Seeking Tax Exempt Status By Lessening The Burden Of Government

Let’s introduce Captain Obvious: if you want charitable tax-exempt status from the IRS, you need to have a charitable purpose.

Let’s look at New World Infrastructure Organization’s application for tax-exempt status.

It starts with two individuals: Scott and Pam Johnston.

They owned a business called The Pipe Man Corp (TPMC). Scott was the president and Pam the vice-president

TPMC was organized to develop a portable pipe manufacturing system, working and shaping pipe in larger-than-usual sizes. Combine these pipes with road infrastructure and a business opportunity was created.

TPMC never got started. I guess it needed angel investors, and the investors never appeared.

The Johnstons then organized a nonprofit corporation called New World Infrastructure Organization (New World).  Scott and Pam were its only officers and directors. TPMC granted New World permission to use its copyrights and patents, whatever that meant, given that Scott and Pam were the only two officers and were on both sides of the equation.

New World submitted an application for tax-exempt status, stating that its …

… ultimate purpose and core focus will be charitable, with … [its] main beneficiary being Federal, State and Local Government Agencies.

OK, its purpose has something to do with government.

… our research will result in encouraging Economic Development throughout the United States. It will save time, money and lessen the burden of government. The prototype machinery, after testing, will be placed into service making very large corrugated metal pipe. The pipes need to make a Highway Overpass can be made and arched in less than a week. The cost of these pipes represent a fraction of the cost of traditional methods.”

Lessening the burden of government can be a charitable mission. For tax-exempts, this generally means that a governmental unit considers the organization to be acting on its behalf. The organization is freeing up resources – people, material, money – that the governmental unit would have to devote were it to conduct the activity itself.   

It would be helpful to present a prearranged understanding with one or more government units, especially since New World was hanging so much of its hopes on the lessening-the-burden-of-government hook.

Helpful but not happening.

I am not clear how New World was lessening anything.

According to the narrative description, … [New World] intends to fulfill its charitable purpose by working with governmental agencies, engineering firms, and businesses to reduce the cost of infrastructure projects to ‘as little as one fourth current costs.’”

Wait a second. Is New World saying that its exempt purpose was to reduce the cost of projects to the government? That is not really an exempt purpose, methinks. Let’s say that you start a business and guarantee the government that you will beat a competitor’s price by 10%. That may or may not be a good business model, but you are still in business and still for-profit. Maybe a little less profit, but still for-profit.

How about if New World provided its services at cost?

… while petitioner has suggested … that it would be willing to enter into an exclusivity agreement … to sell its product at cost, it has not established through its bylaws or otherwise that it would in fact do so.”

Seems that New World wanted a profit. It is not clear what it would do with a profit, although there is the old reliable saw of paying-out profits via salaries and bonuses to its two officers and directors.

The Court saw a failed business effort slapped into a tax-exempt application. The supposed charitable purpose was to offer a lower price on infrastructure projects, which was not quite as inspiring as clothing the poor or feeding the hungry. It appeared that no governmental unit had asked to have its burdens reduced. It further appeared that there was a more-than-zero possibility of personal benefit and private inurement to the Johnstons.

Why even go to all this effort?    

I suppose the (c)(3) status would have allowed New World to obtain the funding that its predecessor – TPMC – was unable to obtain. TPMC would have issued stock or borrowed money. New World would have raised capital via tax-deductible charitable contributions.   

The Tax Court said no dice.

Our case this time was New World Infrastructure Organization v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-91. 

Driving To South Africa

Our protagonist this time is Donald Durden. He is a pastor with the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and he was based out of Columbus, Ohio for the tax year at issue. His territory included part of Maryland, Ohio, western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and a part of Virginia.

Got it. I am guessing the case has something to do with travel expenses.

The Church reimbursed his business-related travel expenses using both an accountable and nonaccountable plan.

I guessed right.

COMMENT: The big difference between an accountable and nonaccountable plan is whether you have to provide your employer with receipts and other paperwork. If you do, the plan is accountable and the employer can leave the reimbursement off your W-2. Fail to turn in paperwork and the plan becomes nonaccountable. The reimbursement then goes on your W-2. That used to mean that one would have to itemize and claim employee business expenses. The new tax law disallows employee business expenses, meaning that – beginning with 2018 - one has income with no offsetting deduction.

Pastor Burden claimed $41,950 of unreimbursed employee expenses when he filed his 2013 tax return.

Good grief!

The IRS wanted to know what made up this number. Actually, so do I. There were all kinds of travel in there as well as vehicle expenses and other stuff, including “special shoes.”

Let’s talk about his South Africa visit.

He claimed travel expenses of $10,897. When pressed, he did not present receipts or records, opting to explain that he was away from home on ministerial duties for 100 days. At $180 per day – which he described as the “conservative high-low method” - that comes to $18,000 and was way more than he actually deducted. Why was there an issue?

Folks, it does work like that. I presume that he was referring to a per diem, but a per diem refers to hotels, meals and incidental expenses; it does not mean the air fare to get there in the first place. Additionally, one still has to substantiate the business reason for the trip and document the number of days against which to multiply the per diem. I cannot vacation for two weeks in Europe and make it deductible just by wandering into an accountants’ office one afternoon in Budapest.  

Our pastor had a receipt or two. He elaborated that he visited the Apartheid Museum, the Robben Island Museum, Nelson Mandela’s and Bishop Tutu’s residences, and the botanical gardens.

Sounds like a vacation, murmured the IRS.

Not at all, corrected the pastor. I was working.

How were you working, asked the IRS hopefully.

I said a prayer of dedication during a ceremony.

And …?

I led daily devotions with the parishioners who travelled with me. There was also a naming ceremony. I chose Chloe for my name.

Can you get to any records? Daily schedules, appointments, anything to substantiate ….

For international travel to be deductible, the primary purpose of the trip has to be business related. It is somewhat harsh, but that is the rule. If the trip is 45% business, there is no deduction. You do not get to multiply the cost of the trip by 45 percent.

It was a really good prayer, gleamed the pastor.

He also went to the Dominican Republic. Twice. Turns out his wife has family there.

Of course, sighed the IRS. Let’s go over those records. Let’s start with how you got there.

I drove there, said the pastor.

Whaa…?

I have a log. You see, right here, yeah, in January, I drove there. I left on a Sunday and returned the next Wednesday. In September I also left on a Sunday and came back eight days later.

You can’t drive to …

Ah, here it is. You see, my log shows that I drove to South Africa too. That was in December, added the pastor, squinting his eyes while remembering.

And so it continued, including other items that we cannot discuss without sounding like The Onion.

The Court bounced pretty much everything.

The Court also kept the penalty.

This time we discussed Burden and Torres v Commissioner.

It may be my favorite case so far in 2019.