Non Cash Deductions Threatened
(April 1, 2005) The Senate Finance Committee currently is
developing legislation that could impose many new and unnecessary
legislative and regulatory burdens as well as charges and
fees on the charitable sector. At this time, the Senate
Finance Committee has scheduled hearings on these matters
for April 5, 2005.
Harmful Changes to Non-Cash Contribution Rules
One of the most troublesome proposals would eliminate or
modify deductions for non-cash—“in-kind”—charitable
contributions (possibly affecting everything from real estate,
art and intellectual property, to food, books and household
items). Following upon its successful assault on the vehicle
donation rules late last year, the Senate Finance Committee
is now considering fundamental changes to gifts of just
about everything else.
These Changes are Unnecessary
The proposals were ostensibly created in order to reduce
valuation misstatements. However, stronger IRS policing
of donor valuations, not draconian measures that strip charitable
giving incentives, is a much less intrusive response to
perceived valuation abuses. The inability of the Internal
Revenue Service to address improper donor behavior should
not result in penalties for charities and the communities
and populations which they serve. For that reason, AFP urges
Congress to leave the existing in-kind charitable gift rules
untouched.
A Coalition to Oppose These Proposals
In response to the Finance Committee’s proposed changes,
AFP is forming a coalition with other charitable organizations
to oppose the elimination or modification of non-cash charitable
donations. However, we need your help, too! Below is a sample
letter that members can use to send to their two U.S. senators
and Member of Congress to urge them not to implement needless
regulatory reforms of the charitable sector.
What You Can Do
Send a letter to your two U.S. senators. Sample letter HERE.
Click
here if you don’t know who your U.S. senators
are.
Some tips
Personalize your letter – it will receive more attention
if it doesn’t look like every other letter. Fax your
letters. Mail takes too long and emails receive scant attention.
Click
here for all your senator's numbers and a whole
lot more. A written expression of your concerns is best
followed by a call.
NONPROFITS IMPLEMENT RECORD-RETENTION POLICIES TO SHARPEN
GOVERNANCE
(March 31, 2005) In an effort to improve internal governance,
many nonprofits are now implementing record-retention policies
as part of prudent business practices, according to the second
annual Grant Thornton National Board Governance Survey for
Not-for-Profit Organizations. The survey results from the
accounting firm showed that 83 percent of respondents reported
keeping high to medium levels of documentation. Of the 700
respondents, 32 percent indicated a high level of record retention,
51 percent a medium level and 17 percent a low level.
Much of the increased internal evaluation within the nonprofit
sector is in response to the Enron and other accounting scandals
of 2000. While Congressional legislation was established to
improve controls within publicly-held companies (Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002), many nonprofits also have adopted these policies
as a matter of sound business.
However, as they form record-retention policies, many nonprofit
organizations are asking which documents need to be saved
and for how long.
“Records-retention policies depend on the nature of
the organization and factors including donor base, resources,
asset mix and legal and statutory need to be considered,”
said Charles E. Violand, Grant Thornton assurance partner
and southeast region not-for-profit leader. “The bottom
line is that there’s no one-size-fits-all records-retention
policy for not-for-profit organizations.”
To tailor a policy accordingly, the firm
suggests following these steps:
List -- A focus group should list all factors that
impact the organization’s records-retention.
Evaluate -- Look at requirements of your donor base
and funding sources in deciding what documents need to be
maintained and for how long. Consider occupancy and storage
costs and associated employee/volunteer time during this stage.
Implement -- Categorize documents and store using identified
processes. Establish also a disposition policy that specifies
when documents can be removed.
Inform -- Educate your staff and board of the new policy,
which should be included in the organization's personnel booklet
and be reinforced often by senior leadership.
“A records-retention policy shouldn’t be looked
at as a shield against getting sued,” Violand said.
“It should be viewed as part of prudent business procedures
to protect assets and the organization's overall mission.”
ISPS BLOCK 22 PERCENT OF PERMISSION-BASED EMAIL, BELIEVING
IT TO BE SPAM
(March 28, 2005) A full 22 percent of all permission-based
email was blocked by the top Internet service providers (ISPs)
during 2004, according to a Return Path study. Return Path
is a New York-based organization that provides email marketing
and delivery services. Corporate e-mail mistakenly considered
spam by ISPs is a growing problem, up 3.3 percent over the
second half of 2003, noted the study.
Return Path monitored 50,000 marketing and transactional campaigns
through its Mailbox Monitor service between January and December
2004. Blocking for each campaign varied from a low of 1 percent
to a high of 57 percent.
In addition, blocking rates varied widely by ISP from a low
of 5 percent to a high of 36 percent. Companies saw the best
delivery success at Earthlink, BellSouth and CompuServe, which
blocked only 5 percent, 6 percent and 8 percent, respectively.
The most blocking and filtering (36 percent) occurred at RoadRunner,
followed by Mail.com (34 percent) and Comcast (31 percent).
The ISPs monitored represent more than 80 percent of the mailing
lists for most corporate mailers, said Return Path.
“Email deliverability success is up to each corporate
mailer,” says George Bilbrey, general manager of Return
Path’s Delivery Assurance division. “ISPs continually
change their email acceptance standards to deal with the increase
in spam hitting their systems, so companies need to be vigilant
about following the email rules if they want to reach the
inbox.”
