|
Posted by Stuart Bronstein on June 17, 2008, 5:40 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> Stuart Bronstein wrote:
> ...
>> unreimbursed expenditures made incident to the rendition of
>> services to an organization contributions to which are deductible
>> ...
>
> This is only indirectly related, but the question raised a related
> one in my mind --
>
> I read the above earlier and wondered but could find no
> clarification--is _any_ organization which is 501(c) (3) an
> "organization contributions to which are deductible" solely by
> virtue of being that?
Sort of. If it qualifies under §501(c)(3) contributions to it are
presumptively deductible, unless the organization doesn't meet the
requirements of §501(a) and §170(c).
> To bring it back to the point of the thread ( :) ); if yes, I
> agree w/ Stu providing the "sensibility" test is passed.
That's not my test, that's the regulation. The only thing I had to
read into that was that the nonprofit had to benefit somehow from the
services performed for which the deduction is sought.
Stu
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by dpb on June 17, 2008, 9:33 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Stuart Bronstein wrote:
...
> Sort of. If it qualifies under §501(c)(3) contributions to it are
> presumptively deductible, unless the organization doesn't meet the
> requirements of §501(a) and §170(c).
Can you summarize those in a nutshell?
I'm curious as the training I keep referring to implied to me that some
fund raising activities can be non-deductible because funds can be
earmarked for specific activities or in conjunction w/ some other
organizations. Those seemed similar enough to the case of the contests
being organized by others than the organization of which Dick is a
member as to make it dependent on what the charter actually says and
whether they really are qualified or not...
>> To bring it back to the point of the thread ( :) ); if yes, I
>> agree w/ Stu providing the "sensibility" test is passed.
>
> That's not my test, that's the regulation. The only thing I had to
> read into that was that the nonprofit had to benefit somehow from the
> services performed for which the deduction is sought.
...
Not sure what you're driving at here--I was simply agreeing w/ you that
the amount of time involved actually judging, etc., would have to
satisfy the reg's which I shorthandedly referred to as the sensibility
test. (As in, one of the examples of non-deductible travel was one of
essentially pleasure yachting w/ a little whale or other
species-counting on the way).
--
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Stuart Bronstein on June 18, 2008, 1:10 am
Please log in for more thread options > Stuart Bronstein wrote:
> ...
>> Sort of. If it qualifies under §501(c)(3) contributions to it
>> are presumptively deductible, unless the organization doesn't
>> meet the requirements of §501(a) and §170(c).
>
> Can you summarize those in a nutshell?
Basically you're disqualified if you do things you're not supposed to
do. Go read those code sections yourself and they will refer you to
others. You can find it here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
In the blanks they ask you for title number and code number. Code
number is obvious, title number is 26.
> I'm curious as the training I keep referring to implied to me that
> some fund raising activities can be non-deductible because funds
> can be earmarked for specific activities or in conjunction w/ some
> other organizations. Those seemed similar enough to the case of
> the contests being organized by others than the organization of
> which Dick is a member as to make it dependent on what the charter
> actually says and whether they really are qualified or not...
It really depends on the specific circumstances. If the earmarked
purpose fits within the organization's exempt purpose and no donor
gets a personal benefit from it, it's normally not a problem.
In this case the real issue is whether or not the beer judges are
doing something that supports the judging organization, or just doing
something that supports the beer contests. The impression I have
from what Dick said is that the beer contests pay the nonprofit to
supply certified judges, and to certify the contests. Because of
that, working as a beer judge has a direct benefit to the nonprofit
because it gets them money. When you do something that has that kind
of direct benefit to a nonprofit, the costs you incur to do it may be
deductible.
Stu
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Tom Russ on June 17, 2008, 9:34 pm
Please log in for more thread options > > Stuart Bronstein wrote:
...
> > To bring it back to the point of the thread ( :) ); if yes, I
> > agree w/ Stu providing the "sensibility" test is passed.
>
> That's not my test, that's the regulation. The only thing I had to
> read into that was that the nonprofit had to benefit somehow from the
> services performed for which the deduction is sought.
I suppose this turns a bit on what "benefit somehow" really means.
It would seem to me, as a layman, that the nonprofit would not have to
directly benefit, in the sense of getting a tangible benefit, such as
money. It would seem that having their charitable purpose furthered
(in their name) would suffice. Would you agree with this?
I mean, if say, a volunteer with an eligible youth group incurred
expenses to take the members on an appropriate outing, that would be a
deductible expense, even if the youth group organization itself didn't
directly benefit. But the outing would be furthering the purpose of
the organization, right?
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Stuart Bronstein on June 18, 2008, 1:21 am
Please log in for more thread options >> > Stuart Bronstein wrote:
> ...
>> > To bring it back to the point of the thread ( :) ); if yes, I
>> > agree w/ Stu providing the "sensibility" test is passed.
>>
>> That's not my test, that's the regulation. The only thing I had
>> to read into that was that the nonprofit had to benefit somehow
>> from the services performed for which the deduction is sought.
>
> I suppose this turns a bit on what "benefit somehow" really means.
>
> It would seem to me, as a layman, that the nonprofit would not
> have to directly benefit, in the sense of getting a tangible
> benefit, such as money. It would seem that having their
> charitable purpose furthered (in their name) would suffice. Would
> you agree with this?
In some cases yes, but not necessarily all. If what they do supports
the main core of the nonprofit's purpose, then that kind of
generalized good work might allow those who do it to deduct their
expenses. But if it's fairly tangential the answer is probably not.
In one case a court said that evangelists for the Mormon Church were
not directed, controlled or supervised by the church. Still, that
was considered to be an important core purpose of the church as a
whole, and the expenses incurred in evangelizing were allowed.
Smith, 60 TC 988 (1973).
> I mean, if say, a volunteer with an eligible youth group incurred
> expenses to take the members on an appropriate outing, that would
> be a deductible expense, even if the youth group organization
> itself didn't directly benefit. But the outing would be
> furthering the purpose of the organization, right?
That's not a benefit to the organization but doing something on
behalf of the organization that is within its exempt purpose. If it
looks like the trip is done primarily for the benefit of the kids and
primarily to satisfy its exempt purpose, it may well be ok. But if
it looks like an excuse to take a vacation, the IRS will deny it.
Stu
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Corporate Charitable Deductions | January 21, 2007, 4:18 pm |
| Charitable deductions question | March 10, 2008, 11:55 pm |
| Charitable deductions for temporary loan of primary residence for fundraiser | January 15, 2008, 7:48 pm |
| Charitable Gifting from an IRA | November 12, 2006, 3:44 pm |
| Qualified Charitable Distribution from IRA | January 7, 2007, 11:11 pm |
| Estate tax and out-of-US charitable will beneficiary | January 29, 2007, 2:10 am |
| Volunteer Charitable Expenses | February 23, 2007, 7:09 am |
| Charitable event:Tax implications? | June 24, 2007, 10:41 pm |
| Charitable event:Tax implications? | September 24, 2007, 8:48 pm |
| Charitable deduction question | April 7, 2008, 1:59 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap