TaxProf Weblog

The federal tax deduction for charitable contributions is usually defended on the idea that charitable organizations present public items that could be under-produced by the federal government. This understanding of tax-exempt nonprofits imagines charities as present in a sphere that’s separate and distinct from the federal government. Professor Ellen Aprill challenges the traditional view, arguing that authorities and charities are higher understood as “resting on a continuum relatively than in separate spheres.”

Aprill begins by reviewing the fundamentals of the charitable contribution deduction below I.R.C. § 170. Contributions to 501(c)(3) nonprofits, generally referred to as charitable organizations, are undoubtedly essentially the most acquainted deductible donations. However Aprill factors out that part 170 additionally authorizes a deduction for contributions or items to the US, supplied that the items are used for “solely public functions.” In different phrases, taxpayers can declare a charitable contribution deduction for items to the federal authorities itself. Congress can even authorize federal businesses to simply accept charitable deductions, and in some instances it has achieved so. In a way, the federal authorities and its businesses signify an excessive finish of the spectrum of what Aprill calls “federal charitable entities.”

Federal charitable entities take different kinds as effectively. Congress has established its personal 501(c)(3) charitable organizations “with numerous levels of governmental options.” For instance, a few of these organizations are topic to the Freedom of Data Act—however not all of them. Some obtain appropriations from Congress, others don’t. Many embody authorities officers on their boards, and a few have official missions to conduct authorities obligations. Then again, these Congressionally established 501(c)(3)s even have options of conventional charitable organizations.

For instance, they’re typically “free to make use of volunteers, fundraise, make investments funds as they like and spend them when, and to some extent, how they like.” For these causes, federal charitable entities could also be extra environment friendly of their operations than purely governmental businesses. Nonetheless, a few of these hybrid entities additionally lack options related to conventional charitable organizations. For instance, some federally chartered charitable organizations are extra restricted of their lobbying actions than conventional charities. Others merely lack oversight and steering as to governance as a result of they don’t seem to be topic to the legal guidelines of any state.

As an example a number of the ways in which these Congressionally established 501(c)(3)s can fluctuate in kind, Aprill offers an in depth comparability of two well-known organizations: the Smithsonian Establishment and the American Pink Cross. The Smithsonian, which is comprised of 19 museums, the Nationwide Zoo, and 9 analysis services, has two sources of funding: federal appropriations and revenue from charitable items. The Smithsonian is handled like a federal company for some functions, however not for others—and it’s not ruled by the legislation of any state.

In distinction, the American Pink Cross, which “shoulders each wartime and peacetime duties,” doesn’t obtain federal appropriations. As an alternative, it’s fully funded by charitable items. That is true though the American Pink Cross “has direct governmental obligations that the Smithsonian doesn’t.” Just like the Smithsonian, the American Pink Cross is usually handled as a governmental company, however not at all times. And just like the Smithsonian, the American Pink Cross was initially chartered irrespective of the legal guidelines of any state—although it was re-chartered in 1905 (and on two different events) to create the group below the legal guidelines of the District of Columbia.

Maybe essentially the most salient similarity between the Smithsonian and the American Pink Cross is that each have confronted points with organizational governance. Two federal experiences on the Smithsonian famous that the group didn’t “comply with finest nonprofit practices,” with one expressing concern “’in regards to the tendency of the Establishment to embrace these federal laws it finds handy whereas ignoring others.’” The American Pink Cross has additionally been criticized for poor governance, notably after the 2001 9/11 assault and its dealing with of Hurricane Katrina in 2006. These occasions prompted Congress to re-charter the group (its fourth constitution) and dramatically overhaul its governing construction.

Along with the case research of the Smithsonian and the American Pink Cross, Aprill additionally describes different Congressionally-established 501(c)(3) organizations, together with the Kennedy Heart, the Company for Public Broadcasting, the CDC Basis, the Nationwide Park Basis, and the Authorized Providers Company. She explains the governments’ historical past of chartering personal foundations, together with the Carnegie Establishment and the Carnegie Basis for the Development of Instructing. And he or she discusses so-called Title 36 Firms, that are one other class of federally chartered nonprofits—a few of which pre-existed their federal charters. These embody some well-known charities just like the Boy Scouts of America, the Lady Scouts of America, the Future Farmers of America, and the American Olympics Committee.

Aprill offers wealthy descriptions of the various—and infrequently chaotic—panorama of federal charitable entities. Her account complicates present theories about nonprofits by demonstrating how the charitable sector typically overlaps with the general public sector, creating classes of hybrid entities that lack constant regulation or remedy below the legislation. In the end, Aprill units forth a modest advice that Congress “assessment the reward acceptance insurance policies” of governmental businesses to make sure that such insurance policies are “complete, constant, and updated.” She additionally proposes that Congress amend the charters of its 501(c)(3)s “to supply that D.C. nonprofit legislation governs,” and he or she recommends transferring the so-called Title 36 entities “into the titles of the U.S. Code associated to the subject material they tackle.”

For me, this Article answered numerous questions I had about how organizations just like the Pink Cross and NPR relate to the federal authorities. It additionally raised some new questions. I acquired the sense that Aprill has extra to say in regards to the politics behind the creation of federal charitable entities, the coverage implications of permitting the federal authorities to function by way of charities, and the extent to which federal charitable organizations compete with conventional charities—subjects which are talked about within the article, however which may every represent stand-alone analysis tasks. I look ahead to seeing extra analysis on federal charitable entities, and I like to recommend this text to any tax scholar curious about nonprofit legislation.