It is now twelve years since the Irish Government committed in its Agreed Programme for Government to the introduction of a modern statutory framework for the regulation of Irish charities. Twelve years on, in 2014, the promise of reform to ensure “greater accountability and to protect against abuse of charitable status and fraud . . . [and increased] transparency in the sector has never been more necessary and yet still remains to be delivered. Despite the passage of the Charities Act 2009, its non-implementation has created a regulatory void into which allegations of charity maladministration and misfeasance have filled the public consciousness.In his seminal work on the formation of public policy, John Kingdon provides a persuasive theory to explain the opening, operation and outcomes of so-called ‘policy windows.’ According to Kingdon, at any given time, a ‘problem stream’ exists representing all the issues that are wrong in a given system. Running (often) parallel to the problem stream will be a ‘solution stream’ containing all of those suggested fixes to make a system work better. It is only when there is a convergence of those two streams within a third ‘political stream’ that policy change occurs. The nature of the political stream within which this convergence occurs can take many forms. In the words of Kingdon, it can comprise “public mood, pressure group campaigns, election results, partisan or ideological distributions in Congress and changes of administration.” The collision of problem and solution streams within this political stream results in the temporary opening of a policy window, allowing policy change to occur. The form of such resultant change may be shaped further by coincidental influences or agenda issues hovering in the vicinity of the window which attach themselves to the coat tails of the newly minted policy outcome. This conception of the policymaking process is useful, providing as it does some insight into how certain policy solutions come to be expectations or have other unintended consequences.In an Irish context, Kingdon’s framework provides a useful lens through which to analyse the ‘fits and starts’ approach to charity law reform. Against the backdrop of the recent revelations concerning the Central Remedial Clinic and the Rehab Group charities and the catalytic effect of these scandals on the Irish charity sector and charity regulation more generally, this article reviews the current progress in the implementation of the Charities Act 2009, recent moves towards the establishment of the long awaited Charities Regulatory Authority and the prospects and challenges for better charity governance ahead.Part I of this article reviews the existing Irish ‘problem’ and ‘solution’ streams in the context of charity regulation and outlines the political catalysts that are now instrumental in driving reform. Part II outlines the pending changes to be introduced over the coming months and the implementation challenges that w
{"title":"Long Day's Journey: The Charities Act 2009 and Recent Developments in Irish Charity Law","authors":"Oonagh B. Breen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2483031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2483031","url":null,"abstract":"It is now twelve years since the Irish Government committed in its Agreed Programme for Government to the introduction of a modern statutory framework for the regulation of Irish charities. Twelve years on, in 2014, the promise of reform to ensure “greater accountability and to protect against abuse of charitable status and fraud . . . [and increased] transparency in the sector has never been more necessary and yet still remains to be delivered. Despite the passage of the Charities Act 2009, its non-implementation has created a regulatory void into which allegations of charity maladministration and misfeasance have filled the public consciousness.In his seminal work on the formation of public policy, John Kingdon provides a persuasive theory to explain the opening, operation and outcomes of so-called ‘policy windows.’ According to Kingdon, at any given time, a ‘problem stream’ exists representing all the issues that are wrong in a given system. Running (often) parallel to the problem stream will be a ‘solution stream’ containing all of those suggested fixes to make a system work better. It is only when there is a convergence of those two streams within a third ‘political stream’ that policy change occurs. The nature of the political stream within which this convergence occurs can take many forms. In the words of Kingdon, it can comprise “public mood, pressure group campaigns, election results, partisan or ideological distributions in Congress and changes of administration.” The collision of problem and solution streams within this political stream results in the temporary opening of a policy window, allowing policy change to occur. The form of such resultant change may be shaped further by coincidental influences or agenda issues hovering in the vicinity of the window which attach themselves to the coat tails of the newly minted policy outcome. This conception of the policymaking process is useful, providing as it does some insight into how certain policy solutions come to be expectations or have other unintended consequences.In an Irish context, Kingdon’s framework provides a useful lens through which to analyse the ‘fits and starts’ approach to charity law reform. Against the backdrop of the recent revelations concerning the Central Remedial Clinic and the Rehab Group charities and the catalytic effect of these scandals on the Irish charity sector and charity regulation more generally, this article reviews the current progress in the implementation of the Charities Act 2009, recent moves towards the establishment of the long awaited Charities Regulatory Authority and the prospects and challenges for better charity governance ahead.Part I of this article reviews the existing Irish ‘problem’ and ‘solution’ streams in the context of charity regulation and outlines the political catalysts that are now instrumental in driving reform. Part II outlines the pending changes to be introduced over the coming months and the implementation challenges that w","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127489473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A current hot topic in legal education is the law-school-sponsored law firm. Bradley T. Borden and Robert J. Rhee introduced the idea in a short article published in the South Carolina Law Review and the concept was soon picked up by articles in the National Law Journal, the ABA Journal and others. The purpose of this essay is to explore the federal tax-exemption and UBIT questions raised by the law-school-sponsored law firm. I conclude that a law firm operated as a single-member LLC with the sponsoring law school as the single member offers the best protection for the law school's underlying exempt status, and also should avoid issues with the UBIT.
当前法律教育界的一个热门话题是法学院创办的律师事务所。布拉德利·t·博登(Bradley T. Borden)和罗伯特·j·李(Robert J. Rhee)在《南卡罗莱纳法律评论》(South Carolina Law Review)上发表的一篇短文中介绍了这一概念，并很快被《国家法律杂志》、《美国律师协会杂志》(ABA Journal)和其他杂志的文章所采纳。本文的目的是探讨由法学院赞助的律师事务所提出的联邦免税和UBIT问题。我的结论是，律师事务所以单一成员有限责任公司的形式运作，而赞助法学院作为单一成员，可以为法学院的基本豁免地位提供最好的保护，也应该避免与UBIT有关的问题。
{"title":"The Federal Tax Exemption Aspects of Law Schools Running Their Own Law Firms","authors":"J. Colombo","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2272057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2272057","url":null,"abstract":"A current hot topic in legal education is the law-school-sponsored law firm. Bradley T. Borden and Robert J. Rhee introduced the idea in a short article published in the South Carolina Law Review and the concept was soon picked up by articles in the National Law Journal, the ABA Journal and others. The purpose of this essay is to explore the federal tax-exemption and UBIT questions raised by the law-school-sponsored law firm. I conclude that a law firm operated as a single-member LLC with the sponsoring law school as the single member offers the best protection for the law school's underlying exempt status, and also should avoid issues with the UBIT.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133763588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-05-22DOI: 10.1108/S0895-9935(2013)0000021012
E. Walker
Corporate foundations – entities established to regularize corporate giving at an arm’s length removed from the firm – command substantial resources, root companies in the nonprofit sectors of their host communities, indirectly augment perceptions of corporate responsibility, and help firms to deflect controversies in an attentive global media environment. Despite these important roles, relatively little research has examined the institutional and strategic factors that influence such proximate charitable giving by firms. Using systematic data on foundations linked to S&P 3,000 firms in the health sector – a growing domain in which public trust in high-stakes products and services is critical – fixed-effects models illustrate the primary role of network influences on giving: corporate foundations give substantially more in years following higher contributions by other (non-corporate) foundations in the health sector in a firm’s headquarters locality and also following increased contributions by industry peers through their corporate foundations. Giving also appears to reflect strategic reputational concerns, in that foundation contributions increase significantly following controversies associated with the corporate parent’s products and/or services. By contrast, giving tends to decline as the presence of outside directors on a firm’s board increases, as well as when firms carry heavier debt loads. Combined, these findings suggest that corporate foundations serve as a strategic proxy for the firm, reflecting both the firm’s position in community and inter-firm networks while also mitigating the threat of reputational challenges.
{"title":"Signaling Responsibility, Deflecting Controversy: Strategic and Institutional Influences on the Charitable Giving of Corporate Foundations in the Health Sector","authors":"E. Walker","doi":"10.1108/S0895-9935(2013)0000021012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0895-9935(2013)0000021012","url":null,"abstract":"Corporate foundations – entities established to regularize corporate giving at an arm’s length removed from the firm – command substantial resources, root companies in the nonprofit sectors of their host communities, indirectly augment perceptions of corporate responsibility, and help firms to deflect controversies in an attentive global media environment. Despite these important roles, relatively little research has examined the institutional and strategic factors that influence such proximate charitable giving by firms. Using systematic data on foundations linked to S&P 3,000 firms in the health sector – a growing domain in which public trust in high-stakes products and services is critical – fixed-effects models illustrate the primary role of network influences on giving: corporate foundations give substantially more in years following higher contributions by other (non-corporate) foundations in the health sector in a firm’s headquarters locality and also following increased contributions by industry peers through their corporate foundations. Giving also appears to reflect strategic reputational concerns, in that foundation contributions increase significantly following controversies associated with the corporate parent’s products and/or services. By contrast, giving tends to decline as the presence of outside directors on a firm’s board increases, as well as when firms carry heavier debt loads. Combined, these findings suggest that corporate foundations serve as a strategic proxy for the firm, reflecting both the firm’s position in community and inter-firm networks while also mitigating the threat of reputational challenges.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134123748","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There are no generally accepted results regarding the objectives, decisions, and economic outcomes of nonprofit organizations, as compared to for-profit or public firms. We posit that this inconclusiveness is due to a too broad definition of nonprofits and that different types of nonprofits exist. This conjecture is investigated by constructing a model in which nonprofits differ by religious affiliation and testing the resulting hypotheses on the observed behavior of German nonprofit hospitals. We find that Catholic and Protestant nonprofits adopt significantly different strategies in the market. This confirms our conjecture and the importance of religion for economic outcomes.
{"title":"Nonprofits are Not Alike: The Role of Catholic and Protestant Affiliation","authors":"L. Filistrucchi, Jens Prufer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2259051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2259051","url":null,"abstract":"There are no generally accepted results regarding the objectives, decisions, and economic outcomes of nonprofit organizations, as compared to for-profit or public firms. We posit that this inconclusiveness is due to a too broad definition of nonprofits and that different types of nonprofits exist. This conjecture is investigated by constructing a model in which nonprofits differ by religious affiliation and testing the resulting hypotheses on the observed behavior of German nonprofit hospitals. We find that Catholic and Protestant nonprofits adopt significantly different strategies in the market. This confirms our conjecture and the importance of religion for economic outcomes.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123850680","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For years, individuals have been challenging the noncompetition agreements they entered into with their employers on the basis that the agreements violate public policy. However, in a competitive marketplace, courts and legislatures in many jurisdictions are reluctant to invalidate otherwise reasonable noncompetition agreements. Perhaps they are right, at least when it comes to the general class of nonprofits and to nonprofits that are protecting their interests against for-profit entities. As for charitable — or § 501(c)(3) — nonprofits that are attempting to protect their interests against other charitable nonprofits, however, the decision-making bodies should reconsider their position. Unlike traditional for-profit entities, whose main goal is profit maximization, charitable nonprofits are organized and operated to benefit some greater good. As a result, charitable nonprofits receive donations from individuals and corporations, as well as tax breaks from the government, which are unavailable to for-profit entities. At the same time, charitable nonprofits use many of the same tools that for-profit firms utilize to maximize profits, including noncompetition agreements. Thus, charitable nonprofits are able to benefit from an anti-competition, profit-maximizing tool while also reaping the rewards of their tax-exempt status. In short, charitable nonprofits (wrongly) enjoy the best of both the for-profit and nonprofit worlds. This article discusses the unique nature of the charitable nonprofit’s mission and the tax benefits conferred on charitable nonprofits by the federal and state governments. It then discusses noncompetition agreements and demonstrates that charitable nonprofits’ use of noncompetition agreements is contrary to their mission and tax-exempt status, as well as to the public interest. Finally, the article proposes an amendment to the federal tax code that would render unenforceable any language in a noncompetition agreement that prevents an individual from leaving the employment of one charitable nonprofit for employment at another.
{"title":"Charitable Nonprofits’ Use of Noncompetition Agreements: Having the Best of Both Worlds","authors":"Lindsey D. Blanchard","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2227123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2227123","url":null,"abstract":"For years, individuals have been challenging the noncompetition agreements they entered into with their employers on the basis that the agreements violate public policy. However, in a competitive marketplace, courts and legislatures in many jurisdictions are reluctant to invalidate otherwise reasonable noncompetition agreements. Perhaps they are right, at least when it comes to the general class of nonprofits and to nonprofits that are protecting their interests against for-profit entities. As for charitable — or § 501(c)(3) — nonprofits that are attempting to protect their interests against other charitable nonprofits, however, the decision-making bodies should reconsider their position. Unlike traditional for-profit entities, whose main goal is profit maximization, charitable nonprofits are organized and operated to benefit some greater good. As a result, charitable nonprofits receive donations from individuals and corporations, as well as tax breaks from the government, which are unavailable to for-profit entities. At the same time, charitable nonprofits use many of the same tools that for-profit firms utilize to maximize profits, including noncompetition agreements. Thus, charitable nonprofits are able to benefit from an anti-competition, profit-maximizing tool while also reaping the rewards of their tax-exempt status. In short, charitable nonprofits (wrongly) enjoy the best of both the for-profit and nonprofit worlds. This article discusses the unique nature of the charitable nonprofit’s mission and the tax benefits conferred on charitable nonprofits by the federal and state governments. It then discusses noncompetition agreements and demonstrates that charitable nonprofits’ use of noncompetition agreements is contrary to their mission and tax-exempt status, as well as to the public interest. Finally, the article proposes an amendment to the federal tax code that would render unenforceable any language in a noncompetition agreement that prevents an individual from leaving the employment of one charitable nonprofit for employment at another.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124350646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Article examines the tax treatment of charitable contributions and concludes that contributors who do not itemize their deductions (nonitemizers) should contribute their services to charity whenever possible rather than contributing cash or property. Charitable donees similarly should embrace opportunities to accept and utilize service contributions from their donor bases, give service contributions as much recognition as money or property contributions, and encourage their lower-income donors to render services rather than giving money earned with performance of services. The Article suggests that nonitemizing taxpayers are the donors who have the most “skin in the game” for charitable contributions in terms of sacrifice. Promoting service rather than money or property contributions maximizes the tax subsidy of the charitable contributions. From the perspective of efficient tax planning for low and moderate-income taxpayers, the tradition of volunteerism in the United States is compelling. Yet, despite the ability to get more “bang for the buck” from service contributions, many charitable organizations that used to rely on volunteers for support increasingly have shifted their operations to reliance on paid staff and pushed even the low-income members of their donor base to contribute money rather than volunteer services.
{"title":"Charitable Contributions of Services: Charitable Gift Planning for Non-Itemizers","authors":"Henry Ordower","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2182865","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2182865","url":null,"abstract":"This Article examines the tax treatment of charitable contributions and concludes that contributors who do not itemize their deductions (nonitemizers) should contribute their services to charity whenever possible rather than contributing cash or property. Charitable donees similarly should embrace opportunities to accept and utilize service contributions from their donor bases, give service contributions as much recognition as money or property contributions, and encourage their lower-income donors to render services rather than giving money earned with performance of services. The Article suggests that nonitemizing taxpayers are the donors who have the most “skin in the game” for charitable contributions in terms of sacrifice. Promoting service rather than money or property contributions maximizes the tax subsidy of the charitable contributions. From the perspective of efficient tax planning for low and moderate-income taxpayers, the tradition of volunteerism in the United States is compelling. Yet, despite the ability to get more “bang for the buck” from service contributions, many charitable organizations that used to rely on volunteers for support increasingly have shifted their operations to reliance on paid staff and pushed even the low-income members of their donor base to contribute money rather than volunteer services.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124438068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since 2006, the Tax Court, District Courts, and Circuit Courts have collectively issued more than forty decisions relating to the federal charitable income tax deduction for the donation of perpetual conservation easements (fifteen decisions were issued in 2012 alone). This outline discusses the practical implications of recent court decisions for conservation easement donors and donees. The outline was prepared for a workshop of the same name at the Land Trust Alliance's national conference in New Orleans in September 2013. Presenters at the workshop were Nancy A. McLaughlin, Professor of Law, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law; Steve Small, Attorney at Law, Law Office of Stephen J. Small, Esq., P.C.; Karin Gross, Supervisory Attorney, Internal Revenue Service; and Marc Caine, Senior Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Office of Chief Counsel.
自2006年以来，税务法院、地区法院和巡回法院共作出了40多项有关永久保护地役权捐赠的联邦慈善所得税减免的裁决(仅2012年就作出了15项裁决)。本大纲讨论了最近法院判决对保护地役权捐赠人和受赠人的实际影响。该大纲是为2013年9月在新奥尔良举行的土地信托联盟全国会议上的同名研讨会准备的。研讨会的演讲人有:犹他大学S.J.昆尼法学院法学教授Nancy A. McLaughlin;Steve Small，律师，Stephen J. Small律师事务所，Esq。个人电脑;美国国税局监督律师卡琳·格罗斯;Marc Caine，美国国税局首席法律顾问办公室高级法律顾问。
{"title":"Trying Times: Important Lessons to Be Learned from Recent Federal Tax Cases","authors":"N. McLaughlin, S. Small","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2331485","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2331485","url":null,"abstract":"Since 2006, the Tax Court, District Courts, and Circuit Courts have collectively issued more than forty decisions relating to the federal charitable income tax deduction for the donation of perpetual conservation easements (fifteen decisions were issued in 2012 alone). This outline discusses the practical implications of recent court decisions for conservation easement donors and donees. The outline was prepared for a workshop of the same name at the Land Trust Alliance's national conference in New Orleans in September 2013. Presenters at the workshop were Nancy A. McLaughlin, Professor of Law, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law; Steve Small, Attorney at Law, Law Office of Stephen J. Small, Esq., P.C.; Karin Gross, Supervisory Attorney, Internal Revenue Service; and Marc Caine, Senior Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Office of Chief Counsel.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123678425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To counteract the ability of a nonprofit’s chief executive officer to control information reaching the board of directors, we recommend that a nonprofit board consider requiring leaders of the organization’s various functions to provide operational reports directly to the board on at least an annual basis. Additionally, we recommend that a board discuss these reports directly with management members, preferably without the participation of the CEO. Implementing such a protocol should strengthen the board’s ability to make decisions based on information from sources in addition to that of the CEO, improve the directors’ ability to independently evaluate members of the management team, and increase the directors’ understanding of the nonprofit’s activities and performance.
{"title":"Enhancing Nonprofit Governance Through Better Information Flow to Directors","authors":"Robert T. Kenagy, M. Fox, D. Vollrath","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2128907","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2128907","url":null,"abstract":"To counteract the ability of a nonprofit’s chief executive officer to control information reaching the board of directors, we recommend that a nonprofit board consider requiring leaders of the organization’s various functions to provide operational reports directly to the board on at least an annual basis. Additionally, we recommend that a board discuss these reports directly with management members, preferably without the participation of the CEO. Implementing such a protocol should strengthen the board’s ability to make decisions based on information from sources in addition to that of the CEO, improve the directors’ ability to independently evaluate members of the management team, and increase the directors’ understanding of the nonprofit’s activities and performance.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121783027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper which was written for the 2012 EATLP conference ‘Taxation of Charities’ (1 June 2012, Rotterdam) analyses whether the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Statute for a European Foundation (Fundatio Europaea, in short FE) provides for an effective, efficient and feasible solution for the tax issues which are currently related to cross border charitable giving and fundraising within the European Union. The non-applicability of tax incentives is a barrier for cross border fundraising. A solution for this problem should not only solve it (be effective), but should require a minimum of extra investments of charities and governments (be efficient) and it should be acceptable for all Member States (be feasible). The paper discusses several possible solutions which can be distinguished within the framework of the EU. Next, the application of tax incentives on cross border charitable donations and fundraising in the European Union is described. The solution of the ECJ and its place in the framework of solutions are discussed. The Proposal and its solution are analysed, starting with the historical background of the proposal, the problems and solutions considered by the European Commission and the European legal context of the proposal. The paper then briefly describes the legal features of the FE, the public benefit purposes included in the Regulation, the registration and supervision of the FE, the entry into force of the regulation and the tax treatment of the FE. Next, the Proposal’s solution for the tax issues in the light of the solution framework is analysed. The paper concludes that the European Foundation is effective in removing tax barriesr for cross border charitable giving to and fundraising of charities that adopt the legal form of an FE. It is an efficient solution as well for those charities. For Member States that have to introduce a new supervisory framework it might be less efficient. It is questionable whether the FE is a feasible solution. This depends on the Member States’ trust in each other’s supervisory authorities. The current economic situation and the debate on abuse of tax incentives in relation to cross border charitable giving in some Member States imply that expectations on the adoption of the Proposal must not be set too high.
{"title":"The European Foundation Proposal: An Effective, Efficient and Feasible Solution for Tax Issues Related to Cross Border Charitable Giving and Fundraising?","authors":"Sigrid Hemels","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2046993","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2046993","url":null,"abstract":"This paper which was written for the 2012 EATLP conference ‘Taxation of Charities’ (1 June 2012, Rotterdam) analyses whether the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Statute for a European Foundation (Fundatio Europaea, in short FE) provides for an effective, efficient and feasible solution for the tax issues which are currently related to cross border charitable giving and fundraising within the European Union. The non-applicability of tax incentives is a barrier for cross border fundraising. A solution for this problem should not only solve it (be effective), but should require a minimum of extra investments of charities and governments (be efficient) and it should be acceptable for all Member States (be feasible). The paper discusses several possible solutions which can be distinguished within the framework of the EU. Next, the application of tax incentives on cross border charitable donations and fundraising in the European Union is described. The solution of the ECJ and its place in the framework of solutions are discussed. The Proposal and its solution are analysed, starting with the historical background of the proposal, the problems and solutions considered by the European Commission and the European legal context of the proposal. The paper then briefly describes the legal features of the FE, the public benefit purposes included in the Regulation, the registration and supervision of the FE, the entry into force of the regulation and the tax treatment of the FE. Next, the Proposal’s solution for the tax issues in the light of the solution framework is analysed. The paper concludes that the European Foundation is effective in removing tax barriesr for cross border charitable giving to and fundraising of charities that adopt the legal form of an FE. It is an efficient solution as well for those charities. For Member States that have to introduce a new supervisory framework it might be less efficient. It is questionable whether the FE is a feasible solution. This depends on the Member States’ trust in each other’s supervisory authorities. The current economic situation and the debate on abuse of tax incentives in relation to cross border charitable giving in some Member States imply that expectations on the adoption of the Proposal must not be set too high.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127204859","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Karen A Kitching, Andrea Alston Roberts, Pamela C. Smith
Charitable organizations are often evaluated by donors and regulators based on various efficiency ratios, including the program ratio. We explore whether charities conform to donor pressure to maintain or improve program ratios when allocating resources. We use a sample of 5,626 charities between 1986 and 2007 and compare marginal spending patterns to average spending patterns in the prior period when budgets change. We provide evidence that in most instances, spending patterns do not change when budget increases are less than fifteen percent. That is, program ratios do not change on average. However, the paper documents that small charities, those that rely little on contributions, charities not funded by the government, and organizations that do not fundraise make resource allocation decisions that decrease the program ratio when budgets increase. These findings provide evidence that some charities feel less pressure to conform to donor pressure than others. We find that when budgets decrease, charity managers make resource allocation decisions that decrease the program ratio. This asymmetry suggests that charity managers are more willing to report declining program ratios when budgets decrease but not improve program ratios when budgets increase.
{"title":"Nonprofit Resource Allocation Decisions: A Study of Marginal versus Average Spending","authors":"Karen A Kitching, Andrea Alston Roberts, Pamela C. Smith","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1712011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1712011","url":null,"abstract":"Charitable organizations are often evaluated by donors and regulators based on various efficiency ratios, including the program ratio. We explore whether charities conform to donor pressure to maintain or improve program ratios when allocating resources. We use a sample of 5,626 charities between 1986 and 2007 and compare marginal spending patterns to average spending patterns in the prior period when budgets change. We provide evidence that in most instances, spending patterns do not change when budget increases are less than fifteen percent. That is, program ratios do not change on average. However, the paper documents that small charities, those that rely little on contributions, charities not funded by the government, and organizations that do not fundraise make resource allocation decisions that decrease the program ratio when budgets increase. These findings provide evidence that some charities feel less pressure to conform to donor pressure than others. We find that when budgets decrease, charity managers make resource allocation decisions that decrease the program ratio. This asymmetry suggests that charity managers are more willing to report declining program ratios when budgets decrease but not improve program ratios when budgets increase.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"142 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134226999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：