothetical questions.
Highlights of the second edition include:
- Examples of familiar organizations, from Catholic Dioceses to the American Red Cross, grappling with critical issues
- Consideration of for-profit social enterprises as alternatives to nonprofits
- Thorough exploration of the policy implications of nonprofit regulation
- An explanation of the controversies surrounding nonprofits’ entrance into politics and the IRS’ response.
Saturday, August 27, 2016
Anne Choike has posted Examining Gallery-Supported Art Exhibitions on SSRN with the following abstract:
For-profit art galleries are making news for the donations they provide to nonprofit art organizations to support exhibitions of artists represented by such galleries. Yet nonprofit art organizations are committed to advancing art for the public interest, not for private profit. This Article examines whether there are any meaningful limits on gallery donations that support art exhibitions at nonprofit arts organizations, focusing on the legal framework governing federal tax-exempt status, as well as the self-regulatory rules and informal norms of the art industry. Does the existing regime allow gallery-supported art exhibitions or are they activities that do not further nonprofit art organizations’ missions? What short-term and long-term solutions are available and appropriate in light of the causes and context of gallery-supported art exhibitions? These questions are animated by the broader dialogue about equitable access to publicly funded resources, with the answers having important implications for what it means to promote art that is representative of American society.
--Eric C. Chaffee