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. 

Abusing A Tax-Exempt

I am looking at a tax-exempt case that went off the rails.

There are rules in the tax-exempt area to encourage one to keep their nose clean. The rules can be different depending on whether the entity is a private foundation or not. The reason is that a foundation is generally considered more susceptible to influence than a “classic” tax-exempt, such as a 501(c)(3), as a foundation generally has a smaller pool of donors.

A doctor (Dr O) organized a 501(c)(3) called American Medical Missionary Care, Inc (AMMC) in 1998. In 2000 it applied for and received tax-exempt status from the IRS. Its exempt purpose was to operate a clinic in Michigan providing medical examination and treatment for individuals unable to afford such services.

Sounds like a great cause to me.

Dr O served as president. His spouse (Mrs O) served on the board of directors as well as secretary and treasurer over the years.

In 2013 AMMC filed its Form 990 reporting compensation of $26,000 paid Dr O and $21,000 paid Mrs O.

AMMC however issued W-2s of $26,000 apiece.

There is a mistake here, but it is not necessarily a big deal. They should tighten down the numbers going forward, though.

On its 2014 Form 990 AMMC reported no compensation to Dr or Mrs O.

Seems odd. Compensation does not tend to turn off and on like a spigot.

Meanwhile, Dr O had gotten in trouble with the Michigan Board of Medicine in 2014. He was required to pay a significant amount of money and also relinquished his medical license. Dr O eventually returned to Nigeria in 2017, leaving his wife in the United States.

The IRS selected the nonprofit for examination.

The revenue agent dug around the AMMC’s various bank accounts for 2014 and found biweekly checks to Mrs O of $1,000 each. There were also certified checks ranging from $6,000 to $10,000. In all, Dr and Mrs O had received cash, checks and money orders from AMMC totaling approximately $130 thousand.

The 990 showed the $130 grand as a loan receivable from Dr O.

Oh please.

Dr O got into trouble and needed cash. He turned to AMMC because that is where the money was. A loan implies an ability to repay and intent to collect, all within the normal course and conduct of business. I seriously doubt that is what we had here.

Dr O and Mrs O had outsized influence over the (c)(3). Who was going to tell them no, much less point out that making loans to officers and board members is minefield territory in the tax Code?

The IRS revenue agent felt the same way and assessed a tier-one penalty.

Penalties in the nonprofit area can be a bit different. There can be penalties on an individual or on the entity itself, for example. The more severe penalties revolve around “excess benefit” transactions and “disqualified persons,” which are – as you might suspect – people with substantial authority or influence over the tax-exempt. Dr O organized AMMC years before and served as its president. He was a poster child for a disqualified person.

The IRS assessed a tier-one penalty of $32,500. It also revoked the exempt status of AMMC.

Let’s walk through the tiered penalty.

The IRS assessed a tier-one penalty of $32,500 on the O's. This is 25% of the $130,000 that Dr and Mrs O drew in 2014. The reason I call it a “tier-one” is that there is a possible “tier two.” To avoid a tier-two, one has to return the money to the tax-exempt.

What happens if one fails to return the money?

The penalty goes to 200%.

This is one of the severest penalties in the tax Code, and Congress intended it that way. Years ago, the only recourse the IRS had was to revoke the entity’s exempt status. Congress felt that this response was a sledgehammer, and it instead created a set of “intermediate” penalties, shifting the burden to the person benefiting from the transaction. With that as background, Congress did not consider 200 percent as excessive.

So the O’s now had another penalty of $230,000.

COMMENT: 200 percent of $130,000 is $260,000, not $230,000. The Court made some tweaks which need not concern us here.

You may be wondering why Dr O would care, if he was safely ensconced in Nigeria.

For one, his wife was still in the United States.

And she was on the Board. She had served as secretary and treasurer. She was a disqualified person in her own right. She was also considered to be a disqualified person by being married to a disqualified person. She was not getting out of this snare.

Mrs O was going to get hammered.

She fielded a last stand:

(1) She argued that much of the money was distributed to needy people to help with rent and utilities, after-school programs for the kids and so forth.

Problem was: she had no records to substantiate any of this. She had not drawn checks in a manner commensurate with this storyline, although she testified that she would hold and re-deposit the certified checks back into the (c)(3) if and as needed. The Court was – by this point – quite skeptical of anything she had to say.

(2)  She argued that much of the money represented compensation to either her or both Dr O and her.

This was her best argument, but unfortunately this route was closed to her.

You see, AMMC should have issued W-2s if it intended for the monies to represent compensation. The tax-exempt did not issue W-2s for 2014. It did not even authorize compensation in its minutes. Some things have to be done currently, and this is one of those things.

A W-2 (or 1099) would have saved a penalty equal to twice its face amount. That is, a $26,000 W-2 to Dr O would have saved a penalty of $52,000 ($26,000 times 200%).

It was a worst-case scenario for the O’s.

Then again, they abused AMCC. That money did not belong to the O’s. It belonged to the (c)(3). The exempt purpose of AMMC was to assist the poor with access to medical care, not to enrich its founding family after the loss of a medical license.

Our case this time was Ononuju v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-94.

 

IRS Rejects A Religious Organization’s Tax-Exempt Application

 

We have a nonprofit application for exempt status that has gone off the rails.  

The reviewing (IRS) officer wanted them, for example, to recharter under a different category of nonprofit status.

I considered it arbitrary, but if it made him happy….

He called this week threatening to terminate his review altogether. I called him back immediately.

What happened, I asked

You have not forwarded all the information I asked for, he explained.

I faxed you several documents in early June. I said. I am unaware of having omitted anything.

I need state certification of the amendment to the charter, he replied.

Which he had not requested previously.

Fine. I called the secretary of state’s office, explaining my situation. They were very helpful and by the end of the day I received a verification that I could forward to the IRS.

The nonprofit, by the way, is a high school booster club. The IRS is treating them like they were Amazon. Folks, these are parents selling pop and snacks at high school games. All they are trying to do is buy bleachers and build restrooms nearer the athletic fields. The IRS overkill here is ridiculous.

My previous exempt application, on the other hand, went smoothly. I had one conversation with the reviewing officer and that was it.

Yes, one’s experience with the IRS can vary greatly depending on whom one is working with.

I am looking at IRS response to an application by an organization called Christians Engaged. It caught my attention for two reasons: first, the response came out of Cincinnati; second, the organization got turned down. I get curious when an application is rejected. I remember, for example, an application rejected for being little more than a masquerade for sending family members to college on a tax-deductible basis.

Let’s set this up:

(1)  The organization was organized in Texas in 2019.

(2)  The founder and president is a former Republican Congressional candidate and a preacher.

(3)  The vice president is a former Promise Keepers prayer coordinator and a homeschool mom.

(4)  The secretary is a millennial managing Republican field teams in Collins county, Texas.

Sounds 2021-ish.

The organization’s mission statement includes the following:

a.    Regular prayer for the nation

b.    Impact culture by voting every election

c.    Encourage political education and activism

d.    Educate Christians on the importance of prayer, voting and nonpartisan political engagement

Got it. There is noticeable call-to-action here.

So what are the activities of Christians Engaged?

(1)  Hold weekly prayer meetings for state and federal leaders, including distribution of program outlines to participating churches.

(2)  Maintain a website and social media providing educational materials and connections for Christians to become politically active.

(3)  Educate believers on issues central to biblical faith, such as the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage, private versus governmental ethics, religious liberty, and so on.

(4)  Conduct educational activities, including a course in political activism, with a basis in Biblical and Christian value systems.

(5)  Educate on how to select between imperfect candidates as well as political party impact on elected officials.

Tax-exempts have to be careful when they approach political activities.  The type of exempt we are discussing here is the (c)(3) - the most favorable tax status, as contributions to a (c)(3) are tax-deductible.

As a generalization, a tax-exempt is permitted to advocate on issues affecting them, the community, society and the nation. Think environmental protection or domestic abuse, for example, and you will get a feel for it.

What it cannot do is lobby (at least, not to any significant extent).

What is lobbying?

An obvious example is direct lobbying: contacting an elected or government official with the intent of influencing new or existing legislation.

Less obvious is indirect lobbying, sometimes referred to as grassroots lobbying. Rather than contacting an elected or government official directly, the goal is to influence and motivate the public to do so.

To me this definition is soapy water. A tax exempt is allowed to advocate, and obviously it will advocate on behalf of its mission statement. An early education (c)(3) will, for example, advocate with the goal of getting someone to leave the couch and take action on early education matters.  

We have to tighten-up the definition of grassroots lobbying to make it workable.

How about this:

Attempt to influence the general public through communications that:

·      Refer to specific legislation

·      Reflect a point of view on said legislation, and

·      Include a call to action

Better. It seems that a general education or exhortation mission – and leaving specific legislation or candidates alone - will fit into this definition.

What did the IRS reviewing officer see in the Christians Engaged application?

(1)  The activities approach that of an action organization, involving itself with political campaigns and candidates.

How, me asks?

The organization involves itself on issues prominent in political campaigns, instructing what the Bible says about the issue and how the public should vote.

(2)  The issues discussed are more commonly affiliated with certain candidates of one political party rather than candidates of another party, meaning the organization’s activities are not neutral.

(3)  The organization itself is not neutral, as it instructs people on using and voting the Bible. 

(4)  The organization serves the interest of the Republican party more than incidentally, meaning it serves a substantial nonexempt purpose.

 Huh?

Let’s just quote the IRS: 

Specifically, you educate Christians on what the Bible says in areas where they can be instrumental including the areas of sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, biblical justice, freedom of speech, defense, and borders and immigration, U.S. and Israel relations. The bible teachings are typically affiliated with the [Republican] party and candidates.”

That took a turn I did not expect.

I expected an analysis of applying soapy-water standards of grassroots lobbying to societal reality in the 21^st century.  

We got something … else.

The matter is being appealed, of course.

No Shareholder, No S Corporation Election

 Our case this time takes us to Louisville.

There is a nonprofit called the Waterfront Development Corporation (WDC). It has existed since 1986, and its mission is to development, redevelop and revitalize certain industrial areas around the Ohio river downtown. I would probably shy away from getting involved - anticipating unceasing headaches from the city, Jefferson county and the Commonwealth of Kentucky - but I am glad that there are people who will lift that load.

One of those individuals was Clinton Deckard, who wanted to assist WDC financially, and to that effect he formed Waterfront Fashion Week Inc. (WFWI) in 2012. WFWI was going to organize and promote Waterfront Fashion Week – essentially a fundraiser for WDC.

Seems laudable.

Mr Deckard had been advised to form a nonprofit, on the presumption that a nonprofit would encourage people and businesses to contribute. He saw an attorney who organized WFWI as a nonprofit corporation under Kentucky statute.

Unfortunately, Waterfront Fashion Week failed to raise funds; in fact, it lost money. Mr Deckard wound up putting in more than $275,000 of his own money into WFWI to shore up the leaks. There was nothing to contribute to WDC.  What remained was a financial crater-in-the-ground of approximately $300 grand. Whereas WFWI had been organized as a nonprofit for state law purposes, it had not obtained tax-exempt status from the IRS. If it had, Mr Deckard could have gotten a tax-deductible donation for his generosity.

COMMENT: While we use the terms “nonprofit” and “tax-exempt” interchangeably at times, in this instance the technical difference is critical. WFWI was a nonprofit because it was a nonprofit corporation under state law. If it wanted to be tax-exempt, it had to keep going and obtain exempt status from the IRS.  One has to be organized under as a nonprofit for the IRS to consider tax-exempt status, but there also many more requirements.

No doubt Mr Deckard would have just written a check for $275 grand to WDC had he foreseen how this was going to turn out. WDC was tax-exempt, so he could have gotten a tax-deductible donation. As it was, he had ….

…. an idea. He tried something. WFWI had never applied for tax-exempt status with the IRS.

WFWI filed instead for S corporation status. Granted, it filed late, but there are procedures that a knowledgeable tax advisor can use. Mr Deckard signed the election as president of WFWI. An S election requires S corporation tax returns, which it filed. Mind you, the returns were late – the tax advisor would have to face off against near-certain IRS penalties - but it was better than nothing.

Why do this?

An S corporation generally does not pay tax. Rather it passes its income (or deductions) on to its shareholders who then include the income or deductions with their other income and deductions and then pay tax personally on the amalgamation

It was a clever move.

Except ….

Remember that the attorney organized WFWI as a nonprofit corporation under Kentucky statute.

So?

Under Kentucky law, a nonprofit corporation does not have shareholders.

And what does the tax Code require before electing S corporation status?

Mr Deckard has to be a shareholder in the S corporation.

He tried, he really did. He presented a number of arguments that he was the beneficial owner of WFWI, and that beneficial status was sufficient to allow  an S corporation election.

But a shareholder by definition would get to share in the profits or losses of the S corporation. Under Kentucky statute, Mr Deckard could NEVER participate in those profits or losses. Since he could never participate, he could never be a shareholder as intended by the tax Code. There was no shareholder, no S corporation election, no S corporation – none of that.

He struck out.

The sad thing is that it is doubtful whether WFWI needed to have organized as a nonprofit in the first place.

Why do I say that?

If you or I make a donation, we need a tax-exempt organization on the other side. The only way we can get some tax pop is as a donation.

A business has another option.

The payment could just be a trade or business expense.

Say that you have a restaurant downtown (obviously pre-COVID days). You send a check to a charitable event that will fill-up downtown for a good portion of the weekend. Is it a donation? Could be. It could also be just a promotion expense – there are going to be crowds downtown, you are downtown, people have to eat, and you happen to be conveniently located to the crowds. Is that payment more-than-50% promotion or more-than-50-% donation?

I think of generosity when I think of a donation. I think of return-on-investment when I think of promotion or business expenses.

What difference does it make? The more-than-50% promotion or business deduction does not require a tax-exempt on the other side. It is a business expense on its own power; it does not need an assist.

I cannot help but suspect that WFWI was primarily recruiting money from Louisville businesses. I also suspect that many if not most would have had a keen interest in downtown development and revitalization. Are we closer to our promotion example or our donation example?

Perhaps Mr Deckard never needed a nonprofit corporation.

Losing A Tax Exemption

The taxation of tax-exempts can sometimes be tricky.

The reason is that a tax-exempt can – depending on the facts – owe income tax. This type of income is referred to as unrelated business income, and the tax issue developed because Congress did not want tax-exempts to mimic the activities of for-profit companies while not paying tax.

There are certain areas – such as permitting third-party use of membership data – that can trigger the unrelated business tax.

Another would be the rental of real estate with associated indebtedness.

The organization will owe tax on these activities.

Then there is the worst-case scenario: the revocation of the tax-exempt status itself. Think Elon Musk putting Tesla in a 501(c)(3) – the IRS is going to blow-up that arrangement.

Let’s discuss a recent case that walked the revocation ledge.

There is an organization in New York. It is open to seniors from age 55 to 90. To become a member a senior must submit an application and application fee. 

It appears to have four principal activities:

·      To provide burial benefits for members and assistance to surviving family

·      To provide information and referrals to seniors regarding burial as well as general concerns

·      To provide organized activities for senior citizens

·      To provide annual scholarships to needy, promising students

The organization charges fees as follows:

·      An application fee of $100 for seniors age 55 to 70

·      An application fee of $150 for seniors age 71 to 90

·      A $30 annual fee

·      A $10 fee every time a member dies

It doesn’t appear unreasonable to me.

There was an interesting and heartwarming twist to their activities: the organization would pay a separate amount directly to the family of a deceased member, pursuant to a Korean tradition. The organization paid, for example, $11 thousand directly to a funeral home and over $3,200 to the family of a deceased member.

Since we are talking about them, you know that the organization went to audit.

The IRS wanted to revoke their tax-exempt status.

Why?

The is an over-arching requirement that a tax-exempt be operated “exclusively” for an exempt purpose. There is some latitude in the “exclusive” requirement, otherwise de minimis and silly stuff could cost an organization its exemption.

Still, what did the IRS see here?

The first is that benefits were available only to members.

COMMENT: The organization had expressed an intent to include nonmembers, but as of the audit year that goal remained aspirational.

OBSERVATION: The organization had told the IRS of its intent to include nonmembers when it requested exempt status. Upon audit and failure to find nonmember benefits, the IRS argued that the organization had failed to operate in the manner it had previously represented to the IRS. 

Second is that a member was required to pay dues. In fact, if a member failed to pay dues for 90 days after receiving written notice, the organization could terminate the membership and – with it – the requirement to pay any burial benefits.

COMMENT: Sounds a bit like an insurance company, doesn’t it?

Third is that the amount of burial benefits was based on the number of years the deceased had been a member. A member of 12 years would receive more than a member of 5 years.

The IRS brought big heat. The organization was organized in 1996, applied for exempt status in 1998 and was being audited for 2013.

OK, a reasonable number of years had passed since receiving exempt status.

The organization had reported over $2.3 million in revenues on their Form 990.

Sounds to me like they were doing well.

In 2008 they bought a condominium, paying over $800 grand.

Oh, oh.

You can begin to understand where the IRS was coming from. As operated, the organization was looking like a small insurance company. It was accumulating a bank balance; it had bought real estate. The IRS wanted to see obvious charitable activities. If the organization could swing $800 grand on a condo, then they could shake loose a few dollars and waive dues for someone who was broke. They were operating dangerously close to a private club. That is fine, but do not ask for (c)(3) status.

The organization had a remaining argument: there was no diversion of earnings or money. There couldn’t be, as no benefits occurred until someone passed away.

The Court however separated this argument into two parts:

(1)  The earnings and assets of the organization cannot inure (that is, return to) to a member.

The organization successfully argued this point.

(2)  There must be no private benefit.

This makes more sense if one flips the wording: there must be a public benefit. The Court did not see a public benefit, as the organization was not providing benefits to nonmembers or allowing for reduction or abatement of dues for financial need. Not seeing a public benefit, the Court saw a private benefit.

The organization was operating in a manner too close to a for-profit business, and it lost its tax-exempt status.

I get the technical issues, but I do not agree as vigorously as the Court that there was that much private benefit here. Society has an interest in promoting the causes and issues of senior citizens, and the organization – in its own way – was helping. By aiding seniors with government agencies, it was reducing the strain on social services. By assisting seniors with planning and paying for funeral services, it was reducing costs otherwise defaulting to the municipality.

One would have preferred a warning, an opportunity for the organization to right its course, so to speak. What happened instead was akin to burning down the bridge.  

Still, that is how issues in this area go: one is working on a spectrum. The advisor has to judge whether one is on the safe or the non-safe side of the spectrum.

The Court decided the organization had wandered too far to the non-safe side.

Our case this time was The Korean-American Senior Mutual Association v Commissioner.

Marijuana And Tax-Exempt Status

I am not surprised.

I am looking at a Private Letter Ruling on a tax -exempt application for an entity involved with marijuana and CBD.

I doubt the CBD plays any role here. It is all about marijuana.

I have become sensitive to the issue as I have two friends who are dealing with chronic pain. The pain has risen to the level that it is injuring both their careers. The two have chosen different ways to manage: one does so through prescriptions and the other through marijuana.

Through one I have seen the debilitating effect of prescription painkillers.

The other friend wants me to establish a marijuana specialization here at Command Center.

I am not. I am looking to reduce, not expand, my work load.

What sets up the tax issue?

Federal tax law. More specifically, this Code section:

        § 280E Expenditures in connection with the illegal sale of drugs.

No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

Marijuana is a Schedule I substance, so it runs full-face into Section 280E. There is “no deduction or credit” allowed on that tax return.

There is one exception, and that has to do with the cost of the marijuana itself. Accountants refer to this as “cost of sales,” and it would include more than just the cost of the product. It would include costs associated with buying the product or storing it, for example. Still, the big bucks would be with the cost of the product itself.

There is a Court decision which defines taxable revenues as revenues after deduction for cost of goods sold. The decision applies to all businesses, not just marijuana.

What it leaves out is everything other than cost of sales, such as rent, utilities or the wages required to staff and run the business.

That gets expensive. One is paying taxes on business profit, without being allowed to deduct all the costs and expenses normally allowed in calculating business profit. That is not really “profit” in the common usage of the word.

I am reading that someone applied for tax exempt status. They argued that their exempt purpose was:

·      To aid financially disadvantaged patients and families affected by the cost of THC and CBD medical treatment

·      To educate health providers about THC and CBD medical treatments

·      To support research into said THC and CBD medical treatments

The entity anticipated the usual stuff:

·      It will be supported by contributions and gifts

·      It will develop a website, which will give it another venue to educate about its mission as well as fundraise

·      It will develop relevant medical and treatment literature

·      It will conduct relevant seminars and classes

·      It will organize support groups for patients and their families

·      It will track and publish relevant medical data

The IRS led with:

You were formed to aid financially disadvantaged patients and patient’s families who are affected by the costs of THC and CBD medical treatment by providing financial support to cover costs of living and other expenses that the patients may incur.”

It continued:

… you are providing funding to the users of these substances who may be struggling to pay living and/or travel expenses because of their use of these illegal substances. Furthermore, your financial assistance is only available to users of these substances.”

In response the entity argued that it did not directly provide THC or CBD to individuals nor did it provide direct funding for the same.

The IRS was unmoved:

You were formed for the purpose of providing financial assistance to individuals who are engaged [in] an illegal activity which is contrary to public policy.”

The IRS rejected the tax-exempt application.

There are numerous tax-exempts throughout the nation that counsel, research, educate and proselytize concerning their mission. A substance abuse clinic can provide methadone, for example. What it cannot do is provide the heroin.

The entity could, I suppose, withdraw the financial support platform from its mission statement, greatly increasing the likelihood for tax-exempt status.

If its core mission was to provide such financial support, however, this alternative might be unacceptable.

If I were advising, I might consider qualifying the entity as a supporting organization for a pain clinic. The clinic would likely address more than marijuana therapy (it would have to, otherwise we are just circling the block), which represents a dilution of the original mission. In addition, a supporting organization transfers some of its governance and authority to the supported organization. It may be that either or both of these factors could be deal-breakers.

It has been interesting to see the continuing push on this area of tax law.

The Nick Saban Tax

Have you heard about the “Nick Saban” tax?

Let’s set it up.

There has been a longstanding tax provision limiting the deduction for public company executive compensation to $1 million. Mind you, this is not a restriction on how much you can pay an executive; the restriction only applies to how much you can deduct on a tax return. The restriction does not apply to all executives, either; it applies to the CEO, CFO and three other most-highly-paids.

But there was an exception large enough for the Fortune 500 to drive through. The exception was for “performance.” Magically and almost overnight, virtually all executive compensation packages became based on “performance.” Options were considered performance-based, and eventually options came to be passed around like candy. Realistically, one had to refuse to do any tax planning for this provision to actually apply.

This changed with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in December, 2017. Congress tightened up this code Section (162(m)) by taking away the performance exception. The $1 million cap now has a real bite.

But Congress was still looking for money.

Congress decided to put the same $1 million compensation limit on nonprofits.

This creates a quandary, as nonprofits (generally) do not pay tax. If I were a nonprofit executive and Congress threatened to disallow my deduction, I would not be feeling the tremulous fear of my for-profit peers.

Congress thought of that. They decided that the nonprofit would pay a 21% tax on my behalf.

Whoa. Now you have my attention. Granted, the tax is not on me, but we all know how this works in the real world. Only small children and Congress believes in free. The rest of us have to pay.

Congress passed a tax provision applying the $1 million cap to the five highest- paid employees of a 501(a), which includes a 501(c)(3). Think nonprofits, certain hospitals, colleges and universities and the like.

BTW medical professors were excluded from this, so it appears clear that Congress was trying to reach the athletics programs and their coaches.

But there is a problem.

Here is Code section 4960 imposing the tax:

       (c)  Definitions and special rules.

For purposes of this section-

(1)  Applicable tax-exempt organization.

The term "applicable tax-exempt organization" means any organization which for the taxable year-

(A)  is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) ,

(B)  is a farmers' cooperative organization described in section 521(b)(1) ,

(C)  has income excluded from taxation under section 115(1) , or

(D)  is a political organization described in section 527(e)(1) .

What is that Section 115(1)?

         § 115 Income of states, municipalities, etc.

Gross income does not include-

(1)  income derived from any public utility or the exercise of any essential governmental function and accruing to a State or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia; or …

What does this mean?

Congress thought that – by extending Section 4960 to reference Section 115(1) – it would reach those entities exempt via Section 115(1).

Entities such as Alabama.

Or the University of Alabama.

Why?

Because the University of Alabama is an instrumentality of the state of Alabama.

And here the tax law goes wonky.

The Courts have looked at the interaction of Sections 115(1) and 511(which is the unrelated business income tax which applies to a nonprofit). Can a state instrumentality (say a university) run a business – say a farm-to-table restaurant chain – and avoid the unrelated business income tax because of Section 115(1)? If that were the case, then Illinois could start a chain called Outfront Steakhouse, make a zillion dollars and never pay tax because of Section 115(1).

The Courts have clarified that is not the case. There is a limit to Section 115(1).

According to that reasoning, it seems to me that Congress should be able to tax those university salaries.

But there is another argument – the doctrine of implied statutory immunity. This arises from our federalist system of government: the federal government has to respect the state government. Under this theory, if the federal government wants to tax a state, it has to say so in an unambiguous manner – that is, it cannot be “implied.”

Continuing our example, if the federal government wanted to tax Illinois for opening a steakhouse chain and locating them adjacent to every Outback Steakhouse location throughout the land, it would have to say something like:

… the [] tax will apply to an entity relying upon Section 115(1) for nontaxability of their [] business activity should that activity be the same or substantially similar to a business activity conducted by a for-profit restaurant chain.”

That is explicit. That breaches implied statutory immunity. The tax would then stick.

Is that what Congress did with the new Section 4960(c) tax?

Nowhere close, it appears.

Under that reasoning the University of Alabama will not pay the Nick Saban tax, as the tax does not reach the University of Alabama.

There are universities clearly affected by this new law: Duke, for example, or Northwestern. They have to pay up. Think of it as the difference between a “public” university and a “tax-exempt” university.

But having the state name in the university’s name, however, does not mean that the university is exempt as “public.” It depends on how the university was organized and chartered. Texas A&M will be affected by the new tax provision, but the University of Texas - Austin will not. It is enough to give one a headache.

What happens next?

The easiest path is for Congress to revise Code section 4960 and clean up the language. Without Congressional action, you can be certain the “public” universities will litigate this matter. They have to.

But the likelihood of the present Congress accomplishing anything seems unlikely, at best.