 |
| Private Foundations: Review of the Self-Dealing Rules |
|
| By Norah Jones
Quarles & Brady, LLP, Tax Exempt Organizations Group
Private foundations are subject to a prohibition against acts of self-dealing, and face significant penalty taxes for violating this prohibition. The basic rule is that any direct or indirect transaction between a private foundation and a "disqualified person" is prohibited, unless the transaction is permitted under a specific exception. It generally does not matter whether a transaction is fair, or even beneficial, to the foundation. Instead, if a transaction meets the definition of self-dealing, then it will trigger the self-dealing excise taxes.
Disqualified Persons
The key element in self-dealing is identifying the Foundation's "disqualified persons," who include the following categories, each of which is more specifically defined in the Internal Revenue Code:
-
A "substantial contributor" to the foundation;
-
A "foundation manager";
-
Certain family members, corporations, partnerships, trusts, or other enterprises that are related to the foundation's substantial contributors and managers; and
-
A "government official."
Definition of Self-Dealing.
The Internal Revenue Code defines "self-dealing" generally as any direct or indirect transaction between a foundation and a disqualified person, including, but not limited to:
-
Sale, exchange, or leasing of property;
-
Lending of money or other extension of credit;
-
Furnishing of goods, services, or facilities;
-
Payment of compensation or reimbursement of expenses by a foundation to a disqualified person (but note the important exception below);
-
Transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of, a disqualified person of the income or assets of a foundation; or
-
Agreement by a foundation to make any payment of money or other property to a "government official", other than an agreement to employ such individual for any period after the termination of the individual's government service if the termination is within 90 days.
The Code then establishes several exceptions to the definition of self-dealing, the most important of which for many foundations is that, except in the case of a government official, the payment of reasonable and necessary compensation by a private foundation to a disqualified person is generally excluded from the definition of self-dealing. The Code also removes no-interest loans from disqualified persons to private foundations, free office space provided by disqualified persons to private foundations, certain grants, awards, or payment of limited travel expenses to government officials, and other specified acts from the definition of self-dealing.
Application of Rules
A disqualified person may not sell property to a private foundation, even if the foundation pays substantially less than fair market value. While a disqualified person may donate property to a private foundation, the property may generally not be subject to a mortgage or other liability.
A disqualified person may not lease office space to a foundation, even though the rent is set well below fair market value. However, a disqualified person may provide a foundation with free office space.
A disqualified person may not lend money to a foundation unless the loan is interest-free. Although an interest-free loan will not constitute an act of self-dealing, in some cases the lender may be forced to recognize imputed interest income from the loan due to the provisions of Code Section 7872.
A foundation engages in self-dealing when it donates funds to another charitable organization in satisfaction of a disqualified person's personal obligation.
A foundation engages in self-dealing when it purchases tickets to a fundraising dinner and the tickets are used by disqualified persons who are not foundation officials.
Penalty Taxes.
If a foundation and a disqualified person engage in an act of self-dealing, a series of excises taxes will be applied. An initial tax of 10% of the amount involved in the act of self-dealing is imposed upon the disqualified person who participated in the act. It is important to note that this penalty tax may not be avoided even if the act of self-dealing was due to reasonable cause. An additional tax of 5% of the amount involved may be imposed on the foundation's managers who participated in the act, unless the participation was not knowing or willful and was due to reasonable cause. An additional tax of 200% is then imposed on the disqualified person if the act of self-dealing is not "corrected" within the taxable period, and an excise 50% is imposed on any foundation manager who refused to agree to part or all of the correction of the act of self-dealing.
Willful repeated violations or a willful and flagrant violation of the self-dealing rules will result in involuntary termination of the foundation's tax-exempt status and the imposition of significant additional taxes.
This article provides information of a general nature, and none of the information is intended as legal advice relative to specific matters. You should consult with an attorney about your particular circumstances before acting on any of this information.
** A Conflict of Interest & Self Dealing Teleconference Series will be hosted by DFW and its nationwide network the Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers in March and April. This teleconference series features John Edie of PricewaterhouseCoopers discussing critical issues pertaining to conflict of interest and self-dealing rules. For more information or to register for this teleconference series visit: http://www.givingforum.org/s_forum/doc.asp?CID=2713&DID=6605 |
| California Passes Foundation Disclosure Requirements |
|
By a vote of 45 to 29, on January 29, 2008, the California State Assembly passed a bill that would require foundations with assets of more than $250 million to collect ethnic and gender data related to their governance and grantmaking practices. The bill would require a foundation to collect and report data on the racial, gender composition, and sexual orientation of members of its board of directors or trustees, staff, grantees, and business relationships. The bill would also require the foundation to disclose the number, amount, and percentage of grants awarded to organizations where 50 percent or more of the board and staff members are ethnic minorities. A foundation would be required to provide this information to the state, post the information on its website (if available), and include it in its annual report. The legislation-A.B.624-which was introduced by Assembly Member and Chair of the Latino Caucus, Joe Coto (D-San Jose), and supported by the Greenlining Institute, has raised a number of concerns about the impact and precedence it sets for future disclosure requirements for foundations.
Stakeholders including The Philanthropy Roundtable, Council on Foundations, and California Regional Associations of Grantmakers are actively opposing the passage in the California Senate of a bill that would seriously harm foundations and the public charities they support. While this legislation will mainly affect California organizations, the Greenlining Institute, who is supporting the passage of AB624 is interested in spreading this type of legislation to other as well as to the Federal level. The Greenlining Institute of Berkeley, California, which is the primary advocate of this legislation, has said it plans to introduce similar bills in Congress, and to push for the IRS to include similar disclosure requirements in 990PF forms.
Last week's Chronicle of Philanthropy included an opinion piece entitled "Are Foundations Doing Enough for Society" by two members of Greenlining Institute -- and is reflective of the discussion Greenlining hopes to will continue at state AND federal levels about foundations shortchanging communities of color. |
| House Proposes New Farm Bill; Senate Likely to Offer a Counterproposal |
|
|
On Tuesday, February 12, the House Agriculture Committee met with its Senate counterpart to propose a modified farm bill package. This new version, which has the Bush administration's support, would cost less than the previous House and Senate-passed versions of the bill because it proposes less spending on farm support and land conservation initiatives, among other items. The biggest cut comes from food stamps and nutrition programs that were included in the House-passed bill.
During the first session of the 110th Congress, both the Senate and the House passed different versions of the farm bill. The Bush administration stated that both bills were too expensive, would not do enough to cut farm subsidies, and included too many revenue-raising tax provisions. The Senate adopted a larger farm tax package in December, which was designed to pay for a permanent disaster relief fund and a range of agricultural and energy tax incentives.
Senators have indicated that the new House-proposal, which increases spending by $6 billion, is not sufficient. The Senate is expected to offer a counterproposal. A compromise must be reached by March 15, when the current extension of the 2002 farm law expires. |
| IRS Announces Tax-exempt Guidelines for Fiscal Year 2008 |
|
The IRS' Exempt Organizations Division's 2008 Implementing Guidelines reveals the group's 2008 work plan and provides an overview of its accomplishments in 2007. Highlights include:
-
Donor-Advised Funds: The IRS will also provide guidance on issues related to donor-advised funds and supporting organizations. The IRS plans to examine 100 community foundations during 2008, in an effort to determine how much control donors retain over their donor-advised funds. Officials question whether donor-advised funds provide enough benefit to charity in exchange for the tax breaks donors receive.
-
Supporting Organizations: The IRS plans to review 500 supporting organizations (those in their third to fifth year of existence) to determine whether they continue to meet the supporting organization status-requirements. The IRS will also conduct compliance checks of 300 supporting organizations that were expected to file Form 990 but did not. Note: All supporting organizations must now file Form 990.
-
Executive Compensation: The IRS will continue two fiscal 2007 projects: one focused on organizations that made loans to officers, directors, and trustees and the other directed at executive compensation practices at hospitals. The IRS will also begin to examine compensation practices at 90 small-to-mid-sized 501(c)(3) organizations and review compensation practices at colleges and universities. |
These articles provide information of a general nature, and none of the information is intended as legal advice relative to specific matters. You should consult with an attorney about your particular circumstances before acting on any of this information.
The information in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
Sincerely,
Rosemary Lillich Samantha Dennis
Director of Programming and Special Initiatives Director of Communications and Member Relations Donors Forum of Wisconsin Donors Forum of Wisconsin | |
|
|
|
|