Dark Money Darker? IRS Shutters Collection of Donor Data

Philip T. Hackney
{"title":"Dark Money Darker? IRS Shutters Collection of Donor Data","authors":"Philip T. Hackney","doi":"10.5744/ftr.2021.1004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The IRS recently rescinded a longstanding rule that required certain nonprofits to disclose substantial donor names and addresses on the nonprofit annual information return. This was a mistake. Though the rule remains for charities and political organizations, the collection of this information non-publicly by the IRS is needed to enforce tax-exempt requirements and the tax law generally for social welfare organizations and business leagues. It serves both as a roadmap for audits and as a hindrance to improper transactions. It also is reasonable for the IRS to collect this information to support legal regimes ancillary to the tax law such as state nonprofit law and campaign finance. Tax law prohibits the distribution of earnings from a nonprofit to those who control the organization. Like officers and directors, substantial donors are classic suspects of those who might seek improper private benefits through their control of a nonprofit. But substantial donors, unlike officers and directors, are not public facing. Without substantial donor information, an IRS auditor has no reason to begin to question certain transactions and operations of the nonprofit that accrue to the benefit of a substantial donor that could potentially lead to modification of a claimed tax result. The Supreme Court recently found a similar requirement of the state of California to impose a burden on First Amendment free association rights, and furthermore found that the state failed to show the requirement was narrowly tailored to the governmental interest of protecting citizens from fraud on charity. The Court’s ruling calls into question the constitutionality of the IRS requirement too. However, the Court accepted that the governmental interest associated with tax law might be different from the case made by the California attorney general. This Article does not significantly engage with the question of the constitutionality of this IRS requirement but does suggest the important governmental interest involved. There are important governmental and democratic interests involved beyond the free association rights of substantial donors, namely that the tax, campaign finance and nonprofit law be enforced equally upon all and appear to be enforced equally. The importance of the ability of the government to collect the revenue is significant as well.","PeriodicalId":271965,"journal":{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5744/ftr.2021.1004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The IRS recently rescinded a longstanding rule that required certain nonprofits to disclose substantial donor names and addresses on the nonprofit annual information return. This was a mistake. Though the rule remains for charities and political organizations, the collection of this information non-publicly by the IRS is needed to enforce tax-exempt requirements and the tax law generally for social welfare organizations and business leagues. It serves both as a roadmap for audits and as a hindrance to improper transactions. It also is reasonable for the IRS to collect this information to support legal regimes ancillary to the tax law such as state nonprofit law and campaign finance. Tax law prohibits the distribution of earnings from a nonprofit to those who control the organization. Like officers and directors, substantial donors are classic suspects of those who might seek improper private benefits through their control of a nonprofit. But substantial donors, unlike officers and directors, are not public facing. Without substantial donor information, an IRS auditor has no reason to begin to question certain transactions and operations of the nonprofit that accrue to the benefit of a substantial donor that could potentially lead to modification of a claimed tax result. The Supreme Court recently found a similar requirement of the state of California to impose a burden on First Amendment free association rights, and furthermore found that the state failed to show the requirement was narrowly tailored to the governmental interest of protecting citizens from fraud on charity. The Court’s ruling calls into question the constitutionality of the IRS requirement too. However, the Court accepted that the governmental interest associated with tax law might be different from the case made by the California attorney general. This Article does not significantly engage with the question of the constitutionality of this IRS requirement but does suggest the important governmental interest involved. There are important governmental and democratic interests involved beyond the free association rights of substantial donors, namely that the tax, campaign finance and nonprofit law be enforced equally upon all and appear to be enforced equally. The importance of the ability of the government to collect the revenue is significant as well.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
黑钱更暗?IRS关闭捐赠者数据收集
美国国税局最近取消了一项长期存在的规定,该规定要求某些非营利组织在年度信息申报表上披露大量捐赠者的姓名和地址。这是一个错误。虽然这条规则仍然适用于慈善机构和政治组织,但IRS非公开收集这些信息是必要的,以强制执行免税要求,并普遍适用于社会福利组织和商业联盟的税法。它既可以作为审计的路线图,也可以作为不正当交易的障碍。美国国税局收集这些信息,以支持与税法相关的法律制度,如州非营利法和竞选资金,也是合理的。税法禁止将非营利组织的收入分配给控制该组织的人。像官员和董事一样,大额捐赠者是那些可能通过控制非营利组织寻求不正当私人利益的人的典型嫌疑人。但是,与官员和董事不同,大量的捐助者并不面向公众。如果没有实质性的捐赠者信息,国税局审计员就没有理由开始质疑非营利组织的某些交易和运营,这些交易和运营可能会使实质性捐赠者受益,从而可能导致申报的税务结果发生修改。最高法院最近发现加利福尼亚州也有类似的要求,对第一修正案的自由结社权施加负担,而且还发现该州未能证明这一要求是专门针对保护公民免受慈善欺诈的政府利益而制定的。法院的裁决也对国税局要求的合宪性提出了质疑。然而,法院承认,与税法有关的政府利益可能与加州总检察长提出的案件不同。本文并未涉及国税局这一要求的合宪性问题,但确实暗示了所涉及的重要政府利益。除了大量捐助者的自由结社权之外,还涉及重要的政府和民主利益,即税收、竞选资金和非营利法律应平等地对所有人执行,而且似乎是平等地执行。政府征收税收的能力也很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Dark Money Darker? IRS Shutters Collection of Donor Data Protection of Private Equity Investors under the Dodd-Frank Act Mass Digitization in the eBook Market: Copyright Protections and Exceptions Charitable Organization Oversight: Rules v. Standards Governing Knowledge Commons -- Introduction & Chapter 1
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1