By Benjamin Leff
Last Sunday was Pulpit Freedom Sunday. With all of the speculation over Donald Trump’s tax strategies (personal and charitable), and then the publishing of the video showing Donald Trump saying terrible things, my Twitter feed had very little to say about pastors endorsing candidates from their pulpits. In fact, the news coverage has been surprisingly slim. But, all that notwithstanding, I thought I’d take the opportunity to finally explain why I think that the law does not prohibit pastors of tax-exempt churches (or leaders of any other 501(c)(3) organization) from communicating an express endorsement of a candidate in a regular meeting of the organization. I’ve mentioned this position in a number of previous posts here and here (and annoyingly to them I’m sure, on my friends’ Facebook feeds) and keep linking to a 2009 article I wrote on the topic. But who wants to read that? The dominant argument against me appears to be that churches are free to endorse candidates or be tax-exempt, but not both, and forcing that choice is not a Constitutional problem. But that argument is not an accurate description of the law, as I understand it (although, of course, I have to caveat that I’m a tax guy, not a Constitutional law scholar). Continue reading “Why the Constitution Protects Churches’ Right to Endorse Candidates”
By: Philip Hackney, Oct. 3, 2016
Much attention is being paid to how Donald Trump could have amassed a $900 million NOL in the mid 90s. I remain laser-focused on the Donald J. Trump Foundation. For this blog post I ask the question: could Mr. Trump’s misuse of the private foundation that he leads result in criminal sanctions under tax law?
I think there is enough evidence to open a criminal investigation into his activities. Nevertheless, a criminal prosecution is highly unlikely for both political reasons and issues of proof (ignorance of the law is a defense). Still, I think the IRS has a duty to open an investigation under the egregious set of facts I lay out.
Here is the important thing to keep in mind as you consider the arguments I lay out in this post: Donald Trump does not own the Foundation and its property does not belong to him. It does not matter from whom the money came. He is the president of a nonprofit organization that is entrusted with money to be used for charitable purposes that benefit the public. Continue reading “Trump’s Abuse of Trump Foundation — Criminal Tax Implications?”
By David Herzig
With the first Presidential debate tonight, we are sure (or at least I hope) to hear about various tax plans. I would expect that the estate tax would be a topic of conversation since there is such a sharp contrast between the candidates. The current reporting spins that Donald Trump wants to eliminate the estate tax; while, Hillary Clinton wants to tax the rich through a two-prong increase on the estate tax. I thought it would be useful in advance of the debate to discuss the candidates’ actual estate tax plans. (If there is a PA for Lester Holt looking for some last minute questions for the candidates – scroll to the bottom and steal away no attribution needed!)
Currently, there is an estate (or death) tax. Unfortunately for the fisc, the tax accounts for less than 1 percent of federal revenue. (See, Tax Foundation). What is amazing is that at other points in time, the tax actually raised revenue and effected many estates. The primary reason for the drop in revenues even though overall net worth has increased, is related to the exemption amount available for taxpayers. In 1976, the exemption amount per estate was $60,000 while today it is $5.45 million. (I tackle a lot of these issues in my upcoming University of Southern California Law Review article).
Continue reading “Debate Prep: The Candidates’ Estate Tax Plans”
By Benjamin Leff
A few days ago, my good friend and fellow Subgrouper, David Herzig, wrote a post about Donald Trump’s appearance at a church in Flint Michigan, the Bethel United Methodist Church. Herzig argued in his post (and on Twitter) that the interruption of Trump’s attacks on Hilary Clinton by the church’s pastor, Rev. Timmons, was necessary to protect the church from violating the prohibition on campaign-related speech by churches (and other charities). He also quoted Professor Lloyd Mayer’s tweet on the topic, arguing that the church could have violated the prohibition simply by permitting Trump to speak at all, regardless of the topic. I lamely tweeted back that the short video that had been released failed to provide sufficient facts to make a determination about whether the church violated the law or not. I want to say more about the law and the IRS’s current interpretation of the law to supplement Herzig and Mayer’s valiant efforts, since I think I have a slightly different view on the issue than either of them.
The most important point is that the Constitution protects all churches’ right to engage in speech (as well as religious practice). Statutory law — including the prohibition on campaign intervention (sometimes called the “Johnson Amendment”) — does not (could not) interfere with those very basic and fundamental rights. In my view, the IRS’s interpretation of the law gets some things a little bit wrong, but even its interpretation is extremely permissive of speech that takes place in churches and other charities in deference to their very real speech rights.
So, what’s the law with respect to hosting a political candidate at a church or other charity (including, by the way, a university)? Is it the case that any appearance by a known candidate at any event hosted by a 501(c)(3) organization is a violation of the law? Continue reading “Trump, Churches, and Politics – Counterpoint”
By: Philip Hackney
A couple of months ago, I wrote about the tax consequences of the Donald J. Trump Foundation paying $25,000 to the Pam Bondi campaign for attorney general in Florida in 2013. While most folks are focused on whether the payment was a bribe, I still see signs of a mismanaged charitable organization. I suggested that the political contribution could lead to the Foundation losing its exempt status and should require it to pay some excise taxes. I also said that there was enough questionable information for the IRS to open an audit of the Foundation. Well, last week, David Fahrenthold reported that Donald Trump recently paid $2,500 to the IRS as a tax for that impermissible political contribution made by the Foundation. This action leaves a lot of odd unanswered questions that I write about here.
Jeffrey McConney, the senior vice president and controller of the Foundation, told the Washington Post that Trump himself filed paperwork with the IRS alerting them to the improper political contribution from the Foundation, paid a 10% excise tax, and returned the $25,000. McConney states that the Foundation believes this should end the problem because the Foundation has done everything it has “been instructed to do”. While some have assumed that the IRS had communicated with the Foundation, it is not clear who did the instructing. Continue reading “Trump Pays $2,500 Excise Tax: Is that Enough?”
By: Philip Hackney
I live in Baton Rouge, LA where I teach at LSU Law Center. Baton Rouge and surrounding communities are currently experiencing unprecedented flooding. The devastation stretches from around the Louisiana-Mississippi border all the way over to Lafayette -maybe 100 miles across. This story does a nice job explaining the weather phenomenon that caused this massive flood event. Neighborhoods that have never flooded before in our recorded history are under 4 -6 ft. of water, and some higher than that. Almost the entirety of certain cities are submerged. The last data I had for my area is that 20,000 were displaced and 10,000 in shelters. I expect that number to go up over the week. Even though it has stopped raining, the flood waters cannot drain because the rivers are too high and cannot take runnoff from tributaries. I am fortunate to live in a house that has been spared from this devastating water. The picture on the left is of Gonzales City Hall underwater.
This is just a quick post on some resources for navigating the legal benefits of a disaster. I highly recommend the tremendous article by my fellow blogger Francine Lipman entitled Anatomy of a Disaster Under the Internal Revenue Code. It discusses all of the income tax impacts of various benefits that you might apply for and receive. In many cases the Code excludes amounts you receive in disasters. The two most significant probably are gifts you might receive from family and friends. Those are excludable under 102 of the Code. More significantly, benefits from the government will often be excluded as qualified disaster relief payments under section 139 of the Code. The fact that President Obama declared this a disaster allows this provision to kick in for the affected areas. Continue reading “LA Flood Disaster: Links on Government Aid & Where to Donate”
By: Philip Hackney
In 2014, a District Court dismissed (based on 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) motions) the complaint of a number of conservative organizations who alleged that the IRS “targeted” them by subjecting them to greater scrutiny in their applications for tax exemption. The lead organization, True the Vote, sought 501(c)(3) charitable organization status; the others primarily sought 501(c)(4) social welfare organization status. The world became aware of this targeting controversy in May 2013 when Lois Lerner, the head of the Exempt Organizations division of the IRS apologized to the Tea Party and other conservative groups for how the IRS treated their applications. To this day Taxprof Blog continues the IRS Scandal post over three years later dedicated at least in part to this controversy.
The primary complaints were the second and fifth claims: (2) the IRS violated the organizations First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, and (5) the IRS violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The District Court concluded that because the IRS had granted exempt status to these organizations, the complaints were moot. True the Vote appealed this dismissal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
Last week the Circuit Court breathed new life into claims 2 and 5. Though the Court found that some of the complaints were moot (including Bivens complaints against IRS employees and a claim of violation of 6103 disclosure rules), it allowed claims 2 and 5 forward because it found that the IRS had not voluntarily ceased its unlawful actions.
In reading the opinion, I find astonishing that the Circuit Court appears to have already concluded, without trial, that the IRS acted unconstitutionally. I recognize that for a 12(b)(1) motion the court is to assume the complaint true, but the court appears to have done much more than make assumptions. I focus on this issue. Continue reading “DC Circuit Seems to have Decided IRS Violated Constitution Before Trial in True the Vote Appeal.”
By: Philip Hackney
A week ago I considered one of three allegations Rep. Marsha Blackburn made against the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation in a letter Blackburn sent to the IRS, FBI, and FTC. I found the first allegation stated nothing of significance to the IRS. I now look at the other two and find them significantly wanting as well. Recently, IRS Commissioner Koskinen sent a letter indicating the IRS would investigate these complaints. I conclude they fail to state any complaint actionable by the IRS.
The second and third Blackburn allegations seem to come from a book by Peter Schweizer called Clinton Cash. Both allegations suggest that Sec. Clinton provided large governmental benefits in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and payments to Bill Clinton. Both of the claims, already made by Presidential candidate Donald Trump, regarding Laureate University and Uranium One have been rated False and Mostly False by Politifact. Thus, it is difficult to take these allegations seriously.
Nevertheless, there are two things I do in this post. First. I discuss the factual conclusions of others regarding whether there was a quid pro quo arrangement associated with the second and third allegations. Then, I look at how the tax law might treat such arrangements were they true. Continue reading “Examination of Allegations Against Clinton Foundation Part II”
By: Philip Hackney
Back in June I wrote disapprovingly of some actions of the Donald J. Trump Foundation. In that piece I promised to write about the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation too. Recently, Rep. Marsha Blackburn sent a letter that was scheduled to be sent to the FBI, the FTC, and the IRS. That letter makes a number of allegations about the misuse of the Clinton Foundation, and I figured these allegations would be a good place to analyze the performance of the Foundation that I had promised.
Blackburn alleges a number of things, but I am going to focus on her first allegation in this post because it is the only one that is a pure tax exemption question. She alleges that the Foundation is illegally operating outside the scope of its initial application for tax exemption to the IRS. For reasons explained in the post below, I conclude there is very little involved in this claim and it is a misunderstanding of the law. There could be problems with the Foundation but this is not one of them.
UPDATE: I look at the remaining two Rep. Blackburn allegations here.
Continue reading “Examination of Allegations Against the Clinton Foundation”
By: Francine Lipman
There has not been a great deal of good news lately about underserved communities or the IRS. But today America received some great news about nine new Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics (LITCs) in underserved areas across America. Five of the nine are in law schools. Continue reading “IRS Announces More 2016 LITC Grants”
By: Philip Hackney
Documents recently released in a court case demonstrate that 282 of 426 organizations caught in the IRS political advocacy, “Tea Party,” nonprofit organization net that caused such a hullabaloo three years ago, were in fact conservative. This comes three years after Lois Lerner apologized to Tea Party groups on behalf of the the IRS because, she said, it “inappropriate(ly)” selected these conservative groups’ applications for tax exemption for scrutiny based on name alone rather than legal cause.
An NPR report by Peter Overby concludes about the new information: “Whatever the IRS meant to do, this hodgepodge of a list illustrates how the agency bollixed the nonprofit application process.” In this post, I examine this seemingly “common-sense” claim and find it wanting. Additionally, because I have written publicly about this matter both at the time and more recently. I re-examine my conclusions in those writings in light of this new information.
Early on, I assumed that only about 1/3rd of the organizations caught in the IRS net were conservative. I made this assumption based on the TIGTA report because it noted that 96 of 298 applications, or 1/3rd of the organizations, were Tea Party, Patriot or 9/11 groups. I left wiggle room in my writing, but in the back of my mind, this was my assumption. I assumed TIGTA would have reported every conservative group that was in the lot. But, it turns out that about 2/3rds of the organizations were conservative. Thus, my assumption was wrong. The vast majority of the organizations caught in the net were conservative. Nevertheless, I don’t think this new information demonstrates some additional level of bungling by the IRS that was hitherto unknown. And, frankly, a list like this with little context does nothing to tell us about whether the IRS was fair or not.¹ Continue reading “IRS Scrutinized Mostly Conservative Nonprofits: Evidence of Targeting?”
By: Philip Hackney
The news yesterday was focused in part on the fact that in 2013 the Florida AG Pam Bondi personally solicited a political contribution from Donald Trump. And, shortly thereafter the Donald J. Trump Foundation (“Foundation”) made a $25,000 contribution to a political organization called And Justice for All that supported the reelection effort of Pam Bondi for AG of Florida. Bondi’s office ultimately dropped any investigation into Trump University. Bondi denies the allegation that she ended an investigation in exchange for a political contribution. She says her office was never investigating Trump U in the first place. She does acknowledge, however, that her political organization should not have accepted the donation from a charitable foundation. She claims she tried to refund the contribution in March.
The claims against the AG are obviously a serious issue and should be looked at, but I of course see things through a bit of blinders. I see a nonprofit behaving badly. The level of negligence here and misuse of a private foundation frankly drives me crazy. As discussed below, the Foundation’s excuse is that it made a mistake and did not know what it had done. In this post I examine all of the tax code violations involved, and I look at the Foundation’s excuse and try to assess whether it is believable and whether it matters. Continue reading “Should the IRS Penalize Trump Foundation Political Contribution?”
By: Philip Hackney
Sometimes, well probably every time, when I teach about hospitals qualifying as tax-exempt charitable organizations I tell the joke from the movie Airplane that goes like this:
Rumack: You’d better tell the Captain we’ve got to land as soon as we can. This woman has to be gotten to a hospital.
Elaine Dickinson: A hospital? What is it?
Rumack: It’s a big building with patients, but that’s not important right now.
The point of this joke is an important one to me. It helps to illuminate the fact that the “promotion of health” as a charitable purpose is focused heavily on a space and an activity combined. Generally for the promotion of health to qualify as a charitable purpose there must be a physical building where doctors and nurses relieve the suffering of the afflicted. Not just any promotion of health suffices. Running a cheap pharmacy just does not cut it. Providing sperm to the women of your choice for free, even though it may effect health, simply does not cut it either (don’t ask, just read the opinion). What about health insurance? Generally, because of section 501(m) of the Code, health insurance does not qualify. However, health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that sell health services in exchange for a monthly fee that also own a building where they treat patients can qualify.
That brings us to a recent IRS denial of the application for charitable status of an organization operated as an “accountable care organization” (“ACO”), a creature of Obamacare. Continue reading “Obamacare, ACOs, and Tax-Exemption”
Linda Sugin (Fordham) has a new article out Rhetoric and Reality in the Tax Law of Charity, 84 Fordham L. Rev. 2607 (2016) that looks essential to anyone who is interested conceptually in the place of charity in state law and tax law. The abstract:
“The rhetoric of public purposes in charity law has created the mistaken impression that charity is public and fulfills public goals, when the reality is that charity is private and cannot be expected to solve the problems that governments can solve. The rhetoric arises from a combination of charity-law history and tax expenditure analysis. The reality follows the money and control of charitable organizations. On account of the mismatch of rhetoric and reality, the tax law of charity endorses an entitlement to pre-tax income and (ironically) creates a bias against taxation. This article reorients the project of defining public and private in the tax law by starting from a normative theory of government responsibility.
It challenges the conventional economic justifications for the charitable deduction and exemption, arguing for a more philosophical approach that makes affirmative demands on government to distribute the returns to social cooperation. Under this approach, the appropriate role of private organizations is residual; they must achieve what governments cannot. The article concludes by arguing that current law’s tax benefits for charity are easily justified in this new understanding.”
By: Sam Brunson
On Friday, Shu-Yi posted an overview of Puerto Rico’s financial problems, and described the centrality of the island’s tax regime to those problems. Today, I’m going to dig into one particular aspect of Puerto Rican taxation: tax-exempt churches.
Last year, the Puerto Rican Treasury department launched an ambitious pilot program[fn1] under which it planned on auditing more than 40 tax-exempt organizations. Juan Zaragoza, Puerto Rico’s Secretary of Treasury, announced that this month the program moves to Phase 3: auditing churches.
As in the U.S., the Puerto Rican tax law exempts some nonprofit organizations from tax. Puerto Rican tax law explicitly exempts
Churches, church conventions or associations, as well as religious and apostolic organizations, including corporations and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.[fn2]
Some tax-exempt churches, Zaragoza asserted, aren’t really churches, but rather family businesses. They make annual profits, just like a shoe store (and yes, his example was a shoe store), but, because they claim to be tax-exempt churches, they don’t pay taxes on their profits. Continue reading “Church or Family Business? Puerto Rico Wants to Know”