Committee analysis of California AB 1181

May 24, 2019, 7:41 am

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

Update: The Senate rules committee assigned the bill to the Judiciary committee a few days ago, 5/22/19.

The Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection prepared a seven page analysis of AB 1181. The proposed bill, which has since passed the Assembly, would change accounting for GIK when the donor says the donated materials may only be distributed overseas.

Financial reports filed with the California Attorney General and solicitations to citizens of California would have to comply with the new accounting.

The following will be a loooong read, but the analysis by the committee is helpful for understanding the bill. There is good background in the discussion.

I will quote the analysis and provide some comments along the way. I quote the material without permission because it is a public document.

Highlights include the AG describing a successful enforcement action in which a charity turned a $225,000 purchase of meds into a $34,900,000 donation. Also, a representative of the California Society of CPAs makes an invalid argument against the bill.

From the committee analysis:

2) Author’s statement: According to the author, “AB 1181 addresses reported practices by some charities that grossly inflate the value of their publicly reported revenue and program expense, especially with respect to in-kind donations of pharmaceutical drugs. Overvaluation of the gifts-in-kind leads to an inflated total revenue for the charity which makes the charity appear more successful and efficient to the public and potential donors. An inflated revenue, in turn, can serve as a basis to hide excessive fundraising and administrative costs because these expenses would now appear smaller in comparison to the inflated total revenue. Inflated reports may also increase the charity’s ranking by charity watchdogs. This type of accounting practice is manipulative, misleading, and inconsistent with state law that safeguards transparency, fair reporting, and ensure a level playing field for honest charities that report accurate data to the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts.”

At an overall level, the statement above provides a survey of the regulator’s and author’s concern regarding overvaluation of GIKs.

In particular, notice the last comment saying charities without large volumes of donated materials are at a disadvantage when appealing for donations from consumers.

Back to the analysis:

3) Addresses longstanding concerns with overvaluation of gift-in-kind donations: Under California law, the AG oversees registered charities to ensure that funds received are properly managed and devoted to charitable programs. The office derives its authority from the Charitable Purposes Act, which was originally enacted in 1959. This law generally requires every person or entity that holds or solicits property for charitable purposes in California to file specified documents and information, including annual financial statements, with the AG. These reports are in turn used by the AG to investigate and litigate cases of charity fraud and mismanagement by trustees and directors of charities. This bill seeks to address longstanding concerns with charities overvaluing gift-in-kind donations, a type of charitable donation where goods and services are given instead of cash to buy needed goods or services.

As far back as 2012, Forbes reported on a multi-state effort to crack down on nonprofits who greatly exaggerate the value of donated goods to make themselves look more successful than they actually are.

“In theory, there’s nothing wrong with gift-in-kind itself. A donation to a worthy charity is a donation to a worthy charity. The problem comes largely with the valuation. Cash is easily valued at, well, the amount of cash. But freed of the precision that cash provides, some charities value donated goods at many times the market price. The overvaluation makes a charity seem larger and more popular than it is, and also increases–artificially–financial efficiency ratios that many donors look at.” (Barrett, Charity Regulators (Finally) Eye Overvaluation Of Donated Goods, Forbes (Nov. 8, 2012).)

Read the rest of this entry »

Other discussion of A.B. 1181, which would change accounting for GIK limited for distribution outside U.S.

May 22, 2019, 7:52 am

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

There has not been much visible discussion of California Assembly Bill #1181 (AB 1181). Here are the notable items I’ve seen.

Mark Hrywna reported on May 14, 2019 that the Bill to Recalculate GIK Value Advances In California. That is the only detailed article I’ve seen on the bill.

ECFA provides reaction from FASB and ECFA: California Bill Would Impose New Burdens on Nonprofits and Undermine National Accounting Standards.

Read the rest of this entry »

Has time run out on cleaning up GIK valuation?

May 21, 2019, 4:30 am

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

Looks like the time to clean up the GIK valuation issue might be gone.

After reading about California AB 1181, I will guess you rather strongly dislike the proposed legislation that is rapidly making its way through the legislature. You probably have some serious heartburn about the bill.

In recent years, there has been major enforcement effort by:

Read the rest of this entry »

Legislative effort in California to change accounting for Gifts in Kind – part 2

May 20, 2019, 1:05 pm

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

Previous post mentioned the Assembly of the California legislature has passed Assembly Bill No. 1181 (A.B. 1181) which, if passed by the Senate, would require charities to use overseas valuations for donated items which are restricted by donors for distribution overseas.

Paraphrase of proposed changes

The wording is simple enough that readers of this blog can figure it out for themselves. I will summarize the changes anyway.

There are three main changes.

Read the rest of this entry »

Legislative effort in California to change accounting for Gifts in Kind – part 1

May 20, 2019, 5:00 am

Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

The Assembly of the California legislature has passed Assembly Bill No. 1181 (A.B. 1181) which, if passed by the Senate, would require charities to use overseas valuations for donated items which are restricted by donors for distribution overseas.

As discussed in a series of earlier posts, the Attorney General has lost the substantive issues on cease and desist orders against three charities in a hearing. The Administrative Law Judge in the case found the expert witnesses for the charities was more persuasive that the expert witness for the AG. Thus the ALJ indicate he will decide in favor of the charities’ interpretation of GAAP. I don’t think a written ruling has been issued yet.

Proposed changes in law

The current law with changes made by this legislation are as follows, with red strikeout showing the removed text and blue italic showing new text.

Read the rest of this entry »

Background on appeal of California AG’s C&D order for GIK valuation: Quotes from 2018 audit risk alert – part 7

April 4, 2019, 7:26 am

How do you value a pallet of those meds? Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

Previous post gave background on the 2017 and 2018 nonprofit audit risk alerts from the AICPA. The timing and contents of the 2018 alert were discussed.  The small discussion of GIK in the 2017 risk alert was quoted.

This post continues with some comments on the 2018 edition and then a long quote from that document.

You might want to read the previous comments for background to this post. Also might want to get a fresh cup of coffee and maybe a snack. This will be a loooong post.


Not-for-Profit Entities Industry Developments – 2018 / Audit Risk Alert

The 2018 risk alert added extensive discussion of valuing GIK, with a particular focus on pharmaceuticals and even more so for those which have a donor imposed restriction on the use of asset.

Ponder for yourself how this discussion applies to an asset that is restricted for use by any party who gets subsequent possession of the asset at any point during the remainder of the asset’s life. Keep in mind, meds have to be destroyed at their expiration date.

Quite simply, for the meds under discussion the restriction on the asset lasts as long as the asset lasts, regardless of who has the asset.

Also ponder the materiality level of the valuation when my impression is the AG seems to be claiming there is something in the range of a 10:1 ratio of US prices to international prices. From the few examples provided by the AG in its complaint, I infer that ratio may apply to just about all donated GIK.

Think back to the days when millions of doses of mebendazole were being booked by so many charities.  Back then the ratio of US to international prices for that med was something in the range of 350:1 or even 500:1. (If you don’t believe me, take the $10+ inferred US price per pill which was routinely used to recognize income and divide by 3 cents or 2 cents or less per pill offered by multiple vendors in the international market. One charity was reportedly recognizing revenue at $15+ per pill.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Background on appeal of California AG’s C&D order for GIK valuation: Quotes from 2017 audit risk alert – part 6

April 2, 2019, 8:23 am

Where does one look to find a value for those medicines? Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.

In previous posts discussing the California AG’s cease and desist order against three charities, which you can read by clicking this tag, I have mentioned the 2018 audit risk alert from the AICPA. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) explicitly cited paragraph .56 as support for the charities’ position.

As mentioned previously, the discussion in paragraphs .53 through .57 was new in 2018. I can find no similar comments, or even reference to the issues, in the several years before.

Likewise, the discussion in the section title Challenges in Auditing GIK, found in paragraphs .172 through .181, was new in 2018. I cannot find any comparable comments in the 2017 or 2016 audit risk alert after browsing those documents and running multiple word searches.

The NFP audit risk alert is routinely published in the summer, with references to economic statistics such as GDP change, unemployment, and interest rates from the prior year fourth quarter. That means each year’s NFP risk alert is written and put into final form somewhere between late January (when 4th quarter stats start becoming available) and about April/May (allowing for editing and production time).

Update: On day after publishing this post, saw a twitter comment pointing to a webcast on May 1, 2019:  Not-for-Profit Entities: 2019 Audit Risk Alert. The webcast will update auditors on issues affecting their 2019 audits. This will be based on the 2019 edition of the risk alert. The 2019 edition is not yet available on the AICPA’s web site. I don’t know what their production cycle is, but the upcoming webcast suggests to me the document is nearing completion. It isn’t done, but getting close.

Here is a question for you to ponder for yourself:  Was the discussion in paragraphs .53 through .57 and .172 through .181 added to the 2018 NFP audit risk alert in response to the AG’s C&D order?

Let me spell out some of the things visible to me:

Read the rest of this entry »