Last month, the IRS issued final regulations entitled “Substantiation and Reporting Requirements for Cash and Noncash Charitable Contribution Deductions,” codified as Treasury Regulation Sections 1.170A-15 (cash), -16 (noncash), -17 (qualified appraisals and appraisers), and -18 (clothing and household items).
Green v. U.S., No. 16-6371 (10th Cir., Jan. 12, 2018)
Practitioners and donors often forget a pesky donation limitation that applies only to irrevocable trusts: the deduction for a real property donation is limited to the trust’s adjusted basis in the real property and is only permitted if the real property was acquired using the trust’s gross income. Internal Revenue Code section 642(c)(1) permits an irrevocable trust to claim a charitable deduction for “any amount of the gross income” of the trust which is donated to a qualified donee. Traditionally, most conservative tax practitioners have interpreted Section 642(c)(1) to mean that an irrevocable trust may donate an interest in real property, so long as (1) the interest was acquired with gross income and (2) the trust’s claimed deduction excludes unrealized appreciation. Unlike Internal Revenue Code section 170, which applies to individuals and corporations and clearly permits claiming unrealized appreciation as part of a charitable deduction, trusts and estates must rely on section 642 to claim charitable deductions and that section does not contain a similar provision.
Craft3 provides financing to innovative technology company, Enertechnix Process Sensors, Inc. (“EPSI”) to help the company survive and rebuild its sales function so that it can continue its work in preventing harmful industrial impacts on the environment. Click here to learn more. Craft3 is a certified Community Development Financial Institution (“CDFI”) with a mission to strengthen economic, ecological, and family resilience in Pacific Northwest communities. The company provides loans and assistance to entrepreneurs, nonprofits, individuals and others that lack access to financing. Since inception, Craft3 reports it has invested more than $423 million in 5,000 individuals and businesses in Oregon and Washington.
Those familiar with conservation easements know that to qualify for a federal tax deduction, a conservation easement must meet several rigorous requirements found in Internal Revenue Code Section 170 and Section 1.170A-14 of the Treasury Regulations, not the least of which is the requirement that the easement be granted “in perpetuity.” In addition, the easement must be subject to “legally enforceable restrictions” (such as by recordation) that will prevent uses inconsistent with the conservation purposes of the donation.
While those working in social enterprise are still grappling with how to define it, Professor of Law Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer of Notre Dame Law School takes a look at social enterprise through the lens of domestic tax law, and explores whether it is necessary or desirable to modify existing law to better accommodate social enterprise. Read the paper here.
See Mayer, Lloyd Hitoshi, Creating a Tax Space for Social Enterprise (June 22, 2017). Notre Dame Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1724. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2991120
Due to increased valuation of public and private equities, coupled with the upcoming end of the sunset provision that allows hedge fund managers to defer taxation on fees earned offshore, there is an increased interest among hedge fund and private equity managers to donate a portion of their fund interests to charity. The goal is to allow a manager to avoid ordinary income or capital gains tax and/or to obtain a tax deduction while accomplishing his or her philanthropic goals. In order to make the most of any such charitable giving plan, managers need to appreciate that the amount of any charitable deduction will vary depending on the character of the donated property and the type of organization that receives the gift.
The February 15, 2017 deadline for nonprofit organizations in California seeking to initially obtain or renew exemption from property taxes is quickly approaching, and there are changes to the reporting requirements if your organization allows third parties to use your property.
An increased concern amongst many tax-exempt organizations is how to report use of their property by private persons or non-exempt organizations.
On November 4, 2016, the IRS updated its Conservation Easement Audit Techniques Guide (CE Audit Guide) for the first time since March 15, 2012.
According to the IRS’s introduction on its Audit Techniques Guide website, Audit Techniques Guides (ATGs) are developed to help IRS examiners during audits by explaining issues and accounting methods within specific industries. ATGs are also meant to provide guidance to small business owners and tax professionals for tax planning purposes within those industries. However, each ATG contains a disclaimer that it is not “an official pronouncement of the law or position of the Service and cannot be used, cited, or relied upon as such.” This article will not explain the CE Audit Guide in depth, but rather discuss the specific updates made in November.
A Brief Case Study: Your nonprofit’s founder sends out an email in their official capacity to all of its members urging the them to vote for or against a political candidate or for or against a local proposition.
It may be a well-intended gesture, but a mistake that could result in excise taxes or the potential loss of your organization’s tax-exempt status.
The case of Salus Mundi Foundation et al v. Commissioner
On August 15, 2016, the Tax Court decided in Salus Mundi Foundation et al v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-154, that two foundations were liable as transferees for a corporation’s unpaid federal tax liability after another foundation distributed to the foundations the proceeds of the sale of the corporation’s stock.
The history in this case involves a marital trust that initially owned all of the stock in a C corporation called Double-D Ranch. Later, a portion of the stock was transferred to the Diebold Foundation in New York. Subsequent to that, the Diebold Foundation in New York sold the stock and distributed the proceeds from the sale of Double-D Ranch stock to three foundations formed by the Diebold children, pursuant to a New York state-approved plan of dissolution.