Blog Layout

Non-Profitability Spring 2016

February 18, 2016

Tread Carefully This Election Season

With the 2016 election season picking up steam, nonprofits need to exercise caution not to stray into political activities that could put their tax-exempt status on the line. But while the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) clearly prohibits certain activities and expenditures related to the political process, other activities may be permissible.

Prohibited campaign intervention

The IRC states that 501(c)(3) organizations can’t participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office. An organization engages in prohibited political intervention when it:

  • Makes or solicits contributions to or for candidates or political organizations,
  • Endorses a candidate or rates the candidates,
  • Publishes or distributes partisan campaign literature or written statements (including online material), or
  • Lets its representatives speak out about a candidate.

Nonprofits are, however, allowed to conduct nonpartisan activities that educate the public and help them participate in the electoral process as long as these activities are in line with their exempt purpose.

Voter education

Not-for-profits also can provide voter education, including voter registration or get-out-the-vote drives — as long as they’re conducted in a nonpartisan manner. To reduce the odds of bias, the nonprofit should avoid mentioning any candidates or political parties in communications about the activity.

For example, communications related to get-out-the-vote efforts should only urge people to register and vote, and describe the hours and places of registration and voting. Any services offered in connection with the activity, such as rides to polling places, should be offered to everyone, regardless of political affiliation.

Voter guides

Nonprofits might compile the voting records of incumbents or document candidates’ responses to questions posed by the organization. Regardless of its form, a voter guide must cover a broad range of issues and refrain from judging the candidates or their positions.

Voting records can be considered political campaign intervention if they identify any incumbent as a candidate or compare an incumbent’s positions with those of other candidates or the organization. Such guides are particularly risky if published simultaneously with a political campaign or aimed at areas where campaigns are occurring.

Candidate questionnaires

Organizations sometimes use questionnaires to collect and distribute information about candidates and the issues. But they also can be a way to intervene in a campaign.

To reduce the risk of prohibited intervention, nonprofits should phrase their questions neutrally, in a way that doesn’t suggest a preferred answer. For example, “Do you support saving innocent lives through gun control?” probably won’t fly. Further, an organization should send the questionnaire to all candidates for a particular office, publish all responses received (without substantive editing) and avoid comparing the responses to its own positions.

Candidate appearances

Candidate appearances can take a variety of forms. For example, so-called “noncandidate” appearances take place when candidates appear in a role other than that of the candidate or to speak on a topic other than the election.

To pass muster with the IRS, the host organization should maintain a nonpartisan atmosphere at the event and ensure that no campaigning activity goes on. None of the organization’s representatives should mention the campaign or the invitee’s candidacy. And any announcement of the event should clearly indicate the capacity in which the candidate is appearing and, again, avoid mention of his or her candidacy.

If a candidate is invited to speak as a candidate , the organization is engaging in political campaign intervention unless it gives all qualified candidates an equal opportunity to speak, meaning substantially similar invitations and events. The organization also must make clear that it neither supports nor opposes any speaker’s candidacy.

Candidate forums, with all of the politicians appearing together, are generally permissible. But the organization must see that the candidates are treated fairly and impartially.

Consequences of political intervention

The IRS itself admits it has only proposed revocation in a few egregious cases. Engaging in political campaign intervention can lead to excise taxes on the amount of money spent on the prohibited activity, reputational damage and even, in the worst case, revocation of your organization’s exempt status. When in doubt, make sure your political activity is clearly nonpartisan.

 

Sidebar: What about lobbying?

A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying to influence legislation, but too much could jeopardize tax-exempt status. (But a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may further its exempt purposes with lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its tax exemption.)

A nonprofit will be regarded as lobbying if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting or opposing legislation. An organization that advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation also is lobbying.

Organizations can, however, get involved in public policy issues without the activity being deemed lobbying. For example, a nonprofit could conduct educational meetings or prepare and disseminate educational materials.

Whether a not-for-profit’s actual lobbying efforts constitute a “substantial part” of its overall activities — and, thus, aren’t permitted — is determined on the basis of the relevant facts and circumstances. Those include the amount of time devoted (by both employees and volunteers) and the relative amount of expenditures made by the organization for the activity.

© 2016

This material is generic in nature. Before relying on the material in any important matter, users should note date of publication and carefully evaluate its accuracy, currency, completeness, and relevance for their purposes, and should obtain any appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances.

Share Post:

By Katrina Arona February 19, 2025
The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) which took effect on January 1, 2024 required "reporting companies" in the United States to disclose information about their beneficial owners to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). In May 2024, a lawsuit was filed claiming that Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution in passing the CTA. Background: December 3, 2024 in the Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Judge Amos Mazzant of the United States District Court (Eastern District of Texas/Sherman Division) issued a preliminary nationwide injunction barring the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). December 23, 2024 the Nationwide Injunction is lifted and filing deadlines are reinstated. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Department of Treasury (FinCEN) may again enforce the CTA. FinCEN has not extended any filing deadlines. Therefore, all reporting companies should file immediately any beneficial ownership information reports (BOIRs) that were already due, and reporting companies formed prior to 2024 should file their BOIRs by January 13, 2025 (extended from January 1, 2025). December 27, 2024 the federal appeals court on Thursday reinstated a nationwide injuction halting enforcement of beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements, reversing an order the same court issued earlier this week. FinCEN issued an updated alert on its BOI information page , saying that companies can voluntarily submit BOI reports. February 7, 2025 FinCEN will consider changes to the BOI reporting requirements if a court grants the government's request for a stay of a nationwide injunction in a Texas case, according to a motion filed Wednesday, February 5th. If the stay is granted, FinCEN will extend BOI filing deadlines for 30 days, the government said in its filing in Samantha Smith and Robert Means v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, No. 6:24-CV-336 (E.D. Texas 1/7/25). BOI reporting is currently voluntary, pending further legal developments. Businesses and stakeholders should stay alert for additional updates as the situation evolves. Current Status: February 18, 2025 A federal court lifted the last remaining nationwide injunction stopping BOI reporting requirements. FinCEN which enforces BOI requirements under the CTA said it would extend filing deadline for initial, updated, and/or corrected BOI reports to March 21. However, reporting companies that were previously given a deadline later than March 21 may file their initial BOI report by that later deadline. Resources for consideration: March 21 BOI reporting deadline set; further delay possible BOI Injunction Lifted FinCEN BOI Center
By Katrina Arona February 12, 2025
February 7, 2025 FinCEN will consider changes to the BOI reporting requirements if a court grants the government's request for a stay of a nationwide injunction in a Texas case, according to a motion filed Wednesday, February 5th. If the stay is granted, FinCEN will extend BOI filing deadlines for 30 days, the government said in its filing in Samantha Smith and Robert Means v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, No. 6:24-CV-336 (E.D. Texas 1/7/25). BOI reporting is currently voluntary, pending further legal developments. Businesses and stakeholders should stay alert for additional updates as the situation evolves
By Katrina Arona February 10, 2025
Some nonprofit executives try to control as much as they can. But micromanagement isn’t conducive to creating an effective team.
Show More
Share by: