When Giving Money Isn’t Enough: Direct Charitable Activities of Private Foundations

2015 Tax Seminar (Salk Institute), La Jolla, California

92969426 - CopyYour foundation wants to go beyond its grant-making programs and increase its involvement, perhaps through leveraging your expertise, supplementing your grant-making dollars, and/or investing strategically and programmatically.  But how do you expand while still being subject to the prohibited transaction rules set out in the Internal Revenue Code?  This paper and presentation examine key issues of direct charitable activities, program-related investments, advantages and disadvantages of private operating foundations, and use of separate and subsidiary entities for related activities.

The Fiduciary Duty of Obedience

Director, red card, obedienceIn fulfilling their roles as directors of nonprofit organizations, directors owe fiduciary duties. Breaches of those duties can lead to a red card — removal and even personal liability. That directors of charitable organizations owe the fiduciary duties of care and loyalty owed is unquestioned. A third duty – the duty of obedience – is not as well recognized though the ideas behind it figure prominently in charity fiduciary law. The duty of obedience is the duty to remain faithful to and pursue the goals of the organization. In practice, the duty of obedience requires the decision maker to follow the governing documents of the organization, laws applicable to the organization, and restrictions imposed by donors and ensure that the organization seeks to satisfy all reporting and regulatory requirements. In short, the duty of obedience requires that directors see that the corporation’s purposes are adhered to and that charitable assets are not diverted to non-charitable uses.

The duty of obedience is somewhat unique to the nonprofit context and particularly tax-exempt organizations. Because tax exemption rests in the first part on being organized for an appropriate tax-exempt purpose (be it charitable or social or any other recognized exempt purpose), these organizations more specifically identify their purposes in their governing documents compared to a for profit business which may be organized to conduct all lawful operations of whatever kind or nature. One court has noted the distinction stating that “[u]nlike business corporations, whose ultimate objective is to make money, nonprofit corporations are defined by their specific objectives: perpetuation of particular activities are central to the raison d’etre of the organization.” Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp. v. Spitzer, 715 N.Y.S.2d 575, 595 (Sup. Ct. 1999). With the additional level of specificity as to purpose, the decision maker faces a more defined realm of permissible actions. That realm can be even more narrowly defined when funds are raised for specific purposes.

In the context of a nonprofit corporation, the purpose is stated in the organization’s governing documents (Articles of Incorporation/Certificate of Formation/Bylaws) and may be amplified by other documents such as testamentary documents directing the creation of the organization, the application for exempt status filed with the Internal Revenue Service or solicitations for contributions. Each of these sources should be consulted. Once a director understands the purpose for which the organization is organized, or the more specific purpose for which money or other property has been donated, she must ensure the organization’s property is used to further those purposes as opposed to being diverted to non-charitable purposes or other purposes that while charitable, aren’t the organization’s purposes. Of course in making that decision the director exercises her duty of care and her duty of loyalty as well.

 

 

 

 

 

Religious Property Tax Exemptions: A Sticky Issue

Last week an article appeared on Forbes online that caught my attention. The article discussed a Tennessee case in which a megachurch sought (ultimately unsuccessfully) property tax exemption for portions of its real property used for a bookstore and a fitness center. You can read more of the details in the article.

Essentially the church argued that part of its religious worship was operation of these facilities to create a “third space” environment. Many churches are engaging in such activities – bookstores, fitness centers, coffee shops, etc. The question of taxation is often analyzed from a federal income tax standpoint. Are these activities related or unrelated to the church’s exempt purpose? If unrelated, are they substantial? If unrelated are there exceptions to payment of unrelated business income tax (such as being operated for the benefit of members only, being operated by volunteers, etc.)? What is often (and unfortunately so) overlooked is property tax exemption, a very important benefit for churches.

Property Tax_church

Property tax exemption does not track federal tax exemption. It is a different scheme altogether. Each state is responsible for determining how it will tax (or exempt) various institutions. In my home state of Texas, for example, churches are exempt but a 501(c)(3) animal rescue clinic is not. The specific state statute has to be consulted to determine eligibility for property tax exemption. Again, in Texas, for example, among other things churches may seek exemption of real property owned by the church and used as a place of regular religious worship but only as to that portion of the property reasonably necessary for engaging in religious worship. Most observers would agree this includes the church sanctuary. But what else? The choir rehearsal room? The fellowship hall? The church offices? The green space behind the church used for the annual Easter Carnival? These are issues that require interpretation. Likewise, the question of a church bookstore and fitness center require interpretation. The problem arises because the First Amendment makes it a little sticky for a local county official (the tax assessor initially and later the court) to interpret whether these ancillary areas are “reasonably necessary” for engaging in religious worship.

This problem isn’t isolated to property tax issues. In fact, while the Internal Revenue Code recognizes an exemption from federal income tax for religious organizations, neither the Internal Revenue Code nor the Treasury Regulations define the term “religious.” Likewise, the term “church” is found, but not defined, in the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS has tackled the question by looking at a number of factors that it considers indicia of being a church (in Stephen Colbert-speak: evidence of churchiness). Courts have likewise looked to such “indicia.” But in these instances, the IRS and/or the courts are merely trying to determine whether the organization itself – in totality – is a church. The local tax assessor has a much more difficult (constitutionally-speaking) question: are specific areas reasonably necessary for engaging in religious worship which begs the question of whether the activities undertaken in those areas is, in fact, religious worship. That’s sticky.

And so we are left with an ad hoc state by state (if not county by county) analysis of religious property tax exemption. One solution would be to draw a bright line: no exemption at all or exemption only for the primary sanctuary. An alternative would be to base property tax exemption on whether the property is used for a related purpose utilizing the body of law that has developed under Section 513 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to unrelated business income. Either would be better than spending the nonprofit’s money and the government’s money on legal fees and court costs.

Until then, though, don’t neglect concern for property tax exemption and consult a local lawyer who can tell you the “lay of the land” in your specific county.