The Law of Fundraising

Оглавление

Bruce R. Hopkins. The Law of Fundraising

Table of Contents

Guide

Pages

the law of fundraising

2020 Cumulative Supplement

Preface

About the Authors

CHAPTER ONE Government Regulation of Fundraising for Charity

§ 1.2 CHARITABLE FUNDRAISING: A PORTRAIT

(a) Scope of Charitable Giving in General

(b) Online Charitable Fundraising

§ 1.3 EVOLUTION OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF FUNDRAISING

§ 1.4 CONTEMPORARY REGULATORY CLIMATE

NOTES

CHAPTER TWO Anatomy of Charitable Fundraising

§ 2.1 SCOPE OF TERM CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION

NOTES

CHAPTER THREE States' Charitable Solicitation Acts

§ 3.2 DEFINITIONS (a) Charitable

§ 3.4 ANNUAL REPORTING

§ 3.20 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

*§ 3.22 UNIFIED REGISTRATION

NOTE

CHAPTER FOUR State Regulation of Fundraising

§ 4.2 POLICE POWER

§ 4.2A REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS (NEW)

§ 4.2B CHARITABLE PURPOSES REVISITED (NEW)

§ 4.3 FUNDRAISING AS FREE SPEECH (c) State of Law Subsequent to Supreme Court Decisions

(g) Interplay between Fundraising Regulation and Prosecution of Fraud

§ 4.8 OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ISSUES

NOTES

CHAPTER FIVE Federal Regulation of Fundraising

§ 5.2A PRIVATE BENEFIT DOCTRINE

§ 5.3 CHARITABLE GIFT SUBSTANTIATION REQUIREMENTS

(a) $250 Threshold Rule

(b) Donee Substantiation

(c) Non‐Donee Letter Substantiation

(d) Other Rules

(e) Donee Organizations' Information Reporting

(f) Other Substantiation Requirements

§ 5.6 INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS

(a) Basic Concepts of Intermediate Sanctions

§ 5.7 UNRELATED BUSINESS RULES

(a) Basic Concepts of Unrelated Income Taxation

(b) Unrelated Income Rules as Applied to Fundraising

§ 5.8 EXEMPTION APPLICATION PROCESS

(b) Application Procedure

§ 5.11 PUBLIC CHARITY CLASSIFICATIONS

§ 5.13 FUNDRAISING COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS

§ 5.14 CHARITABLE DEDUCTION RULES (a) Meaning of Gift

(d) Percentage Limitations

§ 5.15 COMMENSURATE TEST (b) Law and Analysis

(c) Perspective

(d) IRS's Charitable Spending Initiative

§ 5.18 POSTAL LAWS (b) Qualifying Organizations

(d) Application for Authorization

(g) Rate Increases in 2018

§ 5.21 FTC TELEMARKETING RULES

§ 5.22 INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS (d) IRS Examination Guidelines

§ 5.25 POLITICAL CAMPAIGN FINANCING

§ 5.26 FUNDRAISING ORGANIZATIONS

(a) General Principles

(b) Application of Commensurate Test

(c) Other Exemption Issues

*§ 5.27 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM

NOTES

CHAPTER SIX Import of Form 990

§ 6.11 SCHEDULE B (d) Disclosure Considerations

NOTES

CHAPTER EIGHT Overviews, Perspectives, and Commentaries

§ 8.1 CHARITABLE FUNDRAISING AND THE LAW

§ 8.4 CHARITABLE SALES PROMOTIONS (e) Some Practical Problems

*(f) Contemporary Charitable Sales Promotions91.2

(g) Alternative Structures

§ 8.8 CHARITY AUCTIONS

(g) Raffles

§ 8.12 CHARITABLE SOLICITATIONS AND SUBSTANTIATION (d) Commentary

*§ 8.12A CHARITABLE FUNDRAISING AND DISCLOSURE

§ 8.13 SOME PROPOSALS FOR RELIEF (d) Other Forms of Uniformity

NOTES

CHAPTER NINE Standards Enforcement by Watchdog Agencies

§ 9.15 RATING THE RATERS

NOTES

APPENDIX D Inflation‐Adjusted Insubstantiality Threshold—$50 Test

APPENDIX E Inflation‐Adjusted Insubstantiality Threshold—$25 Test

APPENDIX F Inflation‐Adjusted Low‐Cost Article Definition

Cumulative Table of Cases

Cumulative Table of IRS Pronouncements

Cumulative Table of Private Letter Rulings and Technical Advice Memoranda Discussed in Bruce R. Hopkins' Nonprofit Counsel

Cumulative Table of Cases Discussed in Bruce R. Hopkins' Nonprofit Counsel

Cumulative Index

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

Отрывок из книги

BECOME A SUBSCRIBER!

.....

In the complaint, the FTC and state agencies labeled the cancer groups “sham charities” and charged the organizations with deceiving donors and misusing around $187 million in donations from 2008 to 2012. According to the complaint, the defendants represented themselves as legitimate charities that spent 100 percent of their proceeds on services for cancer patients, such as hospice care and buying pain medication for children. The complaint alleged that these claims were false and that the charities operated as “personal fiefdoms characterized by rampant nepotism, flagrant conflicts of interest, and excessive insider compensation, with none of the financial and governance controls that any bona fide charity would have adopted.” Investigators found that, in reality, the charities spent less than 3 percent of donations on cancer patients.

According to the complaint, the defendants used the organizations to pay lucrative salaries to family members and friends and spent contributions on personal items such as cars, trips, luxury Caribbean cruises, college tuition, gym memberships, concert and sporting event tickets, and dating site memberships. The defendants also hired professional fundraisers who received up to 85 percent or more of every donation. The complaint asserted that in order to hide their high administrative and fundraising costs from donors and government regulators, the defendants falsely inflated their revenues by reporting more than $223 million in donated gifts‐in‐kind that were allegedly distributed to international recipients. The complaint states that by reporting the inflated gift‐in‐kind donations, the defendants created the impression that they were more efficient with donors' dollars than was actually the case. Thirty‐five states also alleged that the defendants filed fraudulent and misleading financial statements with state charities regulators.

.....