Читать книгу The Law of Fundraising - Bruce R. Hopkins - Страница 43
NOTES
Оглавление1 1. There are, of course, other forms of fundraising, such as fundraising for political parties and candidates; federal government regulation of these forms of fundraising is summarized in § 6.15.
2 2. See § 3.1.
3 3. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(2).
4 4. See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 6.3(c), Chapter 7.
5 5. Green v. Connally, 330 F. Supp. 1150, 1159 (D.D.C. 1971), aff'd sub nom. Coit v. Green, 404 U.S. 997 (1971).
6 6. IRC §§ 501(c)(3) and 170(c)(2). The first of these provisions is the basis for federal tax-exempt status; the second is the basis for eligibility for donee status for purposes of the federal charitable contribution deduction. (Most organizations that engage in fundraising are able to offer their donors assurances that their gifts are deductible for federal and state income tax purposes because these organizations are described in IRC § 170(c)(2).) Organizations that are engaged in “testing for public safety” are referenced in IRC § 501(c)(3) but not IRC § 170(c)(2). The charitable deduction law is summarized at § 6.7.
7 7. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(2). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, §§ 7.1, 7.2.
8 8. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(2). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 7.10.
9 9. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(2). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, §§ 7.8, 7.9.
10 10. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(2). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 7.7.
11 11. Rev. Rul. 78-85, 1978-1 C.B. 150. See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 7.11.
12 12. Rev. Rul. 69-545, 1969-2 C.B. 117. See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 7.6.
13 13. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(2). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 7.11.
14 14. Rev. Rul. 76-204, 1976-1 C.B. 152. See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 7.15(a).
15 15. Rev. Rul. 78-84, 1978-1 C.B. 150. See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 7.15(b).
16 16. Rev. Rul. 80-200, 1980-2 C.B. 173. See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 7.15(f).
17 17. Kentucky Bar Foundation, Inc. v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 921 (1982). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 7.15(f).
18 18. Rev. Rul. 80-286, 1980-2 C.B. 179. See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 7.15(f).
19 19. Hutchinson Baseball Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 144 (1979), aff'd, 696 F.2d 757 (10th Cir. 1982). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 7.15(c). Also, IRC § 501(j). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 11.2.
20 20. The U.S. Supreme Court held that all organizations encompassed by IRC § 501(c)(3), including those that are “educational” and “religious,” are “charitable” in nature for federal tax law purposes (Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983)).
21 21. See Tax-Exempt Organizations, Chapter 8.
22 22. Id., Chapter 10.
24 24. The Internal Revenue Code provides for tax-exempt status under IRC § 501(a) for those nonprofit organizations that are listed in IRC § 501(c). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, Chapters 13–19. Other categories of tax-exempt organizations are described in IRC §§ 521, 526, 527, and 528. See Tax-Exempt Organizations, Chapters 17, 19. Governmental entities are also tax exempt. See Tax-Exempt Organizations, §§ 7.14, 19.21.
25 25. That is, organizations described in IRC § 501(c)(3).
26 26. Organizations described in IRC § 501(c)(4). See Law of Tax-Exempt Organizations, Chapter 13. Social welfare organizations are the type of noncharitable organizations that are most likely to be subject to the state charitable solicitation acts.
27 27. Organizations described in IRC § 501(c)(5). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 16.1.
28 28. IRC § 501(c)(6). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, Chapter 14.
29 29. IRC § 501(c)(7). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, Chapter 15.
30 30. Organizations described in IRC § 501(c)(8), (10). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 19.4.
31 31. IRC § 501(c)(4) or § 501(c)(19). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, Chapter 13, § 19.11.
32 32. IRC § 527. See Tax-Exempt Organizations, Chapter 17.
33 33. Contributions to veterans' organizations are deductible by reason of IRC § 170(c)(3).
34 34. Only organizations described in IRC § 170(c) are eligible charitable donees. See supra note 6.
35 35. See supra note 28.
36 36. See Private Foundations.
37 37. E.g., organizations described in IRC § 501(c)(4). See supra notes 26 and 34.
38 38. IRC § 501(c)(19). See supra note 31.
39 39. IRC § 170(b)(1)(A)(i). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, Chapter 10.
40 40. 40 IRC § 170(b)(1)(A)(ii). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, Chapter 8.
41 41. IRC § 170(b)(1)(A)(iii). See Tax-Exempt Organizations, § 7.6.
42 42. IRC §§ 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) (IRC § 509(a)(1) and 509(a)(2)). See Private Foundations, Chapter 15.
43 43. See supra notes 26 and 34.
44 44. See § 3.16.
45 45. See § 3.2(a).
46 46. This analysis and the one in § 2.13 were prepared by James M. Greenfield, FAHP, CFRE, author of Fund-Raising: Evaluating and Managing the Fund Development Process, Second Edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999), and Fund-Raising Fundamentals: A Guide to Annual Giving for Professionals and Volunteers (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994). His contribution is gratefully acknowledged by the authors. The footnotes to §§ 2.2 and 2.13 were added by the authors.
47 47. This statement illustrates how dramatically fundraising (and other) communications have changed in recent years. Other ways a charitable organization can ask for a gift are by means of a website, by email, or by facsimile.
48 48. See § 4.1.
49 49. The increasing sophistication of database companies is allowing them to target mailings more specifically to Americans identified by their racial or ethnic backgrounds; this practice is raising a host of ethical concerns (see, e.g., “The Ethics of ‘Ethnicated’ Mailing Lists,” Wash. Post, Nov. 14, 1992, at A1).
50 50. But see “Evangelists' Electronic Collection Plates Making Fewer Rounds,” Wash. Post, Dec. 20, 1992, at A3.
51 51. In addition, local governments are increasing their regulation of this form of gambling. In general, “Charity Gambling: Who Gets the Take?,” Metro. Times, Aug. 22, 1994, at C4 (The Washington Times); Gattuso, “What's Ahead for Charity Gambling?,” 24 Fund Raising Mgmt. (No. 7) 19 (1993); “Md. Slot Machines Raise Money—and Questions,” Wash. Post, Sept. 27, 1993, at D1; “Charity Casinos Parlayed into Big Business,” Wash. Post, Sept. 26, 1993, at B1; “Charities' Big Gamble” (subtitled “Games of chance raise millions for good works, but questions of fraud could tar nonprofits' image, prompt more regulation”), V Chron. of Phil. (No. 15) 1 (May 18, 1993); “States Say Abuse Is Widespread in Charity Gains,” II Chron. of Phil. (No. 10) 1 (Mar. 6, 1990). One newspaper account stated that “charitable fund-raising [by this method] has lost its innocence. The church basement roulette games that long have been a staple of charitable fund-raising in … [a county near Washington, DC] have grown in recent years into a multi-million-dollar industry that is siphoning money from the people who are supposed to benefit into the pockets of professional gamblers …” (“P.G. Plays Weak Hand against Charity Casinos,” Wash. Post, Feb. 20, 1993, at D1).
52 52. Greenfield, “Fund-Raising Costs and Credibility: What the Public Needs to Know,” NSFRE J., Autumn 1988, at 49.
53 53. Fink and Metzler, The Costs and Benefits of Deferred Giving (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982).
54 54. For more details about the environmental audit, see Greenfield, “The Fund-Raising Environmental Audit,” 22 Fund Raising Mgmt. (No. 3) 28 (1991).
55 55. For a summary of the role of, compensation of, and demand for the fundraising professional, see “Fund-Raisers' Own Funds Are Rising,” Wall Street J., Mar. 2, 1993, at B1.
56 56. This analysis was prepared by Richard Larkin, CPA, for use as part of this chapter. His contribution is gratefully acknowledged by the authors. Additional information concerning financial management in this context is available in Gross, Jr., Larkin, and McCarthy, Financial and Accounting Guide for Not-for-Profit Organizations (6th ed.; New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000).
57 57. See § 4.15.
58 58. This commentary is based on an article written by Karl E. Emerson, Director, Bureau of Charitable Organizations, Department of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
59 59. This analysis was prepared by Delmar R. Straecker, CFRE. His contribution is gratefully acknowledged by the authors.
60 60. Subsequently, the president of corporate and legal affairs at a fundraising company wrote a letter to the National Association of State Charity Officials, stating, inter alia, “State government officials rob donors by knowingly diverting untold millions of dollars of contributions from their intended purposes under a cumbersome, outdated multistate licensing scheme” and “[t]hey violate clear constitutional [law] precedent, the federal Privacy Act, and even the laws they are charged to enforce as a way to censor and intimidate nonprofit organizations” (Williams, “State Fund-Raising Rules Harm Charities, Critic Says,” XX Chron. of Phil. (No. 1) 32 (Oct. 18, 2007)).
61 61. The balance of this analysis is confined to state laws, but it is equally applicable to a system of local law compliance.
63 63. See § 4.5.
64 64. See, e.g., § 3.15.
65 65. For the principles an organization may utilize in explanation of the reasonableness of its fundraising costs, see § 4.1.
