While “pay-for-play” is still prohibited by the NCAA,² these new rules have opened the door for college athletes to explore a new world of sponsorships, endorsements and compensation.  For example, college athletes can now earn money for commercials, appearances, speeches, social media posts, hosting sports camps, giving lessons, writing books and more — all without violating NCAA rules.

“NIL collectives” have emerged as the chief brokers of these opportunities.  This article discusses what NIL collectives are, their legal forms of organization, and the regulatory framework that governs them.

How are NIL Collectives Structured?
NIL collectives are entities that are structurally independent of a school, yet fund NIL opportunities for the school’s student-athletes. They are typically founded by well-known alumni and supporters of the school.  Collectives generate and pool revenue raised through contributions from a wide variety of sources, including boosters, businesses, fans and more.  They use these funds to create opportunities for student-athletes to leverage their NIL in exchange for compensation.

While a number of NIL collectives have been formed as for-profit entities,³ in a growing number of cases, they have been formed as nonprofits. Numerous nonprofit collectives have, in turn, sought and obtained 501(c)(3) public charity status from the IRS, which potentially allows donors to receive a tax-deduction for their contribution to the collective.⁴

Tax-exempt collectives typically use student-athletes as independent contractors to help further their charitable mission.  For example, some provide in-kind contributions of a student-athlete’s services to other charities, including speaking, appearances and other public relations services that help expand the charities’ reach and visibility in their communities.  The student-athlete is paid by the tax-exempt collective to provide the services, while the other charities receive these services on a pro bono basis.

Special Rules Governing Tax-Exempt NIL Collectives
Collectives that obtain tax-exemption should be mindful of special rules that apply to tax-exempt entities.  These rules are enforced not only by the IRS, but also by State Attorneys General, whose responsibility is to ensure that charitable funds are used for charitable purposes. These rules require that tax-exempt cooperatives operate differently from the typical NIL collective.

For example, NIL collectives commonly facilitate endorsement, merchandising and marketing deals that allow for-profit companies to promote their products and services using a student-athlete’s NIL, which helps these for-profit companies increase business and revenues.  Many NIL collectives have the flexibility to promote such commercial interests due to their structure as for-profit (and therefore, taxable) entities.

However, facilitating commercial deals does not constitute a permissible purpose for a charitable, tax-exempt organization.  Therefore, if a tax-exempt NIL collective engages in such activity, revenues from this activity could be taxed by the IRS as unrelated business income – i.e., income from a trade or business, regularly carried on, that is not substantially related to the collective’s charitable mission.

Also, if the IRS finds that these commercial activities constitute a primary or substantial non-exempt purpose of the organization, the IRS could revoke its tax-exempt status.⁵ State Attorneys General could bring enforcement actions for similar reasons.  Therefore, if a tax-exempt collective facilitates marketing or similar NIL arrangements, it should generally avoid arrangements promoting goods and services of for-profit companies.  However, it could use the NIL of student-athletes to help promote and amplify the charitable missions of nonprofits serving communities.⁶

NIL collectives are also becoming well-known for offering lucrative compensation to student-athletes in connection with promotional deals.  For many collectives, their status as for-profit entities give them the flexibility to do so.

But, in the context of a tax-exempt collective, these payments must be reviewed carefully to ensure they do not constitute “excessive compensation” for federal tax law purposes.  NIL collectives should therefore carefully structure athletes’ compensation in accordance with IRS rules to ensure it does not exceed fair market value.  Failure to do so could put the collective at risk of losing its tax-exemption, and lead to potential enforcement actions by State Attorneys General.

However, it should be noted that even if such compensation is determined to be reasonable, a tax-exempt NIL collective could nevertheless lose its exemption if the IRS determines that its primary or substantial purpose is to pay or recruit student-athletes.  For this reason, it’s important that tax-exempt collectives work closely with legal counsel to ensure they have well-constructed charitable programs.

Given the risks outlined above, an NIL collective seeking tax-exempt status should carefully consider whether any of its time and resources will be spent on pursuing commercial (non-exempt) activities.  Collectives considering such activities should consult with counsel to reconsider its structural options, and discuss whether it would be advisable to create a for-profit subsidiary to house any commercial activity.

NCAA Interim Rules
Aside from understanding the regulatory framework discussed above, NIL collectives (no matter their legal form) should have an understanding of the NCAA rules which, as of the time of this writing, consist of interim rules adopted in July 2021.  These interim rules will remain in effect until federal legislation creates a national standard (which is what the NCAA is calling for), or until new NCAA rules are adopted.  While the purpose of the interim rules is to suspend NCAA restrictions on athletes’ profiting off their NIL, the rules maintain certain guardrails to prevent “pay-for-play” and similar arrangements.  Subject to state law, the following is prohibited under the interim rules:

• NIL opportunities cannot be used as a recruiting tool for prospective student athletes.  Such an action is considered an “improper recruiting inducement.”  Therefore, NIL collectives should refrain from making offers of NIL opportunities contingent upon a student-athlete’s enrollment at a particular school.
• As discussed above, NIL arrangements that constitute “pay-for-play” are also prohibited.   This rule prohibits any kind of arrangement that constitutes compensation in exchange for a student-athlete’s participation or performance in college athletics.
• NIL agreements should be specific about the NIL work being performed by the athlete in exchange for compensation, and such compensation should be paid only for work performed.  Such compensation must be determined through an independent analysis, based upon the facts of each specific case and the value each athlete offers to an NIL arrangement.
• The NCAA interim rules prohibit compensation from any school in exchange for the use of a student athlete’s name, image or likeness.  In addition, schools may not direct how student-athletes use NIL compensation.  (For example, schools may not require a student-athlete to use NIL compensation for financial aid.) Athletic department staff are not allowed to represent student-athletes in marketing their athletic ability or reputation.  They also may not communicate with a recruit on behalf of an NIL collective.  In addition, such staff may not facilitate a meeting between an NIL collective and a student-athlete, including, for example, by sharing a recruiting list or watch list.

State Laws and School Policies
As noted above, the NCAA’s interim rules are subject to state law, which varies depending on the state.⁷  Therefore, NIL collectives should take steps to ensure compliance under any applicable state law, including any state law that applies to the collective, the school where the student-athlete is enrolled, as well as the state where the NIL activity will take place.

The collective should also look at any specific NIL policies established by the college.

Both state laws and school policies may include reporting requirements that NIL collectives should be aware of, and some state laws prohibit athletes from entering into a contract that conflicts with the student-athlete’s team contract.

Understanding the regulatory framework governing NIL collectives will help avoid missteps that can lead to punitive actions by the IRS, NCAA or State Attorneys General, or scrutiny from Congress, which has also taken an interest in these entities.  As the NIL’s regulatory environment continues to evolve, it is incumbent on both collectives and student-athletes to take affirmative steps, including consulting with legal counsel, to ensure compliance.

1 This dramatic shift by the NCAA also came on the heels of its loss before the U.S. Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021). Though NIL compensation was not the subject of this case, Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion which suggested that the NCAA’s NIL compensation rules could be in violation of antitrust laws, and stated that “the NCAA is not above the law.”  The NCAA’s change also follows action by numerous states that, since 2019, had led the way in creating NIL rights for student athletes.

2 As discussed later in this article, “pay-for-play” refers to any kind of arrangement that constitutes compensation in exchange for a student-athlete’s participation or performance in college athletics.

3 Other legal forms taken by NIL collectives have included formation as for-profit limited liability companies (“LLCs”), which provides more flexibility in a number of ways.  For example, unlike tax-exempt nonprofits, for-profit LLCs are not subject to a cap on what’s considered reasonable compensation.  They may therefore offer student-athletes NIL work at any compensation structure.  For-profit LLCs are also not subject to limitations on the type of activities they can facilitate.  Therefore, unlike tax-exempt entities, for-profit LLCs may facilitate NIL arrangements for student-athletes such as merchandising or endorsement deals which promote commercial activities.  NIL collectives should consult with counsel to discuss the various pros and cons of these options.

4 On September 29, 2022, Senators John Thune (R-S.D.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) introduced the Athlete Opportunity and Taxpayer Integrity Act which, if passed, would “prohibit individuals and organizations from using the charitable tax deduction for specific contributions that compensate college or incoming college athletes for the use of their [NIL].”   They argue that “[s]uch activity is inconsistent with the intended purpose of the charitable tax deduction, and it forces taxpayers to subsidize the potential recruitment of – or payment to – college athletes based on their NIL status.”  As of the time of this writing, this federal legislation is the latest of more than a handful of NIL proposals introduced, but not yet passed, in Congress.  Congress’ appetite for eventually passing NIL legislation is unclear, though these proposals do indicate that NIL collectives are facing increased scrutiny from Congress.

5 Regs. Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(e)(1) and Sec. 1.501(c) (3)-1(c)(1).

6 One example of this approach is discussed in the previous section – i.e.,  tax-exempt collectives that provide in-kind contributions of a student-athlete’s services to other charities to help them promote their charitable missions.

7 As discussed above, the NCAA is lobbying Congress for legislation that would create a national standard, and thereby pre-empt differing state laws.

The post Seeking Tax-Exemption for a Name, Image and Likeness Collective (NIL)? What to Know. first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

Navigating the types of activities that tax-exempt nonprofits are allowed to engage in (and how much) without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status can be tricky.  Many charities engage in types of activities that are important to the organization’s mission, donors, and people they serve.  Two activities that charities may use to influence public policy include “advocacy” and “lobbying.”  While advocacy and lobbying are terms that are sometimes used synonymously, the two are distinct in important ways, most notably because federal tax law limits the amount of lobbying that charities may engage in.

How Does Advocacy Differ from Lobbying?

Advocacy can take many forms that do not constitute lobbying, including: leading, directing, conducting, and publishing research; and disseminating educational information.  Charities may engage in many different types of advocacy, and so long as that activity does not constitute lobbying, 501(c)(3) organizations are generally not limited in the amount of time or money they can spend on advocacy.

Lobbying, on the other hand, is subject to specific, restrictive rules.  Charities may engage in only an insubstantial amount of lobbying, and must take care not to jeopardize their tax-exempt status or run afoul of other lobbying restrictions.  Lobbying is any attempt to influence legislation, which can include acts, bills, resolutions, or ballot initiatives by Congress, state legislatures, local councils, or similar governing bodies.  An organization whose employees contact or urge others to contact members or employees of one of these bodies for the purpose of influencing (by encouraging them to adopt, reject, support, or oppose) legislation, is engaging in lobbying.

State and Local Lobbying Registration, Reporting, and Disclosure Requirements

In addition to following the strict federal tax rules governing the type of lobbying and amount of lobbying an organization can engage in,  charities should also be aware of any state and local requirements to register (including registration of certain employees as lobbyists, or registration of the organization itself, which retains and pays lobbyists) and to report lobbying expenditures and activities on a regular basis.¹ Federal and state lobbying rules can be confusing and complicated, and often depend on several factors, including: (1) whether the organization employs an in-house lobbyist or an outside lobbyist; (2) whether any of the organization’s employees are lobbying; (3) the total amount of expenses the organization spends on lobbying activities; and (4) the timing of any contacts or communications made with federal or state officials.

After the organization makes a determination about which federal and state registration requirements apply to its lobbying activities, the organization and its lobbyists must file regular reports (often quarterly or semi-annually) until the registration terminates (the method by which registrations are terminated also varies from state to state), or otherwise expires.

If an organization decides to engage in lobbying activities, it is critical to ensure that executive staff are aware of the applicable requirements for registration, reporting, and disclosure.  Failure to comply can result in fines, censure from the regulatory agency, and possible negative press exposure for the organization.

1 While this article is focused on the lobbying rules as they pertain to 501(c)(3) public charities, it is worth noting that 501(c)(4) organizations, which may engage in unlimited lobbying in furtherance of their tax-exempt missions, are more likely to trigger lobbying registration and disclosure requirements.

The post Is Your Charity Engaged in Lobbying? Make Sure You Know the Rules! first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

While most nonprofits are required to register in many states to conduct charitable fundraising, religious organizations are generally exempt from the registration requirement. It’s important to be aware, however, that the scope of the states’ religious exemption varies. Therefore, religious organizations should carefully review each state’s statutory exemption to determine where they are exempt, and where they are not exempt and therefore may need to register to solicit contributions.

Overview of Charitable Solicitation Registration & Religious Exemptions

Charitable fundraising activities are primarily regulated at the state level, through the offices of the Attorney General, Departments of State, Consumer Protection and the like. Charitable solicitation regulations were established to protect the public from fraudulent fundraising and assist prospective donors in making well-informed giving decisions. Each state’s statutory framework typically requires charities to register with the state, disclose information about their finances and fundraisers, and provide certain oral or written disclosures to their prospective donors. Currently, forty-one (41) states and the District of Columbia require most organizations to register before soliciting charitable contributions in their respective jurisdictions.

Most states exempt or exclude religious organizations from their charitable solicitation registration and reporting requirements. Keep in mind, however, that each state defines the scope of its exemption for religious organizations differently. As a result, some religious organizations may be required to comply with a state’s registration requirements while others may not. Several states require that religious organizations make a written request to confirm that they are exempt from the state’s registration requirements, while others consider it a legal determination to be made by the organization, and explicitly advise that they do not provide legal advice or make a formal determination as to whether or not an organization is exempt.

For some states, the religious exemption provisions are broadly constructed, and exempt any “duly organized religious corporation, religious institution or religious society.” Other exemption provisions are more narrowly drafted, exempting only those religious organizations that are not required to file the Form 990 with the IRS, which primarily includes churches¹, their integrated auxiliaries², and ecclesiastical or denominational organizations. Churches and other non-990 filers are exempt from registering in all states unless they use the services of a professional fundraiser.

As a general matter, religious organizations that are required to file the Form 990 with the IRS will be exempt in some, but not all, states. Many religious organizations that are required to file Form 990 describe their mission as both religious and charitable as together these constitute an expression of their religious faith and values. Direct services for human needs may include the provision of food, shelter, education, and medical support to vulnerable populations. Oftentimes, they incorporate prayer and religious instruction in their programmatic work, and will require their employees to agree to an organizational statement of faith.

It is worth noting that the laws of a few states continue to include a provision in their religious exemption law which the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. These unenforceable provisions limit the scope of the religious exemption to only those religious organizations that are primarily supported by contributions from their members or congregation.³

Impact of Religious Exemptions on Fundraising Professionals

Even when a religious organization is exempt from registering in a state to solicit contributions, in most states, when a fundraising professional provides their services to the organization, the fundraiser must be registered with the state. In a few states, the religious organization’s exemption also extends to the fundraiser’s contract filing and reporting obligations, thereby relieving them of any such filing requirements.

Professional fundraisers (also known as commercial fundraisers or paid solicitors) that directly solicit funds on behalf of charitable organizations are required to register in up to forty-four (44) states. In addition, they must post surety bonds in each state, file copies of their fundraising contracts, and file annual financial reports relating to each fundraising campaign conducted in the state. There are ten (10) states that extend the religious organization’s exemption to their professional fundraiser’s contract filing and reporting obligations.

Fundraising counsels (also known as fundraising consultants) that help plan, manage, advise, or produce and design solicitation campaigns, but do not directly solicit or have custody or control of contributions, are also required to register in twenty-seven (27) states, file contracts, and in a few states, post bonds. There are seven (7) states that extend the religious organization’s exemption to their fundraising counsel’s contract filing and reporting obligations.

Fundraising professionals need to understand the scope of a religious organization’s registration or exemption status in those states in which they will be providing fundraising services to the organization. Not only must they comply with their corresponding filing obligations, but they must also ensure compliance with collateral obligations, such as solicitation disclosures. Thus, it would be prudent for religious organizations to ensure that they have appropriately assessed their exemptions, have documentation to support the exemption in each applicable state, be registered to solicit where required, and communicate with their fundraising professionals to ensure alignment on the impact of their status as a religious organization on both parties’ filing obligations.

Does a religious organization need to register if it solicits on the internet?

In addition to ascertaining whether a religious organization is exempt from registration based on its religious status, a separate analysis should be undertaken to determine if the organization’s solicitation activity creates a jurisdictional nexus that would trigger a state’s registration requirement. For example, a website with a donate button that is accessible to residents in all states does not necessarily create a sufficient jurisdictional nexus. In many cases, it makes sense to undertake a jurisdictional analysis based on the organization’s targeted and/or online fundraising activities before delving into the religious exemption analysis as there may only be a few states where the organization has a jurisdictional nexus based on its fundraising activities. In such cases, the organization may simply review the applicability of the religious exemption in those relevant states.

For more information on how to assess an organization’s registration requirements based on its online fundraising activities, please read this article.

What are the practical steps for religious organizations to determine their registration requirements?

Assess whether registration is necessary or not based on a jurisdictional analysis, taking into account both traditional forms of fundraising (e.g., direct mail, telemarketing, events) and online fundraising activities.
Review with your legal counsel whether your organization qualifies for the religious exemption in the relevant states.
Apply for religious exemptions where applicable and appropriate.
Follow the exemption application procedures in the states that have such procedures in place.
For states that take a “self-determination” approach, and will not formally confirm an organization’s qualification for the state’s religious exemption, it may nevertheless be prudent to submit a letter, putting the states on notice of the organization’s position that it is statutorily exempt from registering as a religious organization.
Register in all applicable states where: (1) a registration requirement exists; (2) the organization is soliciting (and the state has jurisdiction over their solicitation activity); and (3) the organization does not qualify for the religious exemption. Note that charitable solicitation registration must be renewed annually in each applicable state.

The post When are Religious Organizations Exempt from Charitable Registration? first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

Impact of COVID-19
The impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the charitable sector was a focus of the conference. Yael Fuchs, NASCO President and Co-Section Chief for the Charities Bureau of the New York Attorney’s General Office, pointed to many state regulatory changes in areas such as virtual meeting guidance, registration deadline extensions, changes to signature requirements, and modified filing requirements. Some of these changes can be found in the NASCO chart of state registrations laws. While many of the pandemic related modifications are set to, or have already, expired, NASCO is looking for feedback as to what virtual components and guidance modifications should stay. For further information on virtual member meetings, please read Virtual Nonprofit Board and Member Meetings in the Time of COVID by my colleague Jeremy Coffey.

Ms. Fuchs described the effects the pandemic has had on filings requiring regulatory approval. While the trends are anecdotal, it was a shared observation that charity regulators are seeing an increase in divestment of real property, deaccessioning of art, mergers, and amendments to certificates of incorporation. She further noted that charity regulators have not yet seen an increase in endowment modifications and dissolutions, but based on historic trends, they expect these types of transactions may be forthcoming in the near future.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Tracy Thorleifson, Attorney and FTC’s leading expert on charitable solicitation fraud, highlighted some of the key work the FTC has been doing in the charitable sphere, and explained the role the FTC plays in charitable regulation. Specifically, the FTC has regulatory authority under the FTC Act to prosecute sham charities engaged in fraudulent and deceptive fundraising activities. The FTC also has oversight over robocalls when made by fundraisers hired by charities (i.e., professional fundraisers) on the federal level. The FTC encourages everyone to report any suspected or known charitable fraud activity to www.reportfraud.ftc.gov.

Policy Updates and Trends
Courtney M. Aladro, Assistant Attorney General and the Chief of the Non-Profit Organizations/Public Charities Division at the Massachusetts Attorney’s General Office, NASCO Board Member, and Chair of the Policy Committee, presented a handful of legislation and policy changes from the past year.

State Legislation
The first focus was on two state legislative changes. The Washington Nonprofit Corporation Act (Chapter 24.03 RCW) makes changes to the existing regulatory regime. First, it updates the rules governing electronic communications and member meetings. Second, it enhances the Attorney General oversight of charitable assets held by nonprofit corporations. Finally, it allows for “domestication” and for-profit to nonprofit conversion. This new act will go into effect January 1^st, 2022.

The other state legislation highlighted was the California Bill on oversight of charitable giving on online platforms (AB 488), which was signed into law on October 7^th, 2021. The bill requires online platforms facilitating charitable fundraising to register with the Attorney General’s office. It also requires certain disclosures and prompt distribution of donations. Finally, it prohibits solicitations for charities that are not “in good standing” with the Attorney’s General Registry of Charitable Trusts, the Franchise Tax Board, or the IRS. NASCO has a crowdfunding working group that is continuing to monitor online fundraising activities. For a deeper understating of this bill, please read California Enacts New Law to Regulate Charitable Fundraising Platforms by my colleague Karen Wu.

Federal legislation
Ms. Aladro highlighted two federal bills applicable to charitable organizations. The first bill was the Fraud and Scam Reduction Act (HR 1215). This act was supported by NAAG/NASCO in an open letter sent on behalf of 47 states. The bill passed the House on April 15, 2021 and is currently awaiting Senate approval. The bill, if passed, would establish a Senior Scams Prevention Advisory Group to support training and education efforts to identify and prevent scams targeting the elderly. The bill would also establish the Office for the Prevention of Fraud Targeting Seniors in the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the FTC.

The other federal bill discussed was the Accelerating Charitable Efforts Act (S 1981, known as the “ACE Act”). This bill, which was introduced on June 9th, would create new rules for private foundations and donor-advised funds (DAF). The legislation takes aim at regulating DAF funds specific to deduction eligibility and payout requirements and timelines.

Supreme Court Decision
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta was discussed. In this case California enacted a rule requiring all charities that fundraise in the state to disclose their confidential IRS Form 990 Schedule B, if they filed one, with the California Registry of Charitable Trust. The Supreme Court found this rule unconstitutional and struck it down. In doing so, it did acknowledge that states can obtain Schedule B information through subpoenas and audits, but only if there is an underlying reason. In response to this case, California, Hawaii, New Jersey, and New York have altered their Schedule B collection rules and/or practices. For more information on this case leading into the Supreme Court’s opinion, please read Schedule B Disclosure Cases Head to the Supreme Court – Is Donor Privacy Threatened? by my colleague Seth Perlman.

Alternative Nonprofit Fundraising
Brian Yacker, Adjunct Professor at the University of California Irvine, discussed issues surrounding alternative fundraising. Alternative fundraising can include many things (for example auctions or “virtual” bake sales), special event fundraisers such as games (raffles, bingo, etc.), virtual events (gala, run/walk, etc.), or crowdfunding. Some of these activities may generate unrelated business income tax (“UBIT”). If the amount of unrelated business activities become too substantial, it could jeopardize an organization’s tax-exempt status. It is therefore important that nonprofit boards keep a vigilant eye on the type of fundraising activities that generate UBIT to ensure that it does not become too substantial. It is also important that these activities are properly reported to the IRS on the Form 990. Failing to report properly could lead to tax liabilities, penalties, and an uncertain tax position.

Charities Working with Non-Charities
A panel of regulators discussed the various considerations an organization must take into account when deciding to partner with a non-charity. On the federal level, such considerations include the 501(c)(3)’s purpose, unrelated business taxable income, private benefit, jeopardizing investments, and self-dealing. On the state level, the considerations become much broader. An organization must consider, among other things, the various duties (loyalty, obedience, care, and accounting), the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (“UPMIFA”, enacted in all states except PA), registration and reporting requirements, charitable solicitation laws, donor expectations, and charitable purpose. One of the panelists, Assistant Attorney General for Washington Joshua Studor, pointed to the 2019 American Law Institute’s Restatement of Charitable Nonprofit Organizations Law as a great resource for many of these state considerations.

Fundraising Events – Virtual, In-Person, and Hybrid
Sara Hall, Chief Legal Officer for St. Jude’s Children Research Hospital, spoke on the uncertainty of fundraising events. She noted an increasing expectation for returning to in-person events. As a lesson learned, Sara addressed the hybrid event. Ms. Hall noted the heightened challenges of hybrid events (both virtual and in-person). The logistical issues with both types are compounded when thrown together.

Ms. Hall also noted that, in the area of event contracting, force majeure clauses have become less reliable. Vendors are specifically excluding COVID and no longer excusing non-performance. It is important to negotiate at time of booking with catering that cancellation penalties will be credited towards future bookings and that you have a date to confirm your numbers before food is purchased.

Cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and Beyond
Ms. Hall also spoke to the burgeoning areas of cryptocurrency and NFT donations. Currently, cryptocurrencies are considered property for tax purposes. If a charitable organization wishes to accept cryptocurrencies, it is important that they set clear policies and controls for doing so. These include: establishing gift acceptance policies and safeguards that are consistent with the organization’s finance and audit procedures, custodian agreements for individuals with account access, and monthly reporting and auditing of their crypto wallet. It is also important that charities work with vendors and exchanges that are regulated by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) or the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) if you are a New York entity. For more information on how charities should handle cryptocurrencies, please see What Nonprofits Should Be Asking About Virtual Currency Regulation and Fundraising by my colleague Jeremy Coffey.

The post The 2021 NAAG/NASCO Virtual Conference – Noteworthy Issues for Nonprofits first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

Within a week, the group created the ConstitutionDAO, organized its followers on Discord (a messaging and community platform), and raised roughly $47 million in virtual currency.⁴ Armed with their new war chest, the group bid on, but ultimately failed to win, the Sotheby’s auction, losing out to a hedge fund billionaire who purchased the copy of the Constitution for $43.2 million (the Constitution DAO had withheld some funds to cover costs associated with winning the auction).⁵

Following their loss, the creators of the group were faced with what to do with the virtual currency sitting in the DAO’s treasury. Many of the community members sought refunds, only to learn that the transaction costs (also known as gas fees) would eat up much of their original contribution.⁶ Ultimately, the ConstitutionDAO’s founders decided to shut it down.⁷ The token issued in connection with the project, originally intended to be used to allow holders to vote on what the DAO would do in the future, lives on, with some holders still hoping to profit.⁸

What if the ConstitutionDAO had succeeded? Who would have “owned” the copy of the Constitution the group would have purchased? In a later interview one of the founders of ConstitutionDAO, Jonah Erlich, disclosed that the group had partnered with a traditional nonprofit organization that would have had legal custody of the Constitution.⁹ The fact that this new type of organization would be reliant on a traditional nonprofit provides excellent insight into the emerging world of DAOs. It also gives us an entry point to examine this new structure.

WHAT ARE DAOS?

In a traditional corporation or limited liability company, the organization is formed by filing paperwork with a government office, typically a state’s Department of State. By creating a legal entity, the people behind the organization are protected from liability. When someone sues a corporation over a contract dispute or other liability, the directors, officers, employees, members, and volunteers are not liable individually. Rather, it’s the corporation that must answer for its liabilities.

In a DAO, however, there is no formal legal entity. Built using the same blockchain technologies that underly the virtual currency ecosystem, DAOs are organizations that are never incorporated in any state (with limited exceptions). The founders create the DAO, and it simply exists.

While DAOs actual structures vary, most DAOs issue a token that gives members of the DAO voting rights. Once tokens are issued, in order to make decisions, all token holders are allowed to vote. The idea, touted by DAO supporters, is that this new structure democratizes organizational decision-making, placing it in the hands of the members. An oversimplified comparison would be a for-profit company that has no paid executives or board of directors, making every decision by allowing all shareholders to vote.

Although the ConstitutionDAO is a well-known example, DAOs are proliferating in the nonprofit community. Here are a few interesting examples: DiatomDAO is raising support to protect the oceans;¹⁰ KlimaDAO hopes to speed up solutions for climate change by increasing the price of carbon assets;¹¹ Bloomeria is using NFTs to increase biodiversity; ¹² and The Regen Network is issuing a token as part of a group of entities to realign the agricultural economy with ecological health.¹³

While each of the foregoing organizations uses the language of the DAO and decentralization, they also demonstrate how the DAO community encompasses many different structures. For instance, the Regen Network is comprised of a traditional C-Corporation, a traditional 501(c)(3) public charity, and a decentralized DAO program.¹⁴ The DiatomDAO is purely a decentralized entity, “owned and directed” by its token holders (see more on this below). The ConstitutionDAO, while operated as a decentralized DAO, would have relied on a traditional 501(c)(3) public charity (one named EnDAOment¹⁵) had it won the Sotheby’s auction and needed a legal entity with which to hold the copy of the Constitution. As you can see, while many groups use the mantle of “DAO”, the term encompasses many different structures.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF DAOS?

Now that we’ve discussed what DAOs are, and seen some examples, let’s step back to consider what DAO proponents like about the structure. In theory, a pure DAO offers each supporter the opportunity to participate in the group’s decision-making. If a member of a charitable DAO wants to make a grant, they would propose it to the rest of the DAO community. The members then hold a vote. Using this structure, a DAO represents a more direct form of organizational decision-making and, for donors, more direct-action philanthropy.

Further, by avoiding any legal structure, some DAO proponents believe this new structure will give DAOs greater flexibility. Without a state’s laws dictating how decisions have to be made or how boards have to be structured, a DAO might be nimbler. Some libertarians believe that DAOs, who have no real jurisdictional nexus to any state, might even be able to avoid generally applicable laws.¹⁶

WHAT ARE THE DRAWBACKS OF DAOS?

While there is a lot to be excited about by DAOs, they use an organizational structure in its infancy, with many more questions than answers. One critique is that the voting structure adopted by most DAOs (1 token = 1 vote) replicates existing problems with shareholder structures, namely, that the larger shareholders control organizational decision-making, alienating smaller shareholders. If one person holds 60% of the DAO’s tokens and the DAO implements a 50+1% vote threshold decision-making could be even more centralized than it would be in a traditional organization with a board and executives who can counterbalance a large shareholder’s interests. The DAO community has proposed some possible solutions to this problem, such as limiting votes to one per token holder, or creating non-transferable tokens to limit token holder hoarding. Each of these solutions have drawbacks, but they could drive decision-making closer to the idealized notion of the DAO.

Another issue is the legal uncertainty of DAOs. Assume that the libertarian notion that DAOs are legally unaccountable as organizations, since they are not organized in any state nor do they have any other jurisdictional nexus with any local, state, or federal government. That might put the DAO beyond the reach of regulators and law enforcement, but it would not exempt the individuals participating in or working for the DAO, all of whom are real people subject to normal laws. Actually, the idea of a group of people running an unincorporated organization isn’t new. In New York, for instance, such an entity would be deemed an “unincorporated association.” Under longstanding common law, an unincorporated association is not legally separate from the members who comprise it.¹⁷ That means that members of a DAO could be taking on direct legal risk from their participation in the DAO. If the DAO were to breach a contract, discriminate against an employee, or cause other real-world harm, the DAO’s members might be jointly and severally liable.

It’s also an open question whether regulators will share the libertarian view that DAOs are not subject to local, state, or federal laws. It wouldn’t be surprising to see the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) bring an enforcement action against a DAO, given that it has already notified the Decentralized Finance (DeFi) community that it considers many DeFI products analogous to products regulated by the Commission.¹⁸ The SEC has already brought an enforcement action against a Wyoming organization operating under the guise of a DAO, albeit only after the entity sought SEC approval to register two tokens as securities.¹⁹

Finally, DAOs in the philanthropic sector face the additional hurdle of providing tax-deductibility to donors. In general, a contribution to a non-charitable intermediary doesn’t allow a donor to take a tax-deduction. The answer to that question isn’t clear²⁰ as it depends on how the entity is treated for tax-purposes, whether its distributions would otherwise qualify for a tax-deductions, and whether it is considered an agent for the donors or beneficiary charities. A person hoping for a tax-deduction should contact a tax professional to examine the particular DAO’s structure and the taxpayer’s circumstances. To date, I’m unaware of any DAO specifically advertising the deductibility of contributions to its treasury, nor having considered tax-deductibility as part of their DAO structure (except, of course, for DAOs like Endaoment and Regen Network that operate using a traditional 501(c)(3) corporate structure).

WHAT’S NEXT FOR DAOS?

Despite the novelty of and the uncertainty surrounding DAOs, their popularity is undeniable. This was exemplified by the incredible enthusiasm around ConstitutionDAO. Taking advantage of the late 2021 surge in the value of many cryptocurrencies, DAOs provide an opportunity for the crypto community to put its assets to work in novel ways, including philanthropy. While they are evolving, DAOs will likely persevere, barring regulator intervention to shut them down.  Donors and charities looking to participate in the DAO community should do so carefully, and with the benefits of advisors familiar with the DeFi and DAO space.

1 https://www.sothebys.com/en/digital-catalogues/the-constitution-of-the-united-states

2 Id.

3 https://www.theverge.com/22820563/constitution-meme-47-million-crypto-crowdfunding-blockchain-ethereum-constitution

4 https://www.constitutiondao.com/

5 https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjb8xv/hedge-fund-ceo-who-bailed-out-gamestop-short-seller-bought-the-constitution

6 https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/24/22800995/constitutiondao-refund-progress-steep-gas-fees-cryptocurrency

7 https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/23/22799192/constitutiondao-shutting-down-lost-auction-refunds

8 The latest price quote for the PEOPLE token can be found at  https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/constitutiondao/.

9 https://www.theverge.com/22820563/constitution-meme-47-million-crypto-crowdfunding-blockchain-ethereum-constitution.

10 https://diatom.fund/

11 https://www.klimadao.finance/

12 https://bloomeria.org/

13 https://www.regen.network/

14 https://www.regen.network/faq/organization

15 https://endaoment.org/

16 For instance, in his conversation on the Deep Background podcast, Erik Voorhees argued that a DAO could avoid the difficulties of employment law because no states employment laws would apply. https://www.pushkin.fm/episode/whats-the-deal-with-decentralized-autonomous-organizations/

17 See, generally, New York Elec. C. Assn. v. Local Union No. 3, (NY Sup. Ct. 1941), available at https://casetext.com/case/new-york-elec-c-assn-v-local-union-no-3

18 https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/crenshaw-defi-20211109

19 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-231; https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2021/11/11/sec-stops-wyoming-based-dao-from-registering-2-digital-tokens/.

20 For an excellent discussion, see Prof. Samuel Brunson’s blog post https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/nonprofit/2021/11/charitable-daos-revisited.html.

The post DAOs and the Nonprofit Sector – How Can they Work Together? first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

The new law defines a “charitable fundraising platform” as “any person, corporation, unincorporated association or other legal entity that uses the internet to provide an internet website, service, or other platform to persons in this state, and performs, permits, or otherwise enables acts of solicitation to occur.”  The broad definition of charitable fundraising platform applies to most consumer-facing websites that facilitate the receipt of online donations, with limited exceptions.[1] It also applies to websites that run multiple promotions advertising that a portion of the purchase price from the sale of goods or services will be donated to specified charities, as well as websites or platforms that voluntarily invite customers to add a donation during the check-out process, or that encourage individuals to take certain actions to trigger donations.  According to one legislative analysis, examples of charitable fundraising platforms include Amazon, Benevity, Charity Navigator, CrowdRise, eBay, Facebook, GoFundMe, Google, GuideStar (Candid), Lyft, Overstock, and PayPal.

The bill also regulates platform charities, which are charitable organizations that facilitate acts of solicitation on a charitable fundraising platform.

Key New Requirements
The bill contains a number of new requirements applicable to charitable fundraising platforms and platform charities, including the following:

1. Registration and Reporting. Charitable fundraising platforms and platforms charities must annually register and submit financial reports to the California Attorney General’s office. Additional regulations addressing the content of the registration and annual report forms and the manner and timing of the filings will be issued by the Attorney General.[2]

2. Required Disclosures. The new law will require charitable fundraising platforms to clearly disclose certain information, including: (1) a statement about who will receive the donations; (2) if applicable, a statement that a recipient charity may not receive donations or grants of recommended donations, with an explanation identifying the circumstances under which a recipient charity may not receive the funds; (3) the length of time it takes to send the donation or a grant of the recommended donation to a recipient charity; (4) the fees or other amounts (if any) deducted from or added to the donation or a grant of the recommended donation; and (5) whether the donation is tax-deductible or not. The new law permits some, but not all, of these disclosures to be provided through a conspicuous hyperlink, so long as the disclosure is conspicuous when the hyperlink is selected.

3. Written Consent of Charity Beneficiaries (and a Limited Exception). The law generally requires that a charitable fundraising platform or platform charity obtain the written consent of any recipient charity before using its name in a solicitation, but provides that such written consent is not needed if all of the following circumstances are met: (1) the platform only includes certain information about the recipient charities on the platform, as set forth in the new law or future regulations (e.g., the recipient charities’ name, address, telephone number, internet website, EIN, registration number with the California AG’s office, NTEE Code, and publicly available information from the recipient charity’s tax or information returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service or the California AG’s office); (2) the platform conspicuously discloses before persons can complete a donation that the recipient charity has not provided consent or permission for the solicitation, and has not reviewed or approved the content generated by individuals engaging in peer-to-peer charitable fundraising, when applicable; (3) the platform promptly removes any recipient charity from its list or any solicitation regarding the recipient charity upon written request by the recipient charity; and (4) the platform or platform charity does not require that a recipient charity consent to any solicitations as a condition for accepting a donation or grant of a recommended donation.

4. Soliciting or Receiving Funds Only for Charities in Good Standing. A charitable fundraising platform or platform charity may only facilitate solicitations or the receipt of donations for the benefit of charitable organizations in good standing.  “Good standing” means the platform charity or other recipient charity’s tax-exempt status has not been revoked by the Internal Revenue Service or the California Franchise Tax Board, or is not prohibited from soliciting or operating in California by the Attorney General.

5. Segregation of Funds; Accounting of Fees. Charitable fundraising platforms and platform charities must hold charitable funds raised in a separate account or accounts from other funds belonging to the platform or platform charity, and must promptly ensure that donations and grants of recommended donations are sent to recipient charities with an accounting of any fees imposed for processing the funds.

6. Prompt Distribution of Donations/Grants. In addition to the requirement for platforms to disclose the amount of time it takes for donations to be sent to recipient charities, the Attorney General is authorized to establish regulations regarding the maximum length of time a platform or platform charity may take to send the donated funds, taking into consideration various facts and circumstances.[3] For platforms that make donations or grants based on purchases or other activity performed on the platform, the platform must send donations or grants of recommended donations to the recipient charities no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and subject to any minimum amounts, which may not exceed ten dollars ($10).  In addition, donations or grants must be sent after four consecutive quarters regardless of any established minimum amount, unless the recipient charitable organization is not eligible to receive the funds (which ineligibility must be disclosed pursuant to the statutory disclosure requirements).

Avoiding Duplicative Registration and Compliance Obligations
Recognizing that some charitable fundraising platforms could meet the definition of one or more other regulated fundraising categories — namely, commercial fundraisers (e.g., telemarketers), fundraising counsels (e.g., direct mail companies), and commercial coventurers (e.g., retail businesses advertising that the purchase or use of their goods or services will benefit a charitable organization) — the law provides the following clarifications to avoid such overlap:

1. Fundraising Counsel: If an entity meets the definition of both a fundraising counsel and a charitable fundraising platform, it will only be a charitable fundraising platform.

2. Commercial Fundraiser:
If an entity meets the definition of both a commercial fundraiser and a charitable fundraising platform, it will only be a commercial fundraiser when the entity, for compensation, performs any of the following acts of solicitation:
(i) Direct mail solicitation, excluding electronic mail or messages;
(ii) Estate gift or estate planning solicitation;
(iii) In-person solicitation through a fundraising event, door-to-door or other public spaces, or a vending machine or similar equipment that does not use a person to perform the solicitation;
(iv) Noncash solicitation;
(v) Nonincidental acts of solicitation that are not internet based, including solicitation through print, radio, or television;
(vi) Solicitation involving receiving something of value, or a chance to win something of value, in connection with a donation; or
(vii) Telephone solicitation.

3. Commercial Coventurer: An entity that meets the definition of both a commercial coventurer and a charitable fundraising platform by listing one or more recipient charities to receive donations or grants of recommended donations made by the platform based on purchases made or other activity performed by persons who use the platform will be only a commercial coventurer when the acts of solicitation through an internet website, service, or other platform to persons in the state are for six or fewer recipient charities per calendar year.[4] Entities that undertake charitable sales promotions or other activities that trigger donations on the internet for seven or more recipient charities per calendar year will be a charitable fundraising platform.

During the annual conference of the National Association of Attorney General (NAAG) and the National Association of State Charity Officials (NASCO) held on October 13, 2021, NASCO President, Yael Fuchs, noted that while she could not advise whether any specific states were planning to introduce similar legislation to AB 488, NASCO does have a Crowdfunding Working Group that has been following the California bill closely, and that the various state agencies are watching to see whether and how California’s law enhances regulatory oversight of online fundraising activities.

The new law goes into effect on January 1, 2023.  Beginning on January 1, 2022, the Attorney General is authorized to establish rules and regulations necessary to administer the new law.

[1] Exceptions include a charity’s own website, vendors that solely provide technical or supportive services to such platforms (e.g., domain hosting services or payment processing services), and sponsoring organizations of donor-advised funds that do not list or name recipient charities for solicitation purposes on its platform to individuals other than its donor-advisors. Additional clarifications for determining when an entity is a charitable fundraising platform when it meets more than one regulated fundraiser category is discussed later in this article.

[2] The law also signals that the Attorney General may issue regulations that would increase reporting efficiency by allowing partnering charitable fundraising platforms or platform charities to submit an annual report on behalf of other charitable fundraising platforms in a consolidated fashion.

[3] The considerations affecting the maximum length of time for funds to be distributed to recipient charities include the acts of solicitation being performed, the number of donations made through the platform, who the donations are made to (e.g., the platform, platform charity, recipient charities, or peer-to-peer fundraisers), whether the recipient charity has provided consent for a solicitation, whether further verification information is requested to prevent fraud, and whether donations are sent to alternate recipient charities.

[4] California does not require commercial coventurers to register with the state if they enter into a written agreement with each beneficiary charity signed by two charity officers, distribute funds to the charity every 90 days throughout the promotion, and, and provide an accounting with each payment.

The post California Enacts New Law to Regulate Charitable Fundraising Platforms first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

Virtual currency is gaining mainstream attention with each passing day. Nonprofits such as the American Red Cross, UNICEF, and American Cancer Society leverage platforms including The Giving Block and other services to accept a wide range of virtual currencies, as part of their overall fundraising strategies.

At our firm, we continue to work with nonprofit clients as they consider whether and how to fundraise using cryptocurrency. Here are a few questions we have been asked and other questions charities should be asking of potential fundraising platform partners.

Frequently Asked Questions

Should we accept virtual currency?

For many organizations, this is an easy answer – yes. There are few risks to accepting donations of virtual currency, especially if nonprofits immediately liquidate those donations.  Donors of virtual currency typically skew younger, possibly opening up a new demographic of supporters for the organization. The board should consider including virtual currency in its Gift Acceptance Policy, a document every organization should have to guide its board, executives, and staff in their development work.

Should we immediately liquidate donations of virtual currency, or hold onto them?

This is more difficult to answer, as it is based on how much risk the organization can tolerate. Virtual currency is highly volatile – its value can skyrocket or plummet within a matter of hours or days, making it a risky asset to hold onto. Whether to hold onto virtual currency is a decision that should be made with the input of a nonprofit’s board and executive team. If virtual currency is held as part of the organization’s investments, or if a donor asks the organization to hold the virtual currency as an endowment or long-term investment, the organization should consider how that fits within the organization’s overall investment strategy and portfolio, and the applicability of state laws governing the prudent management of institutional funds/assets.

One concern is volatility – few organizations want to see their donations halve in value. For many organizations, the potential upside isn’t worth the potential risk.

A second concern is regulatory risk. As the Chinese central bank, SEC, FINCEN, IRS, and other domestic and international regulators grapple with how to regulate virtual currency, the liquidity and accessibility of virtual currency markets is up in the air. Even major players like Coinbase and Ripple have been subject to or threatened by regulatory action.

Charities are often cautious when holding virtual currency, concerned that the regulatory environment could shift in a way that devalues or freezes their holdings. If a nonprofit is using a virtual currency account on a platform that is subject to an SEC action, for instance, the platform might be forced to freeze transactions until such time as the SEC allows it to continue operations.

Organizations that are highly diversified and have the financial cushion to absorb a zeroing out of their virtual currency donations, taking into account the diversification of risk across the organization’s entire investment portfolio,  might be comfortable with the risks of virtual currency. The potential upside of assets like Bitcoin are hard to ignore – despite volatility, Bitcoin’s value has been on a consistent march upward. Other coins, like Ethereum, have not been far behind. If your organization is willing to take the risk, and has considered the prudent investment regulatory considerations, you can create a wallet at a prominent, legally-compliant platform, and park your virtual currency there and “Hold On for Dear Life” (HODL, as some in crypto-world like to say).

Fortunately, the major virtual currency fundraising platforms allow immediate liquidation of donations. Again, this is the option chosen by most nonprofit organizations. As I mentioned above, nonprofits should include virtual currency in their Gift Acceptance Policy and Investment Policy to help guide their development professionals as they consider whether and how to accept virtual currency donations.

How do we treat virtual currency for accounting purposes?

Despite continued regulatory action in other parts of the crypto market, IRS rules around donations of virtual currency have been relatively stable. Since 2014, the IRS has been clear that virtual currency should be treated as property. A taxpayer donating virtual currency they have held for more than a year may deduct the fair market value of the currency at the time of its donation, similar to other forms of property, such as publicly-traded stocks. This provides a tax benefit to donors who invested in virtual currency in its infancy – they can support their favorite charities without being taxed on the gains they’ve enjoyed on paper.

This consistent treatment from the IRS means that charities can rest assured that they can accept virtual currency in the same way that they can accept donations of appreciated stock or other forms of property. The accounting department or external accountants should be able to handle booking donations of virtual currency without much trouble. A caveat is that, in a nonbinding FAQ, the IRS has said that nonprofits must fill out Form 8282 whenever the nonprofit sells, exchanges, or otherwise disposes of its virtual currency. This is a departure from the IRS’s treatment of virtual currency as akin to stocks, which a nonprofit can sell without filing Form 8282. While not insurmountable, nonprofits and their fundraising platforms should discuss how to operationalize capturing the information required for filing Form 8282.

Questions to Ask a Fundraising Platform

Now that we have considered some of the frequent questions nonprofits ask their advisers, let’s consider questions nonprofits should ask a prospective fundraising platform as part of their due diligence.

Are you registered as a professional fundraiser?

Fundraising is regulated in most states, with each state using its own regulatory regime. Individuals and organizations that support charities are often subject to laws regulating charitable solicitation (here’s an excellent overview from my colleague Tracy Boak). Charities are affected by these regulations and are obliged to make sure they only partner with organizations that are properly registered and licensed, if required.

Many fundraising platforms (both traditional and those dealing with virtual currency) take the position that they are not professional fundraisers, due to the way they structure their platforms and services, e.g., because they don’t affirmatively solicit donations on behalf of any charity and don’t take custody of donations. Regardless, a platform should be able to tell you why it isn’t subject to fundraising registration requirements. By asking the question, nonprofits can rest assured their fundraising platform partner is on top of its compliance obligations.

Are you registered as a Money Service Business or Money Transmitter?

Money Service Business (MSB) and Money Transmitter (MT) regulations are implemented at the federal and state levels. Their purpose is to weed out fraud and money laundering in the money transmission business. Generally speaking, MSB and MT laws create licensing structures that require licensed entities to do some due diligence on their customers, including “KYC” (know your customer) and “AML” (anti-money laundering) requirements.

Since 2013, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has applied money transmitter regulations to some entities within the virtual currency ecosystem. According to FinCEN, if a person or organization accepts money or another instrument with monetary value from one person and transmits it to another person, that person may be classified as a money transmitter under federal regulations. (A comprehensive rundown of FinCEN’s guidance is found here). This means that any entity that accepts virtual currency from one party and transmits it to another party could be considered a money transmitter subject to the federal rules. The same rules apply if the entity accepts virtual currency, converts it to fiat currency (i.e., U.S. dollars), and transmits the fiat currency to another person or entity.

FinCEN does provide some exceptions, including those entities that only provide network access or serve as payment processors, exceptions which largely do not apply to crypto-fundraising. Whether a person or entity will be treated as a money transmitter is a facts-and-circumstances determination, but FINCEN clearly intends to define money transmission broadly and interpret its exceptions narrowly (see the discussion on pages 12-22 of the guidance linked above).

Nonprofits considering crypto-fundraising options should ask the potential partner whether it is registered as a money transmitter. If not, ask how they ensure that their services aren’t used inappropriately – do they work with a partner that is a licensed entity? Who does their KYC and AML compliance work?

Do you accept anonymous donations?

Anonymous donations are nothing new – charities have received anonymous donations large and small since long before the birth of cryptocurrency. But many charities are wary of the “dark side” of cryptocurrency and its reputation (rightly or wrongly earned) for facilitating illicit activity. Nonprofits should check with their potential fundraising platform to confirm whether they allow anonymous donations. If so, ask whether the donations are anonymous to the platform, or only to the charity. If the donation is anonymous to the platform, ask whether and how the platform ensures the anonymous donations aren’t connected with illicit activity. The answer may be that the platform does not, or cannot, do anything else to ascertain the identity of donors who wish to remain anonymous. If that is the case, the nonprofit should consider whether it is comfortable with the risks of accepting anonymous donations.

Those risks are generally the same as accepting any other high-value anonymous donation – that a donation of virtual currency could be traced back to illicit activity or a potential clawback, if the virtual currency that is donated doesn’t belong to the donor.  One difference with anonymous donations of cash or other types of property is that the virtual currency environment is highly transparent, even if it may be highly anonymized. Bitcoin transactions are viewable on the blockchain, even if the participants in the transactions may remain anonymous.

Do you issue donation receipts? Do you fill out Form 8282? Will we get a donor list?

One of the core tasks in charitable fundraising is issuing receipts to donors. Donors need to keep those receipts on file, in case they want to claim a charitable deduction. Many platforms will create automatic receipts. Nonprofits should confirm that the receipts issued by its platform partners are compliant with IRS requirements, and ask for copies for your records.

Nonprofits should also ensure that the fundraising platform will provide you with a list of your donors, to make sure you can build out your donor base.

The post What Nonprofits Should Be Asking About Virtual Currency Regulation and Fundraising first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

Nonprofits and for-profits (in this article, “Brands” for easy reference) can collaborate in a number of ways to benefit both organizations. Nonprofits benefit by receiving financial support and access to a wider audience. Brands benefit from the goodwill generated by supporting a charitable cause, while simultaneously furthering their own purposes. These collaborations may take a number of forms. (For further reading, see  articles on our website , Selfish Giving, and Engage for Good’s online resource Cause Marketing and the Law).

We’ve recently seen a number of nonprofits expand their efforts to more consciously address online collaboration. In this article, I provide a refresher to clarify where the IRS draws the line on these types of partnerships. Understanding this line can help Brands to maximize their benefits and charities to avoid unwanted tax consequences.

What are Qualified Sponsorship Payments?

A typical strategy for Brands and nonprofits to collaborate is through sponsored events. While the pandemic has thrown traditional fundraising events for a loop, many nonprofits have pivoted to digital engagements or are now beginning to plan live events again as vaccination rates rise. Whether an event is digital or live, many nonprofits underwrite their events with support from Brand sponsors. In exchange for this support, Brands typically receive certain benefits. Those benefits may include a page in the event program, placement of their logo on the step-and-repeat, or a booth at the event. In the virtual context, Brands may get a shout-out or other acknowledgment during the event, in thank-you emails to attendees, or in press releases issued by the nonprofit.

If a nonprofit wants to avoid tax on the sponsorship payments that are received in exchange for certain benefits to the Brand, one strategy is to ensure that the payments qualify as “Qualified Sponsorship Payments”, the term used in Section 513(i) of the Internal Revenue Code. In order to be categorized as a Qualified Sponsorship Payment, the payment must be made without any arrangement or expectation of a “substantial return benefit.” Payments made in return for advertising or marketing services may constitute a substantial return benefit, and cause the payment to be subject to tax under the IRS’s Unrelated Business Income Tax (“UBIT”) rules.

So when does including a Brand’s logo in the nonprofit’s event, or allowing the Brand to have a booth or table at the event, constitute a “substantial return benefit”? Fortunately, the IRS has provided guidance on this question. According to the IRS, one way to avoid providing the Brand a “substantial return benefit” is for the Brand and nonprofit to avoid language that “promotes or markets any trade or business”. The IRS goes on to provide several examples of activities that are allowable under the qualified sponsorship rules, including:

• Distributing a Brand’s products to the general public at the event, either for free or purchase
• Including a Brand’s logo, slogan, address(es), telephone number, descriptions of a Brand’s product line or services, PROVIDED that all the foregoing do not include any comparative or qualitive descriptions of the Brand’s goods and services.
• Exclusive sponsorship arrangements (i.e., having a Brand be the only bakery sponsoring the event. NOTE – this is different than an exclusive provider arrangement, described below)

The IRS, in its guidance, also describes what types of messaging and activities are considered “substantial” return benefits for Brands and therefore NOT qualified sponsorship activities, including:

• Advertising for the Brand (messaging that promotes or markets a Brand, including messaging that contains comparative or qualitative descriptions of the Brand’s goods/services)
• Exclusive provider arrangements that limit the sale, distribution, availability, or use of competing products/services in connection with the nonprofit’s event/activities (i.e., having a Brand be the sole provider of cookies for an event. NOTE – this is different from the exclusive sponsorship arrangements, described above)

Social Media Considerations

Many Brands and nonprofits have begun to include social media posts as part of their messaging around events and partnerships. In addition to concerns about UBIT and qualified sponsorships, Brands and nonprofits have to be wary of rules implemented by the social media platforms (Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok, for instance) and guidelines issued by the Federal Trade Commission.

Nonprofits often thank their Brand sponsors for their support. It’s important that the language included in those posts is agreed upon by the Brand and nonprofit, and is vetted to make sure it doesn’t amount to an advertisement or endorsement of the Brand’s products or services. Similarly, when a Brand posts to highlights its support of the nonprofit, the parties should ensure that the post doesn’t create the implication that the nonprofit is endorsing the Brand’s products.

Brands and nonprofits also have to make sure their posts include appropriate disclosures to put their respective followers on notice that the content they are posting is part of a partnership. How those disclosures should be structured depends on the platform and the nature of the post, but has to be clear enough so that the posts comply with the platforms’ rules and the FTC’s guidelines.

If the Brand and nonprofit have brought a celebrity or influencer into the event to help raise its profile, the same general principles apply to the influencer’s posts. The Brand and nonprofit should make sure there are contractual provisions as well as practical guidelines provided that clarify what the influencer can and cannot post, how those posts should be timed and structured, and what material disclosures must be included.

Advice for Brands and Nonprofits

Brands and Nonprofits need to carefully review their contracts and social media posts to ensure they are not violating the rules regarding Qualified Sponsorships or social media platform disclosures. All posts made by the nonprofit thanking the Brand should avoid any qualitative language. Here are two sample statements to differentiate between comments that could be considered advertising vs. those that are just acknowledgments:

• Acknowledgment – NONPROFIT thanks BRAND for their steadfast support of our event. With BRAND’s support, we raised $100,000 in furtherance of our mission to end childhood hunger.
• Advertising – NONPROFIT thanks BRAND, purveyor of the best chocolate chip cookies in the NYC-area, for their support of our event. BRAND is one of the best companies and we thank them for their continued support. Find their cookies available for delivery at [WEBSITE].

In the second statement, the nonprofit used qualitative language around the Brand and its products. It also made a general comparative characterization of the Brand and linked to the Brand’s website, not for general informational purposes but to encourage viewers to order the Brand’s products. The second statement would be considered advertising, and could trigger UBIT for the nonprofit. The first statement merely identifies the Brand as a supporter of the nonprofit and its mission, and would be considered an acknowledgment.

In the contract governing the sponsorship or collaboration, the nonprofit should include restrictions on the Brand’s ability to use the nonprofit’s name and trademarks. For instance, the nonprofit should include a clause that prohibits the Brand from using pictures and videos from a nonprofit’s event in the Brand’s television, print, or social media advertising to promote its products or services. If a Brand seeks to incorporate the nonprofit’s photos and videos into content that highlights the Brand’s social mission and corporate responsibility, the nonprofit should carefully define the limits of that right to avoid an inadvertent endorsement.

The Brand and nonprofit should also consider how to enforce their contractual rights with regard to one another and any social media personalities that are part of the event. Payments can be delayed until after certain deliverables, to ensure all parties remain in sync in the run-up to the event. The parties should also consider the duration of their contractual rights –event contracts often terminate immediately upon the completion of the event, but if the parties are allowed to use each other’s names and logos even after the event is over, the contract should cover that ongoing use.

In order to manage the logistics of the event and the many deliverables that are included in sponsorship agreements, Brands and nonprofits can designate point people to review and approve deliverables. Specifying in the contract who the points-of-contact will be, as well as the required turnaround times, will help ensure the parties remain on good terms and maximize the event’s potential.

The post Qualified Sponsorship Payments, UBIT, and Social Media – A Reminder For Nonprofits first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

Total compensation must be reasonable under federal law such that the organization complies with the private inurement doctrine. 
A 501(c)(3) organization must be organized and operated so that no part of its net earnings inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.  It has long been held by the federal courts that “the payment of reasonable salaries by an allegedly tax-exempt organization does not result in the inurement of net earnings to the benefit of private individuals.”[1]

Assessing the reasonableness of compensation is largely a market driven analysis. 
An executive’s compensation is properly compared to individuals in similar positions at organizations of a similar size, in the same or a comparable geographical area, performing similar services.  The experience, expertise, and accomplishments of the individual are also taken into consideration.  It is appropriate to hire a qualified independent consultant to conduct a market analysis to ensure that compensation is reasonable.

The total compensation of an executive, and not merely the base salary or cash compensation, must be considered in determining whether compensation is reasonable. 
All compensation and benefits, including bonuses, deferred compensation, pension payments, and other perks not provided for legitimate business purposes are to be considered in calculating the total compensation at issue.

In the event that an executive is paid severance upon termination, any severance payments must be reasonable to assure compliance with applicable laws. 
The payment of excessive severance can itself be deemed excess compensation in violation of state and federal laws. An exception, for example, might be in connection with the reasonable settlement of a claim against the organization for improper termination.

Entering into a formal written contract with a senior executive can be advantageous for both the organization and the executive to ensure compliance with the laws governing executive compensation. 
Such a contract should set forth the duties and responsibilities of the executive, and thereby set standards for evaluating the executive.  It should also establish appropriate severance in the event of termination without cause.

Board members of charitable organizations in the various states have a fiduciary duty to preserve the organizations’ charitable assets, to supervise and oversee the administration of the organization’s’ assets, and to establish mechanisms designed to protect against the squandering or misuse of such assets.
This includes the authorization and payment of reasonable compensation and benefits to executives, and establishing mechanisms and internal controls to protect the organization’s expenditures.  Some states have specific laws requiring that compensation be reasonable.

The federal “intermediate sanctions” law, enacted by Congress in 1996, permits the IRS to impose excise tax penalties on charities executives who receive excess compensation (an “excess benefit transaction”) and on an organization manager or other person who is in a position to exercise substantial influence over the affairs of the organization.[2] 
In addition to paying a 25% excise tax on any excess compensation received, the executive must also make a correction and return the excess amount to the organization or face a confiscatory second tier tax.  The executive can be assessed the tax even if he or she acted in good faith and without knowledge that the compensation was excessive.

An organization manager can be assessed an excise tax only when he or she participated in an excess benefit transaction “knowing that it is such a transaction, … unless such participation is not willful and is due to reasonable cause.” 
If a board member or other organization manager has relied in good faith on professional advice that the compensation paid is reasonable, this would provide a strong defense against any IRS claim that excise taxes should be imposed.

It is significant to note that, under formal IRS rules, an executive is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that his or her compensation is reasonable if a three-step test has been satisfied.  

First Requirement: Compensation Fixed by An Independent Board
Board members must act independently and at arm’s length, and relatives and business associates of an executive should be excluded from any participation in fixing such individual’s compensation and benefits.

Second Requirement: Reliance on Appropriate Data as to Comparability
The IRS Regulations specify that the relevant information upon which the authorized body may rely “includes, but is not limited to, compensation levels paid by similarly situated organizations, both taxable and tax-exempt, for functionally comparable positions; the availability of similar services in the geographic area of the applicable tax-exempt organization; current compensation surveys compiled by independent firms; and actual written offers from similar institutions competing for the services of the disqualified person.”

Third Requirement: Adequately Document Basis for Determination of Compensation
The board of a charity should, through formal board minutes, a written employment contract, an independent compensation survey, and/or other relevant documentation demonstrate the basis for the compensation paid.

Improper excess benefits can be quite varied. 
Areas which might be scrutinized by government regulators could include: purchases or leases of automobiles; payments of country-club dues; use of apartments, interest-free loans; travel expenses; use of charity credit cards without documentation; and blanket amounts to spend on expenses.

Summary: General Considerations in Fixing Compensation

• Decisions should be made by an independent board of directors at arm’s length.
• There should be Board minutes and/or other documents reflecting the criteria and basis for fixing compensation.
• Total compensation should reflect the fair market value of the executive’s services.
• Where appropriate, there should be reliance on an independent compensation survey.

[1] Founding Church of Scientology v. U.S., 412 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Ct. Claims, 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1099 (1970).

[2] The intermediate sanctions rules apply to both 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations.  They do not apply to private foundations, as the well-established self-dealing rules in the Internal Revenue Code already barred payment of excessive compensation to executives of private foundations.

The post What Can They Be Paid? Advising Charitable Organizations on Executive Compensation first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.

Attorneys for nonprofits are ultimately responsible to their boards.

Since there are no owners or shareholders of a nonprofit organization, they are supervised by their boards in accordance with the directors’ fiduciary duties.  This means that boards must be informed of any problems or possible issues by senior staff and/or by the organization’s attorneys.  It is incumbent upon legal counsel to ensure that the board is notified of such problems in a timely manner and engaged in their resolution.

Depending on the circumstances, attorneys should maintain communication with the Board Chair, and with the entire board when appropriate. 

This is particularly important if there are problems meriting board knowledge and involvement.  Attorneys should ensure that board members are informed and engaged and act in an independent manner.

There are no specific ethical rules governing representation of nonprofit organizations.

The rules and cases construing professional responsibility in the for-profit context offer significant guidance.  Certainly, court decisions that apply the attorney ethics rules to situations involving nonprofit clients can be of particular assistance.

An attorney representing an organization owes a duty to the organization rather than any persons employed by or associated with the organization. (See ABA Model Rule 1.13)

When an attorney who is employed or retained by an organization is dealing with its directors, officers, or employees, if it appears that the organization’s interests may differ from the individual’s interests, the attorney is obligated to explain to the individual that he or she represents the organization and not the individual.  NYRPC 1.13(a).

If the attorney knows that a person involved with the organization is acting in a manner that violates, or is likely to violate, the legal obligations of the organization, and the attorney determines that this violation is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, the attorney is obligated to proceed as is “reasonably necessary in the best interests of the organization.”  NYRPC 1.13(b).

If an issue arises whereby the attorney may have a conflict of interest as a result of prior representation of the organization, the attorney should consider advising the organization to retain other counsel.  For example, if an attorney has handled a transaction for a client that later winds up in litigation, the client should retain an attorney for the litigation who was not involved in the initial transaction.

Examples of where an attorney should ensure that nonprofit boards act appropriately and independently from senior leadership include:

• Setting compensation for top executives
• Overseeing conduct and performance of executives
• Addressing complaints or problems involving executives, including allegations of discrimination or harassment
• Addressing allegedly inappropriate or illegal conduct within the organization
• Responding properly to whistleblower complaints
• Complying with conflict of interest and related party rules and law

Summary:

In the practice of representing a nonprofit organization, attorneys must consider their ethical obligations to ensure that the organization will be well-served and in compliance with legal requirements.

The information provided in this article does not constitute legal advice, and is not intended to substitute for legal counsel.

The post Ethical Considerations in Providing Legal Advice to Nonprofits and their Boards first appeared on Perlman Sandbox.