Don't Make Section 501(c)(4) The Patsy of the IRS Scandal

The Visalia Times-Delta recently published an editorial of mine defending section 501(c)(4) organizations that have been vilified as of late as a reactionary response to the IRS tea party scandal.  I defend both their tax-exempt status and the fact that donors' names are kept confidential. 

The IRS Targeting Scandal--An Engaging Infographic

Below is a fascinating infographic that attempts to fill-in the details and give the back story of the IRS tea-party targeting scandal.  (admittedly the tone is a bit left-leaning)

Source: TopAccountingDegrees.org

A Rational Explanation for the Targeting of Tea Party Groups by the IRS?

Although the inspector general of the U.S. Treasury is set to release a report on Wednesday detailing the increased scrutiny certain tea party groups received in their 501(c)(4) applications, a Duke tax law professor, Richard Schmalbeck, was at the ABA meeting where this was first disclosed and has shared his thoughts:

From the Tax Prof Blog: 

I was at the Exempt Organizations Committee meeting of the ABA Tax Section meeting when Lois Lerner, the director of the division that handles exempt organizations matters, dropped the bombshell that is in the papers today, and generating a lot of media outrage, especially but not exclusively on Fox News. I think her explanation in person was probably better than the statement that the IRS released, at least in terms of explaining why some exemption applications actually require more scrutiny than others.

The IRS position on 501(c)(4) organizations ("social welfare organizations")is that, while they can engage in campaign activities, they cannot do so as their primary activity—which they understand as more than 50% of the organization's activities. Many organizations that seek this status probably should be section 527 political organizations rather than social welfare organizations. So when the service center in Cincinnati, which handles exemption applications, was inundated with unusually large numbers of (c)(4) applications, they tried to find ways to triage them, so that the traditional social welfare organizations would not have their processing held up, but organizations that might be close to the 50% campaign activity zone would get the appropriate level of scrutiny. In developing ways to identify the applications requiring attention, one of the tests that somebody decided would work is whether the organization had "tea party" or "patriot" in its name. The IRS did also look at other organizations with potential for abuse of the social welfare organization status, but apparently did not come up with any shorthand ways of identifying any such organizations that did not have "tea party" or "patriot" in their names.

This was obviously a bad idea for a number of reasons, including its political asymmetry. But a) it didn't come from the top—Lois is herself a career employee, and it was a decision made somewhere below her level; and b) it did not involve scrutiny that was inappropriate under the circumstances. The content of some of the scrutiny may have been inappropriate, however, in seeking names of donors, which is not ordinarily done. (Even here, I can imagine some basis for thinking this was relevant to the inquiry: if all an organization's funds were coming from a party, or other 527 organizations, it would be a matter of some concern, and raise a somewhat higher suspicion that the organization was being used to finance campaign activities primarily. And while public disclosure of donors is not required, there is no absolute bar on the IRS seeking information about donors. They do it routinely in their efforts to determine private foundation status and compliance, since major donors are disqualified persons for purposes of the private foundation excise taxes. I should emphasize that Lois did not offer this explanation however—it is just my speculation on why IRS staff might have asked that question.)

I think the problem is that if you hear that tea party organizations were "targeted" for special scrutiny, it is hard to imagine an explanation that doesn't depend on partisan bias. But there is such an explanation: the need to draw the line between (c)(4) and 527 organizations. I'm not saying that this was the right way to go about this, and neither is Lois or anyone else in the IRS. But at the same time, it isn't the smoking gun that some in the media seem to think it is. It is nothing like Richard Nixon asking the IRS to audit his political enemies, though it is being compared to that.

Some additional headlines on this matter: 

American Thinker:  IRS Scandal Deepens: High Officials Knew of Tea Party Targeting in 2011

CNN:  IRS Abuses Power in Targeting Tea Party

Fox News:  Republicans Slam IRS Targeting of Tea Party as 'Chilling,' a Form of Intimidation

The Hill:  Rep. Issa: IRS apology to Tea Party Groups ‘Not an Honest One’

Legal Insurrection:  IRS Reaped Hatred of Tea Party Sown by Democrats and the Media, by William   Jacobson (Cornell)

Legal Insurrection:  The Washington Post leads on the #IRScandal ... Who Will Follow?

Mother Jones:  The IRS Shoots Itself in the Foot, Then Reloads

New York Post:  The Nixon Wing at the IRS

New York Times:  IRS Focus on Conservatives Gives G.O.P. an Issue to Seize On

Politico:  5 Questions on the IRS Debacle

Reuters:  IRS Kept Shifting Targets in Tax-Exempt Groups Scrutiny: Report

The Volokh Conspiracy:  IRS Scrutinized Teaching the Constitution, by Jonathan Adler (Case Western)

Wall Street Journal:  Wider Problems Found at IRS: Probe Says Tax Agency Used Sweeping Criteria to Scrutinize Conservative Groups

Washington Examiner:  Conservatives Want Congress to Audit IRS for Targeting Tea Party

Washington Post:  IRS Targeted Groups That Criticized the Government, IG Report Says 

Washington Tims:  IRS Scandal Grows to Include Debt Critics

Converting From a For-Proft to a Nonprofit Entity

Under California and Federal law, it is possible for a for-profit corporation to convert to a nonprofit entity.  This conversion really has two components: i) making the change for state law entity purposes, and ii) seeking and obtaining tax exempt status for the now, nonprofit entity.

With respect to legal conversion, there is a unique section in the California Corporation's Code which allows a corporation to convert to a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, simply by amending its articles of incorporation. (See Cal. Corp. Code Sec. 911.)  Oddly, this provision is not grouped with all the other provisions that deal with corporate conversions but is part of the section of the code that deals with amending articles.  This distinction means that there is no "converting" or "converted" entity or "terminated" and "surviving" entity as is the case under the normal statutory conversion sections.  In essence, a conversion under Sec. 911 means the entity is the same entity as before--it is just a classified differently.

Of course, amending the articles appropriately is only part of the process--the entity must still apply for tax-exempt status at both the state and federal level.  This is done by filling out  IRS form 1023.  Note that if you have converted from a for-profit to a nonprofit, there is a separate Schedule G to the form 1023 that must be filled out where you are to explain why the conversion occurred and what relationships various parties have to the entity.  The biggest question is why would an entity that is making money, apparently for commercial reasons, want to switch to non-profit status?  The IRS will want to ensure that there is no self-dealing or private inurement to certain owners and officers as a result of the conversion.  Assuming the IRS grants tax-exempt status, the entity can easily seek tax exempt status at the state level. 

Curiously, one grey area is whether or not the entity must acquire a new EIN for tax reporting purposes.  The guidance provided by the IRS on this matter is unclear and subject to varying interpretations.  Typically, most entities prefer to retain their own EIN so there is less administrative burden. 

On final aspect are the tax implications that are involved.  In particular, most C corporations prefer to bonus out employees at the end of the year so that there is minimal corporate income (in an effort to minimize corporate level taxes).When a conversion is made, consideration should be given as to the timing of corporate income and expenses so that as much of the corporate expenses are allocated to the time frame when the corporation is a nonprofit.