On 12/31/19 the IRS published the reference amounts for mileage rates for 2020. Their announcement:
Breaking news today suggests the so-called parking lot tax, which creates a tax liability for charities in certain circumstances for the cost of parking provided to employees, might be repealed shortly.
Went browsing around the web last night and found the settlement agreement for the AG’s case against the Giving Children Hope charity. Yesterday’s post discussed that case at length.
The National Association of State Charity Officials has a reprint of the California AG’s press release.
Included in the article is a link to the signed Assurance of Voluntary Compliance., which was approved by a judge on January 22, 2019.
Following are a few of the highlights from the signed agreement. In particular, the agreement fills in some of the details I was wondering about.
Remember my previous comment that I could see no reason one particular board member was included in the case? He was chair of the board from 2014 through 2016, according to paragraph 2. On the settlement agreement, he signed as chairman on behalf of the charity which agreed to dissolve itself.
The CPA cited in the case provided accounting services to GCH from January 2014 through June 2017 (para 2).
In paragraph 10a the AG asserts GCH had at least 25 transactions in which it had one of two controlled subsidiaries purchase medicine from a named wholesaler in the Netherlands for a “very minimal price” and then had the controlled charities donate the meds back to GCH.
The IRS has published the 2019 standard mileage rates. New rate for transportation and reimbursements is 58 cents, which is up from 54.5 cents in 2018. That is an increase of 3.5 cents.
There are a few recent articles discussing enforcement action by the California Attorney General regarding the accounting for donated medicine used by three national charities. Looks like the issue is beginning to get a bit wider attention than this teeny tiny little ol’ blog.
Inflated Expectations / What’s going on with foreign affairs nonprofit Food for the Poor? from Slate on May 10, 2018, provides a non-technical description of the issues raised by the California AG.
Good explanation of medicine valuation, near-term expiry, joint cost allocation, principal market, access, and materiality issues without ever using those words. Even hints at daisy chain and SFAS 136 agency transactions.
Let me suggest a couple of exercises for accountants in the audience.
First, read through the article another time identifying all the accounting issues touched upon. Think about that as an illustration of how to describe technical accounting issues without being technical. (Yeah, I know, what a crazy idea – explaining stuff so people will understand.)
Second exercise is to read through the article thinking about how non-accountants would respond to each of those ideas if it was the first time they had heard about it.
How many of those GAAP accounting treatments would actually make sense?
How many would seem flat-out silly to people who haven’t spent years working with accounting rules?
Description of one shipment
Regulators have serious problems with how the nonprofit community is accounting for donated medicine.May 8, 2018, 1:25 pm
There is a serious problem in the nonprofit community in terms of accounting for donated medicine. Three major enforcement actions by various regulators tell us that the regulators have serious reservations about how charities are dealing with gifts-in-kind.
Those of us working in the charity world need to ponder what could be making so many regulators so concerned.
50 Attorneys General
The rumors in the wind mentioned in my next post were discussed in 2012. That turned into a major enforcement action by the Federal Trade Commission and all 50 state Attorneys General against 4 cancer charities. (See my posts under the tag FTC.) That was in 2015.
I’m not aware of any followup by that group and I’ll guess the reason is the complexity of coordinating a 50+ member committee.
For the FTC and all 50 Attorneys General to all be on the same page on an issue should serve as a warning they believe there is a serious problem.
California A.G. files cease & desist order against 3 large charities alleging donated medicine was overvaluedMarch 20, 2018, 5:00 am
As mentioned previously, the conflict over donated pharmaceuticals has heated up again. It seemed to have faded away over the last couple of years but has now gained renewed visibility.
The California Attorney General has filed cease and desist orders against three large, high-profile charities who received between 70% and 98% of their revenue from medical GIK.
A complaint was filed against another charity for overvaluation of GIK. That charity essentially conceded the accusations in a stipulated settlement, agreeing to terminate the charity’s existence. That action is discussed here.
The three large charities are Food for the Poor, Inc., MAP International, and Catholic Medical Mission Board, Inc.
The cease and desist orders can be found at the AG’s web site:
- Cease and Desist Order – Food for the Poor, pdf
- Cease and Desist Order – MAP International, pdf
- Cease and Desist Order – Catholic Medical Mission Board, pdf
This is a long post, approaching 2,200 words. Might be worthwhile to get a fresh cup of coffee before diving in.
This post will walk through a number of key comments in the cease and desist orders, which I’ll referred to as C&DO. Because the C&DO are roughly parallel to each other, I’ll walk through the MAP order and add comments on the CMMB and FftP order where it is helpful. The CMMB C&DO does not have the comments regarding state charitable filing requirements.