Following initial reports that the measure had failed, officials announced Sunday that Arizona voters approved Proposition 203, a measure that will legalize medical marijuana, by a razor thin margin of 4,300 votes.
As we have pointed out before ,Proposition 203 requires medical marijuana dispensaries to be formed as nonprofit entities but does not require that they incorporate or that they operate on a tax-exempt basis. Accordingly, we expect most dispensaries to operate as nonprofit corporations that are taxed as for-profits to avoid the burdensome restrictions applicable to tax-exempt organizations.
The idea behind Code Section 502’s prohibition on exemption for Feeder Organizations is that one cannot convert a for-profit business into a charity simply by contributing all of the profits to charitable organizations. The policy rationale is that permitting businesses to operate on a tax-free basis just because they donate their proceeds to charity permits unfair competition in the marketplace.
Nonprofits may finally get some relief from the burdensome record-keeping requirements associated with employer provided cell phones. Currently, if an […]
To qualify as a U.S. “Friends of” affiliate of a foreign charity, U.S. law dictates how the U.S. organization must relate to its foreign affiliate. Under United States tax law, U.S. Friends of organizations must be operated independently of the foreign organizations they support.
Carter Law Group is pleased to announce that B Labs has certified us as a B Corporation, Arizona’s first!
We are used to hearing about hostile takeovers of for-profit companies but a lesser known phenomenon is the hostile takeover […]
Proposition 203 authorizes a limited number of medical marijuana dispensaries to operate in Arizona but requires that they be operated on a not-for-profit basis. However, Proposition 203 does not require these not-for-profit dispensaries to apply for tax-exempt status nor are they required to incorporate.
Many boards include directors who are serving “ex officio.” There is widespread misunderstanding regarding the meaning of the term. Ex officio members of a board are serving on the board “by reason of their office,” rather than by being elected or appointed to the position.
I have blogged about this before, but I thought a reminder was in order. The October 15 deadline for tax-exempt […]
A social welfare organization is an nonprofit organization exempt under Code Section 501(c)(4). It is similar to a 501(c)(3) organization in that its income is generally exempt from tax and is subject to the same limits on private inurement and excessive payments to insiders. It is different, however, in that contributions to it are not deductible as charitable contributions and it is able to conduct unlimited lobbying activities. Section 501(c)(4) exempts:
* nonprofit civic organizations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare; and
* local associations of employees whose earnings are devoted to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
“We are excited to receive the highest ranking from U.S.News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings. When I made the decision earlier this year to build my own firm so that I could serve clients in new and better ways, I did not expect to receive national recognition this early on.” said Ellis Carter, founder of Carter Law Group. “The distinction of being selected as one of the best nonprofit/charity law firms in the country is a wonderful affirmation that our efforts to serve clients in innovative ways and create a more socially responsible model are working.”
The term “Fiscal Sponsorship” describes an arrangement between a non-profit organization with 501(c)(3) tax exempt status and a project, often a new charitable effort, conducted by an organization, group, or an individual that does not have 501(c)(3) status. Fiscal sponsorship permits the exempt sponsor to accept funds restricted for the sponsored project on the project’s behalf. The sponsor, in turn, accepts the responsibility to ensure the funds are properly spent to achieve the project’s goals. This arrangement is useful for new charitable endeavors that want to “test the waters” before deciding whether to form an independent entity as well as temporary projects or coalitions that are looking for a neutral party to administer their funds.
California may soon offer a new corporate form for social enterprises. The California legislature is considering a bill, S.B. 1463, that would create a new corporate form called the Flexible Purpose Corporation. Similar in purpose to the L3C and the Benefit Corporation, the Flexible Purpose Corporation would provide directors with more flexibility to pursue environmental and social purposes in addition to profitability. To become a flexible purpose corporation, a company’s articles of incorporation would have to specify a “special purpose” that the corporation engages in, which can include but is not limited to charitable activities.
The Marc Center is a thriving, creative and innovative nonprofit that is thinking strategically about how to achieve its mission through both nonprofit and for-profit ventures that provide vocational opportunities for its clients. The Marc Center is providing vocational opportunities in the areas of food service, packaging services, mailing, filing, and other low tech vocations. During my visit, I had a delicious lunch at a Banner Health facility where a Marc Center of Mesa subsidiary is in charge of food service and even provides catering. Across the country, ventures like these are commonly referred to as double bottom line “social enterprises” because they are making money and fulfilling a social mission at the same time.
The distinction between employee and independent contractor lies in the ability of the employer to determine how work will be performed. For identification purposes, an employee is generally considered to be anyone who performs a service for the employer if the employer can control what will be done and how it will be done. In contrast, an independent contractor is someone who follows an independent trade and offers their services to the public. The person for whom the services are performed has the right to control or determine the result of the work, not how that result is achieved.
Essentially, the “commensurate test” requires 501(c)(3) organizations to conduct charitable activities commensurate in scope with their resources. The idea is that donors fund charities to do charitable works, not to amass a fortune with no clear plan of how the funds will be spent.
Arizona recently amended its gambling laws to make it easier for political organizations, political clubs, booster clubs, and civic clubs […]
Two types of relief are available for small exempt organizations – a filing extension for the smallest organizations required to file Form 990-N, Electronic Notice (e-Postcard), and a Voluntary Compliance Program for small organizations eligible to file Form 990-EZ , Short Form Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax. Small organizations required to file Form 990-N simply need to go to the IRS website, supply the eight information items called for on the form, and electronically file it by Oct. 15, 2010.
Under the Voluntary Compliance Program, larger tax-exempt organizations eligible to file Form 990-EZ (but not eligible to file Form 990-N) must file their delinquent annual information returns by October 15 and pay a compliance fee which is between $100 and $500 depending upon the organization’s revenues. Details about the VCP are on the IRS website , along with frequently asked questions.
Half the Sky, by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, is a deeply disturbing book that somehow manages to disgust, inspire and move the reader to action at the same time. The book is a thoroughly researched portrait of the systematic cultural suppression of women around the world on a scale that is virtually unimaginable to the average American. The authors confront the harsh realities of taboo topics such as female trafficking, fistula and AIDs epidemics, rape as a war tactic, honor killings, vaginal cutting, and blatant educational and economic bias.
Before 1996, the only option the IRS had when faced with a tax-exempt organization that had violated the private inurement rules was to do nothing or to revoke the organization’s tax-exempt status, a penalty that often punished the organization’s beneficiaries more than the insiders who benefited from the inurement. To cure this problem, Code Section 4958 was added to the Internal Revenue Code in 1996 to provide the IRS with an “intermediate” tool between the extremes of either ignoring the problem or revoking the nonprofit’s tax-exempt status.