Tax Debt
Some Combined Federal Campaign Charities Owe Payroll and Other Federal Taxes Gao ID: GAO-06-887 July 28, 2006The continued success of the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), which is administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), is predicated on donor confidence that each donation reaches a legitimate charitable organization. The Ways and Means Committee's review of tax-exempt entities has led to concerns that charities listed in CFC are failing to remit payroll and other taxes to IRS as required by law. Specifically, GAO was asked to determine whether and to what extent (1) charities listed in the 2005 CFC have unpaid payroll and other taxes; (2) selected charities, their directors, or senior officers are abusing the federal tax system; and (3) OPM screens charities for federal tax problems before allowing them to be listed with CFC.
More than 1,280 CFC charities, nearly 6 percent of charities in the OPM-administered 2005 campaign, had tax debts totaling almost $36 million as of September 30, 2005. While the majority of this debt represented payroll taxes, penalties, and interest dating back as far as 1988, the debt also included amounts from annual reporting penalties, excise taxes, exempt organization business income taxes, unemployment taxes, and other types of taxes and penalties. Most of the 1,280 tax delinquent charities (79 percent) owed less than $10,000. Further, at least 170 of the charities with tax debt received about $1.6 billion in federal grants in 2005. All 15 of the charities that we selected for detailed audit and investigation had abusive and potentially criminal activity related to the federal tax system. Specifically, rather than fulfill their role as trustees of this money and forward it to the IRS, the directors and senior officers diverted the money for charity-related expenses, including their own salaries, some of which were in excess of $100,000. Although exempt from federal income tax, charities as employers are required to forward payroll taxes withheld from their employees' wages to the IRS. Willful failure to remit payroll taxes is a felony under U.S. law. We referred all 15 of these charities to the IRS for consideration of additional collection or criminal investigation. OPM does not screen CFC charities for federal tax problems or independently validate with the IRS whether the charity is truly a tax-exempt organization. Federal law prevents OPM from accessing taxpayer information required to screen for tax delinquency. Consequently, OPM was unaware of the charities that owed federal tax debt and cannot provide assurance that the more than 22,000 participating charities are tax-exempt organizations. To demonstrate the vulnerability of this process, GAO created a fictitious charity and successfully applied to three large local campaigns.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-887, Tax Debt: Some Combined Federal Campaign Charities Owe Payroll and Other Federal Taxes
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-887
entitled 'Tax Debt: Some Combined Federal Campaign Charities Owe
Payroll and Other Federal Taxes' which was released on July 28, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Ways and Means, House
of Representatives:
July 2006:
Tax Debt:
Some Combined Federal Campaign Charities Owe Payroll and Other Federal
Taxes:
GAO-06-887:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-887, a report to the Subcommittee on Oversight,
Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The continued success of the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), which is
administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), is predicated
on donor confidence that each donation reaches a legitimate charitable
organization.
The Ways and Means Committee‘s review of tax-exempt entities has led to
concerns that charities listed in CFC are failing to remit payroll and
other taxes to IRS as required by law. Specifically, GAO was asked to
determine whether and to what extent (1) charities listed in the 2005
CFC have unpaid payroll and other taxes; (2) selected charities, their
directors, or senior officers are abusing the federal tax system; and
(3) OPM screens charities for federal tax problems before allowing them
to be listed with CFC.
What GAO Found:
More than 1,280 CFC charities, nearly 6 percent of charities in the
OPM- administered 2005 campaign, had tax debts totaling almost $36
million as of September 30, 2005. While the majority of this debt
represented payroll taxes, penalties, and interest dating back as far
as 1988, the debt also included amounts from annual reporting
penalties, excise taxes, exempt organization business income taxes,
unemployment taxes, and other types of taxes and penalties. Most of the
1,280 tax delinquent charities (79 percent) owed less than $10,000.
Further, at least 170 of the charities with tax debt received about
$1.6 billion in federal grants in 2005. All 15 of the charities that we
selected for detailed audit and investigation had abusive and
potentially criminal activity related to the federal tax system.
Specifically, rather than fulfill their role as trustees of this money
and forward it to the IRS, the directors and senior officers diverted
the money for charity-related expenses, including their own salaries,
some of which were in excess of $100,000. Although exempt from federal
income tax, charities as employers are required to forward payroll
taxes withheld from their employees‘ wages to the IRS. Willful failure
to remit payroll taxes is a felony under U.S. law. We referred all 15
of these charities to the IRS for consideration of additional
collection or criminal investigation.
Table: Examples of Abusive and Potentially Criminal Activity by CFC
Charities:
Type of charity: Museum;
Tax debt: Over $100,000;
Charity activity: Repeatedly underpaid payroll taxes. Federal and local
liens were filed against the charity. The IRS assessed a penalty
against personal assets of the director who admitted to underpaying
payroll taxes to fund operations.
Type of charity: Health Service Provider; Tax debt: Over $400,000;
Charity activity: Repeatedly remitted payroll taxes too late while
accruing interest and penalties. Executives were paid through a
contractor that received $3 million from the charity. Received more
than $2 million in federal grants from the Department of Health and
Human Services.
Type of charity: Mental Health Clinic; Tax debt: Over $1.5 million;
Charity activity: Repeatedly failed to remit or to remit timely payroll
taxes for the last 15 years. Director diverted payroll tax to pay his
and employee salaries.
Source: GAO's analysis of IRS public, and other records.
[End of table]
OPM does not screen CFC charities for federal tax problems or
independently validate with the IRS whether the charity is truly a tax-
exempt organization. Federal law prevents OPM from accessing taxpayer
information required to screen for tax delinquency. Consequently, OPM
was unaware of the charities that owed federal tax debt and cannot
provide assurance that the more than 22,000 participating charities are
tax-exempt organizations. To demonstrate the vulnerability of this
process, GAO created a fictitious charity and successfully applied to
three large local campaigns.
What GAO Recommends:
To ensure donor confidence and improve control over participation in
CFC, GAO recommends that OPM take the following two actions:
* create and maintain a comprehensive database of all local, national,
and international charities that participate in CFC; and
* verify with IRS the tax-exempt status of all charities applying to be
included in the CFC.
OPM concurred with both of our recommendations and stated it had taken
or will take actions to address these recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-887].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Gregory D. Kutz at (202)
512-7455 or kutzg@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Overview of Testimony:
Conclusion:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Testimony on CFC Charities with Unpaid Federal Tax Debt:
Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:
Appendix III: Comments from the Internal Revenue Service:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
July 28, 2006:
The Honorable Jim Ramstad:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Oversight:
Committee on Ways and Means:
The House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On May 25, 2006, we testified before the Subcommittee on Oversight of
the House of Representatives' Committee on Ways and Means on the
results of our audit and investigations of 2005 Combined Federal
Campaign (CFC) charities with unpaid federal taxes.[Footnote 1] CFC,
which is administered and promoted by the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) and about 300 local campaigns, is the only authorized
solicitation of employees in the federal workplace on behalf of
charitable organizations. In order to participate in CFC, an
organization must be recognized as tax-exempt by the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS). Notwithstanding this status, all employers are required
to withhold from their employees' wages payroll taxes for Social
Security, Medicare, and other taxes. Willful failure to remit payroll
taxes is a felony under U.S. law.[Footnote 2] Our work focused on
determining whether and to what extent (1) charities listed in the 2005
CFC had unpaid payroll and other federal taxes; (2) selected charities,
their directors, or senior officers are abusing the federal tax system;
and (3) OPM screens charities for federal tax problems before allowing
them to be listed with CFC.
This report summarizes our testimony, which is reprinted in appendix I,
and makes specific recommendations for corrective actions. We conducted
our audit work from January 2006 through May 2006 in accordance with
U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards. We performed our
investigative work in accordance with standards prescribed by the
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency.
Overview of Testimony:
In our testimony, we stated that more than 1,280 CFC charities, nearly
6 percent of the charities that participated in the OPM-administered
2005 campaign, had federal tax debts totaling $35.6 million as of
September 30, 2005. While the majority of this debt represented payroll
taxes, penalties, and interest dating back as far as 1988, the unpaid
debt also included amounts from annual reporting penalties, excise
taxes, exempt organization business income taxes, unemployment taxes,
and other types of taxes and penalties. Most of the 1,280 delinquent
charities, 79 percent, owed less than $10,000 in delinquent taxes.
Further, in identifying charities with unpaid tax debt we took a
conservative approach, so the $35.6 million in delinquent taxes is
likely understated. For example, the delinquent tax totals do not
include amounts for charities that do not file required tax returns or
taxes for charities that underreport unrelated business income or
payroll taxes.
In addition to receiving exclusive access to the federal workplace, we
also found that more than 170 of these tax-delinquent CFC charities
received about $1.6 billion in federal grants during fiscal year 2005.
Five of the 15 charities we investigated were among the more than 170
charities that received federal grants. These 5 charities received
grants from the Departments of Health and Human Services (not including
Medicaid) and Education that totaled more than $6.5 million.
Our detailed audit and investigation of 15 CFC charities with tax debt
and their directors or senior officers identified abusive and
potentially criminal activity.[Footnote 3] Specifically, we found that
the executives of the 15 charities we investigated failed in their role
as "trustees" to forward payroll taxes to IRS. Although the charities
themselves are exempt from federal income taxes, the charities as
employers are still required by law to withhold amounts from their
employees' wages for Social Security, Medicare, and individual income
taxes. Willful failure to remit payroll taxes is a felony.
Executives from 3 of the 15 selected charities denied owing payroll and
other taxes when IRS records showed otherwise. Another 5 charities'
executives explained that they knowingly withheld payroll taxes in
order to have enough funds available to pay for their salaries and the
salaries of charity employees, in addition to charity expenses. Our
work also showed that several of the executives who potentially could
be assessed trust fund recovery penalties for the debts of their
charities had salaries in excess of $100,000 and owned significant
personal assets. In addition, the independent audit reports for some of
the charities indicated significant cash flow problems. We referred all
15 cases detailed in our report to IRS so that it can determine whether
additional collection action or criminal investigation is warranted.
Neither OPM nor the approximately 300 local campaigns screen charities
for federal tax problems before allowing charities to be listed with
CFC. Neither federal regulations nor OPM policies require federal tax
debt to be considered when determining CFC eligibility. Additionally,
federal law generally prohibits the disclosure of taxpayer data and,
consequently, even if OPM had specific policies to check for unpaid
taxes, it has no access to a specific charity's tax data. Nevertheless,
CFC does not have the internal control necessary to assure donors that
charities listed with and backed by CFC are meeting federal laws.
We also found that OPM and its local campaigns do not validate with IRS
each CFC applicant's tax-exempt status. To be eligible for CFC, a
charity must submit as part of its application a copy of a standard IRS
letter showing that it has received tax-exempt status from IRS under
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.[Footnote 4] To demonstrate the
vulnerability of OPM's lack of validation of tax-exempt status, we
applied as a fictitious charity to three local campaigns using fake
documents and an erroneous IRS taxpayer identification number. In all
three cases, our fictitious charity was accepted into the local CFC.
Further, from our referral of more than 1,300 CFC charities whose
501(c)(3) status we could not confirm using publicly available IRS
data, IRS identified a number of charities that are not valid 501(c)(3)
entities.
Conclusion:
Federal employees have made a notable difference in the lives of those
in need through CFC. The continued success of CFC is predicated on each
donor's confidence in a system that ensures their donations reach
legitimate charitable organizations. Bona fide charities of CFC have
the most to lose when such confidence is shaken because of the abuse of
a small number of charities. Until a governmentwide policy is developed
that addresses availability of federally sponsored benefits to entities
that fail to pay their federal tax obligations, tax delinquent CFC
charities may continue to benefit by participating in CFC and
potentially receiving donations. Further, unless OPM centralizes
charity information and validates whether applicants are legitimate
501(c)(3) organizations, the campaign will also be vulnerable to
entities that fraudulently purport to be charities. These weaknesses
could have devastating consequences for the vast majority of eligible
and tax-compliant charities that are dependent on donor contributions
to support their critical missions.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help ensure continuing donor confidence and improve control over
participation in CFC, we recommend that the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management direct the Director of CFC Operations to take the
following actions:
* create and maintain a comprehensive database of all local, national,
and international charities that participate in CFC; and:
* verify with IRS the tax-exempt status of all charities applying to be
included in CFC.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Both OPM and IRS provided written comments on a draft of this report,
which are reprinted in appendix II and appendix III, respectively. OPM
concurred with both of our recommendations and explained the actions it
has already taken or plans to take to implement them. For example, OPM
has initiated and expects to complete by the fall of 2007 the creation
of a "National Charity Registry" that would provide OPM with the
ability to independently verify data on participating charities. In
addition, OPM has begun implementing a series of steps for verifying
with IRS the tax-exempt status of all charities applying to CFC. OPM
expects to finish this screening for the 2006 Campaign by September 30,
2006. Although we did not make any specific recommendations directly to
IRS, it provided and has agreed to continue providing OPM assistance in
verifying the tax-exempt status of CFC charities. Also, IRS stated it
is reviewing the 15 cases we referred to IRS for collection and
criminal investigation and will take further action if warranted.
As agreed with your offices, we will send copies to interest
congressional committees, the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management, and the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. We
will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact me at (202) 512-7455 or kutzg@gao.gov if you or your
staff have any questions concerning this report. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report.Major contributors are acknowledged in
appendix IV.
Signed by:
Gregory D. Kutz:
Managing Director:
Forensic Audits and Special Investigations:
[End of section]
Appendix I Testimony on CFC Charities with Unpaid Federal Tax Debt:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 11:00 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, May 25, 2006:
Tax Debt:
Some Combined Federal Campaign Charities Owe Payroll and Other Federal
Taxes:
Statement of Gregory D. Kutz, Managing Director Forensic Audits and
Special Investigations:
GAO-06-755T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-755T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Oversight, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) administers the annual
Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), which gave more than 22,000 charities
access to the federal workplace, helping those in need by collecting
more than $250 million in donations during the 2005 campaign. The
success of the campaign is predicated on each donor‘s confidence in a
system that ensures donations reach charitable organizations that have
met the CFC‘s specific eligibility requirements and are legitimate
charities. For example, to be eligible, each charity must have formally
received from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax-exemption
designation under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
The Subcommittee on Oversight is reviewing tax-exempt status entities
and asked GAO to determine whether charitable organizations
participating in the CFC were remitting their payroll and other taxes
to the IRS as required by law. Specifically, GAO was asked to
investigate and determine whether and to what extent (1) charities
listed in the 2005 CFC have unpaid payroll and other taxes; (2)
selected charities, their directors or senior officers are abusing the
federal tax system; and (3) OPM screens charities for federal tax
problems before allowing them to be listed with the CFC.
What GAO Found:
More than 1,280 CFC charities, or about 6 percent of charities in the
OPM- administered 2005 campaign, had tax debts totaling approximately
$36 million as of September 30, 2005. The majority of delinquent
charities owed less than $10,000. Approximately $28 million of this
debt represented payroll taxes, penalties, and interest dating back as
far as 1988. The remaining $8 million represented annual reporting
penalties, excise taxes, exempt organization business income,
unemployment taxes, and other types of taxes and penalties during this
same period. Further, at least 170 of the charities with tax debt
received about $1.6 billion in federal grants in 2005.
GAO investigated 15 CFC charities, selected primarily for the amount
and age of their outstanding tax debt. All 15 charities engaged in
abusive and potentially criminal activity related to the federal tax
system. Although exempt from certain taxes (e.g., federal income tax),
these charities had not forwarded payroll taxes withheld from their
employees along with other taxes to the IRS. Willful failure to remit
payroll taxes is a felony under U.S. law. However, rather than fulfill
their role as trustees of this money and forward it to the IRS, the
directors and senior officers diverted the money for charity-related
expenses, including their own salaries, some of which were in excess of
$100,000. We referred all 15 of these charities to the IRS for
consideration of additional collection or criminal investigation.
Table: Examples of Abusive and Potentially Criminal Activity by CFC
Charities:
Type of charity: Museum:
Tax debt: Over $100,000:
Charity activity: Repeatedly underpaid payroll taxes. Federal and local
liens were filed against the charity. The IRS assessed a penalty
against personal assets of the director who admitted to underpaying
payroll taxes to fund operations.
Type of charity: Health service provider: Tax debt: Over $400,000:
Charity activity: Repeatedly remitted payroll taxes late while accruing
interest and penalties. Executives were paid through a contractor that
received $3 million from the charity. Received more than $2 million in
federal grants from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Type of charity: Mental health clinic: Tax debt: Over $1.5 million:
Charity activity: Repeatedly failed to remit or to remit timely payroll
taxes for the last 15 years. Director diverted payroll tax to pay his
and employee salaries.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of IRS, public and other records.
[End of Table]
OPM does not screen CFC charities for federal tax problems or
independently validate with the IRS whether the charity is truly a tax-
exempt organization. Federal law prevents OPM from accessing taxpayer
information required to screen for tax delinquency, although
information on exempt status is available to the public. Consequently,
OPM was unaware of the charities that owed federal tax debt and cannot
provide assurance that the more than 22,000 participating charities are
tax-exempt organizations. To demonstrate the vulnerability of this
process, GAO created a fictitious charity and successfully applied to
three large local campaigns.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-755T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Gregory D. Kutz at (202)
512-7455 or kutzg@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to assist the subcommittee as it reviews
tax-exempt organizations. This testimony builds on our experience
investigating entities that have abused the federal tax system[Footnote
1] while benefiting from doing business with the federal
government.[Footnote 2] Today, our testimony addresses whether
organizations exempt from federal income taxes were delinquent in
remitting payroll and other federal taxes to the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) while participating in the 2005 Combined Federal Campaign
(CFC).
The CFC, which is administered and promoted by the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) and about 300 local campaigns, gave more than 22,000
charities access to the federal workplace, where they collected more
than $250 million in donations during the 2005 campaign. The success of
CFC has made a notable difference in the benefits provided to those in
need. The CFC represents that it brings three unique qualities to those
it serves--"the three C's of CFC"--by offering donors a "choice" to
select from thousands of charities to support, allowing the
"convenience" of making payroll deductions, and ensuring donors'
"confidence" that charities listed with the campaign meet CFC's
specific eligibility requirements. In the spirit of ensuring that
donors can trust their contributions are going to organizations that
have met CFC's specific eligibility requirements, and are legitimate
charities, you asked us to investigate charities listed with the CFC.
Specifically, you asked us to investigate and determine whether and to
what extent (1) charities listed in the 2005 CFC have unpaid payroll
and other federal taxes; (2) selected charities, their directors or
senior officers are abusing the federal tax system; and (3) OPM screens
charities for federal tax problems before allowing them to be listed
with the CFC.
As you know, to qualify as exempt from federal income taxes, an
organization must meet the requirements set forth in the Internal
Revenue Code[Footnote 3] and formally receive tax-exemption designation
under 501(c)(3) to participate in the CFC. Regardless of tax-exempt
status, all employers are required to withhold from their employees'
wages payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare and other taxes.
Willful failure to remit payroll taxes is a felony under U.S.
law.[Footnote 4]
To determine whether and to what extent CFC 501(c)(3) charities had
unpaid payroll and other federal taxes, we obtained and analyzed IRS
unpaid tax debt data as of September 30, 2005. We matched organizations
with unpaid tax debts to the CFC's list of charities that participated
in the 2005 campaign.[Footnote 5] To further analyze abuse of the
federal tax system by selected charities, their directors, or senior
officers, we applied certain criteria--the amount of outstanding tax
debt, the number and age of reporting periods for which taxes were due,
and the type of outstanding tax--to select 15 organizations for
detailed audit and investigation. For these 15 organizations, we
reviewed tax records and performed additional searches of criminal,
financial, and other public records.
To determine whether OPM screens organizations for federal tax problems
before allowing them to be listed with the CFC, we identified the legal
criteria for doing so and gained an understanding of the screening
process through meetings with OPM's Office of CFC Operations and others
responsible for processing applications. To test OPM's process of
screening for legitimate charities, we created a fictitious charity and
applied to three large campaigns in various parts of the country. We
also matched the CFC's list of charities that participated in the 2005
campaign against the list of all tax-exempt organizations identified by
the IRS to determine whether non-tax-exempt organizations participated
in the 2005 campaign. For further details on our scope and methodology,
see appendix I.
We conducted our audit work from January 2006 through May 2006 in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards.
We performed our investigative work in accordance with standards
prescribed by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency.
Summary:
More than 1,280 CFC charities had tax debts totaling at least $35.6
million as of September 30, 2005. This represented nearly 6 percent of
the charities that participated in the OPM-administered 2005 campaign.
Of this debt, $27.7 million represented payroll taxes, penalties, and
interest dating back as far as 1988. The remaining $7.9 million
includes annual reporting penalties, excise taxes, exempt organization
business income taxes, unemployment taxes, and other types of taxes and
penalties. The majority of the 1,280 delinquent charities, 78.6
percent, owed less than $10,000 in delinquent taxes. The $35.6 million
in delinquent taxes is likely understated because we took a
conservative approach to identifying the amount of tax debt owed to the
IRS by CFC charities. The delinquent tax totals do not include amounts
for charities that do not file required tax returns and related taxes
or charities that underreport unrelated business income or payroll
taxes.
In addition to CFC donations, we found that more than 170 of these tax-
delinquent charities received about $1.6 billion in federal grants
during fiscal year 2005. Five of 15 case study charities we reviewed in
detail were among the more than 170 charities that received federal
grants. These 5 charities received grants from the Departments of
Health and Human Services (excluding Medicaid) and Education that
totaled more than $6.5 million.
Our detailed audit and investigation of the 15 CFC charities with tax
debt and their directors or senior officers identified abusive and
potentially criminal activity. Although charities are exempt from
certain taxes (e.g., federal income tax), the executives of the 15
charities we investigated were required by law but failed in their
roles as "trustees" to forward payroll taxes to the IRS, which include
amounts withheld from their employees' wages for Social Security,
Medicare, and the employer's matching portion of these taxes and
individual income taxes.
During interviews, three of the 15 selected charities' executives
denied owing payroll and other taxes when IRS records showed otherwise.
Executives from 5 other charities explained that they knowingly
withheld payroll taxes in order to have enough funds available to pay
for charity activities and the salaries of charity employees. As a
result of remitting tax payments late, the charities accumulated tens
of thousands of dollars in penalties and interest. Our investigations
also showed that several of the executives who potentially could be
assessed trust fund recovery penalties for the debts of their charities
had salaries in excess of $100,000 and owned significant personal
assets. In addition, according to independent audit reports, some of
the charities appeared to have significant cash flow problems. Willful
failure to remit payroll taxes is a felony under U.S. law.[Footnote 6]
We referred all 15 cases detailed in our report to the IRS so that it
can determine whether additional collection action or criminal
investigation is warranted.
Neither OPM nor the approximately 300 local campaigns dispersed
throughout the United States screen charities for federal tax problems
before allowing the charities to be listed with the CFC. OPM policies
do not require such screening. Additionally, federal law generally
prohibits the disclosure of taxpayer data and, consequently, even if
OPM had specific policies to check for unpaid taxes, it has no access
to a specific charity's tax data. The administration of CFC does not
have the internal controls necessary to assure donors that charities
listed with and backed by the CFC are meeting federal laws.
We also found that OPM, its local campaigns, and federations do not
validate with the IRS each CFC applicant's tax-exempt status. To be
eligible for the CFC, a charity must submit as part of its application
a copy of a standard IRS letter showing that it has received tax-
exemption status from the IRS under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code.[Footnote 7] To demonstrate the vulnerability of OPM's lack of
validation of tax-exempt status, we applied as a fictitious charity to
three local campaigns using fake documents and an erroneous IRS
taxpayer identification number. In all three cases, our fictitious
charity was accepted into the local CFC. Furthermore, our match of CFC
charities from the 2005 campaign against IRS's database of tax-exempt
organizations identified charities whose 501(c)(3) status could not be
confirmed. Therefore, we referred these charities to OPM and IRS for
further review and confirmation of their tax-exempt status.
More Than 1,280 CFC Charities Had Tax Debts Totaling $35.6 Million:
Based on our analysis, more than 1,280 CFC charities had federal tax
debts totaling $35.6 million as of September 30, 2005. This represented
nearly 6 percent of the charities that participated in the OPM-
administered 2005 campaign. $27.7 million of this debt represented
payroll taxes, penalties, and interest dating as far back as 1988. The
remaining $7.9 million includes annual reporting penalties, excise
taxes, exempt organization business income, unemployment taxes, and
other types of taxes and penalties. In performing our analysis, we took
a conservative approach to identifying the amount of tax debt owed by
the CFC's charities, and therefore the number of delinquent charities
and amount due to the IRS are likely understated. We also found that at
least 170 charities with unpaid taxes also benefited by receiving about
$1.6 billion in federal grants.
Unpaid Payroll Taxes Comprised Almost 80 Percent of Charities' Federal
Tax Debt:
As indicated in figure 1, payroll taxes comprised $27.7 million, or
almost 80 percent, of the $35.6 million in unpaid federal taxes owed by
CFC charities. Unpaid payroll taxes included amounts that were withheld
from employees' wages for federal income taxes, Social Security, and
Medicare but not remitted to the IRS, as well as the matching employer
contributions for Social Security and Medicare. Employers who fail to
remit payroll taxes to the federal government may be subject to civil
and criminal penalties. Figure 1 shows the types of federal taxes owed
by CFC charities as of September 30, 2005.
Figure 1: Types of Federal Tax Debt Owed by CFC Charities:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of IRS data as of September 30, 2005 and 2005 CFC
data.
[End of figure]
The next largest component, annual reporting penalties, was $4.5
million or almost 13 percent of the unpaid taxes. Generally, the IRS
requires 501(c)(3) charities with more than $25,000 of income to file
an annual return (i.e., Form 990). This annual return serves as the
basis for review in determining whether an organization continues to
meet requirements for exempt status. Failure to file an annual return
at all or in a timely manner, as well as filing an incomplete return,
results in various types of penalties. Excise taxes related to employee
benefit plans, exempt organization business income taxes, unemployment,
and other types of taxes and penalties comprised the remaining $3.4
million.
The majority of the approximately 1,280 delinquent charities, 78
percent, owed less than $10,000 in delinquent taxes. Fifteen percent
owed from $10,000 to $50,000, and 7 percent owed more than $50,000 in
delinquent taxes. Also, 91 percent of 1,280 charities were delinquent
for up to 4 tax periods, 7 percent of charities for 5 to 9 tax periods,
and 2 percent for 10 or more tax periods.[Footnote 8]
Amount of Unpaid Federal Taxes Is Understated for CFC Charities:
The amount of unpaid federal taxes we identified among CFC charities--
$35.6 million--is understated. To avoid overestimating the amount owed
by CFC charities, we intentionally limited our scope to tax debts that
were affirmed by either the charity or a tax court for tax periods
prior to 2005.[Footnote 9] We did not include the most current tax year
because recently assessed tax debts that appear as unpaid taxes may
involve matters that are routinely resolved between the taxpayer and
the IRS, with the taxes paid, abated,[Footnote 10] or both within a
short period. We eliminated these types of debt by focusing on unpaid
federal taxes for tax periods prior to calendar year 2005 and
eliminating tax debt of $100 or less.
Also limiting our estimate of CFC charities' unpaid federal taxes is
the fact that the IRS tax database reflects only the amount of unpaid
taxes either reported by the charity on a tax return or assessed by the
IRS through various enforcement programs. The IRS database upon which
we relied exclusively does not reflect amounts owed by charities that
have not filed tax returns or that have underreported the owed taxes in
their return and for which the IRS has not assessed tax amounts due.
According to the IRS, underreporting of payroll taxes accounts for
about $60 to $70 billion of the estimated $345 billion annual gross tax
gap. Consequently, the true extent of unpaid taxes for these charities
is unknown.
Some CFC Charities with Delinquent Tax Debt Also Received Substantial
Federal Grants:
In performing our analysis, we identified at least 170 of the CFC
charities with delinquent tax debt that also received federal grants
totaling about $1.6 billion from the Departments of Health and Human
Services (excluding Medicaid), Education, and others in 2005. These
charities are benefiting from the federal government through their tax-
exempt status and receipt of substantial amounts of federal grants,
while not meeting their responsibility to pay required federal taxes.
Included in the $1.6 billion are grants to 5 of the 15 charities we
selected, totaling more than $6.5 million.
Certain CFC Charity Executives We Investigated Abused the Federal Tax
System:
Executives responsible for the tax debts of the 15 charities we
investigated abused the federal tax system and may have violated the
law by diverting payroll or other taxes due to the IRS. Willful failure
to remit payroll taxes is a felony under U.S. law,[Footnote 11] and the
IRS can assess a trust fund recovery penalty (TFRP) equal to the total
amount of taxes not collected or not accounted for and paid against all
individuals who are determined by the IRS to be "willful and
responsible" for the nonpayment of withheld payroll taxes.[Footnote 12]
In this regard, one executive from these 15 case study CFC charities
was assessed a TFRP for what IRS determined to be his abusive behavior.
Table 1 highlights 5 of the 15 case study CFC charities that we
investigated with payroll tax issues.
Table 1: CFC Charities with Unpaid Federal Taxes:
Charity: 1;
Nature of the charity: Museum;
Tax debt[A]: Over $100,000;
Comments: * Payroll tax debt covers more than 12 tax periods dating
back to the mid 1990s; * The IRS assessed a TFRP against the charity's
director; * Federal and local tax liens have been filed against the
charity; * The charity filed for bankruptcy protection in the past but
the court denied the petition; * The executive director admitted to
underpaying payroll taxes to fund the charity's operations.
Charity: 2;
Nature of the charity: Hospital;
Tax debt[A]: Nearly $1 million;
Comments: * Payroll tax debt covers more than 5 periods dating back
several years; * The charity paid two of its executives a salary of
more than $200,000 each; * The charity received about $1.5 million in
federal grants from the Department of Health and Human Services (non-
Medicaid) and the Department of Education.
Charity: 3;
Nature of the charity: Mental health clinic;
Tax debt[A]: Over $1.5 million;
Comments: * Payroll tax debt covers more than 12 tax periods dating
back to the early 1990s; * The charity recently signed an installment
agreement; * Federal, state, and local tax liens have been filed
against the charity; * The executive director received a salary of more
than $100,000; * The executive director admitted to underpaying payroll
taxes to fund the charity's operations, which includes the director's
salary.
Charity: 4;
Nature of the charity: Homeless shelter;
Tax debt[A]: Over $300,000;
Comments: * Charity failed to submit payroll tax payments for more than
5 tax periods over several years; * The executive director received a
salary of more than $100,000 per year.
Charity: 5;
Nature of the charity: General health clinic;
Tax debt[A]: Over $700,000;
Comments: * Payroll tax debt covers 7 tax periods dating back over 5
years; * The charity submitted an offer in compromise, which is
pending; * The chief executive officer received a salary of more than
$100,000 per year.
Source: GAO's analysis of IRS, OPM, public, and other records.
[A] Tax debt amount includes principal, interest, and penalties as of
September 30, 2005.
[End of table]
For the five charities in table 1, tax debt ranged from about $100,000
to more than $1.5 million, and the unpaid taxes spanned a period
ranging from 5 to more than 12 payroll tax periods. In addition to the
federal tax debt, two of the five CFC charities had unpaid state and/or
local taxes, where state and/or local taxing authorities filed multiple
tax liens against them.
During the time frames for which these charities were not paying their
taxes, funds were available to cover other charity expenses, including
officer salaries. Executives at two charities explained that they
knowingly withheld payroll taxes in order to have enough funds
available to pay their own salaries and the salaries of charity
employees, in addition to charity expenses. One executive we
investigated denied owing payroll or other taxes when IRS records
showed otherwise. In at least one case, the charity's executives
remitted payroll taxes later than the IRS required to pay their
salaries, while the charity accumulated tens of thousands of dollars in
penalties and interest for remitting late.
We also identified directors and senior executives who potentially
could be assessed TFRPs by the IRS for the debts of their charities.
Some of these directors and executives had salaries in excess of
$100,000 and owned significant personal assets. One of these executives
has already been assessed a TFRP.
See appendix III for the details on the other 10 CFC charities reviewed
in detail. We referred all 15 cases discussed in our report to the IRS
so that it can determine whether additional collection action or
criminal investigation is warranted.
OPM Does Not Screen Charities for Delinquent Tax Debt:
OPM does not screen charities for federal tax debt prior to granting
CFC eligibility, thereby making charities with unpaid federal taxes
eligible to receive donations from federal civilian employees and
military personnel. OPM policies do not specifically require CFC
charities to be screened for these problems. Additionally, federal law
generally prohibits the disclosure of taxpayer data and, consequently,
even if OPM had specific policies to check for unpaid taxes, it has no
access to a specific charity's tax data. OPM determines the
completeness of a charity applicants' paperwork, but it does not
perform third-party verification of documents as part of that process.
For example, OPM does not verify with the IRS the tax-exempt status of
CFC applicants and relies solely on each applicant's submission of IRS
documentation that it is a bona fide charity. To demonstrate the
vulnerability of OPM's lack of validation of tax-exempt status, we
applied to three of CFC's largest local 2006 campaigns using a
fictitious charity with entirely false documents and an erroneous IRS
taxpayer identification number. We were accepted into all three
campaigns.
Tax Debts Are Not Considered When Granting Charities Eligibility to
Participate in the CFC:
OPM does not screen charities for tax debts prior to granting CFC
eligibility and, ultimately, charities with unpaid federal taxes are
eligible to receive donations from federal civilian employees and
military personnel. Federal law implemented in the Code of Federal
Regulations does not require OPM to screen charities for federal tax
delinquency nor does it explicitly authorize CFC to reject charity
applicants that have delinquent tax debt from participation in the CFC.
Consequently, CFC's processes for determining eligibility are based on
and limited to what is required of the CFC in Part 950 of Title 5,
C.F.R.
Restrictions on Tax Data Hamper Identification of Charities with
Delinquent Taxes:
Federal law does not permit the IRS to disclose taxpayer information,
including tax debts.[Footnote 13] Thus, unless the taxpayer provides
consent, certain tax debt information can only be discovered from
public records when the IRS files a federal tax lien against the
property of a tax debtor.[Footnote 14] However, public record
information is limited because the IRS does not file tax liens on all
tax debtors, and, while the IRS has a central repository of tax liens,
OPM officials do not have access to that information. Further, the
listing of a federal tax lien in the credit reports of an entity or its
key officials may not be a reliable indicator of a charity's tax
indebtedness because of deficiencies in the IRS's internal controls
that have resulted in the IRS not always releasing tax liens from
property when the tax debt has been satisfied[Footnote 15].:
OPM Does Not Verify Charity Applicant's Exempt Organization Status:
Part 950 of Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires that
applicants to the CFC include in their application packages a copy of
their most recent IRS determination letter[Footnote 16] showing the
charity's 501(c)(3) status. OPM does not perform any independent
verification of charity applicants' tax-exempt status. The IRS does
have publicly available data wherein OPM could verify an applicant's
tax exempt status, but this is not an OPM-required procedure in the CFC
eligibility determination process. Other documents OPM requires
applicants to include in the CFC application package are a copy of the
charity's most recent form 990, their most recent annual audit report,
and an application with various self-certifications. According to an
official from one of the CFC's largest local campaigns, the single most
frequent reason for rejecting an applicant from the CFC is the
applicant's failure to submit its IRS determination letter.
Control Weaknesses Allowed GAO to Enroll Fictitious Charities in the
CFC:
To determine whether and to what extent CFC's eligibility determination
processes are vulnerable, we applied to three local campaigns with a
fictitious charity using fake documents and an erroneous IRS taxpayer
identification number. In all three campaigns, our application for
participation in the 2006 CFC was accepted. Figure 2 shows one example
of the three letters we received regarding our acceptance into the 2006
CFC. Immediately after our applications were accepted, we notified CFC
officials and withdrew our charity from the campaigns in order to
prevent donations to our fictitious charity.
In addition to our direct testing of OPM's screening process, our match
of CFC charities from the 2005 campaign against IRS's database of tax-
exempt organizations identified charities whose 501(c)(3) status could
not be confirmed. Therefore, we referred these charities to OPM and IRS
for further review and confirmation of their tax-exempt status.
Figure 2: Copy of an Acceptance Letter from One of the Three Local CFC
Campaigns for Our Fictitious Charity:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Concluding Observations:
The success of the OPM's CFC is predicated on each donor's confidence
in a system that ensures that their donations reach charitable
organizations that have met the CFC's specific eligibility requirements
and are legitimate charities. The bona fide charities participating in
the annual campaign have the most to lose when such confidence is
shaken because of the abuse of a minority of participating charities.
Until OPM takes steps to independently validate whether applicants are
legitimate 501(c)(3) organizations, the campaign is vulnerable to
entities that fraudulently purport to be charities. Further, tax-
abusing charities will continue to benefit by being eligible to
participate and receive donations unless OPM is provided access to
their tax debt information and determines whether sanctions such as
expulsion from the CFC are warranted. OPM and each local CFC cannot
provide the assurance needed to sustain such confidence. This could
have devastating consequences for the vast majority of eligible and tax-
compliant charities that are dependent on donor contributions to
support their critical missions.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other
members of the committee may have at this time.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact Gregory D.
Kutz at (202) 512-7455 or kutzg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this testimony.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to investigate and determine whether and to what
extent (1) charities listed in the 2005 Combined Federal Campaign (CFC)
have unpaid payroll and other federal taxes; (2) selected charities,
their directors, or senior officers are abusing the federal tax system;
and (3) the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) screens charities for
federal tax problems before allowing them to be listed with the CFC.
To determine whether any of the charities listed in the 2005 CFC have
unpaid payroll and other federal taxes, we first identified charities
that participated in the 2005 campaign. To identify CFC charities we
requested data from CFC headquarters. To obtain these data, CFC
headquarters requested data from the 299 local campaigns throughout the
United States. We received data from 291 of the 299[Footnote 17] local
campaigns.
To identify CFC charities with unpaid federal taxes, we obtained and
analyzed the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) September 30, 2005,
Unpaid Assessments file. We matched the CFC charity data to the IRS
unpaid assessment data using the taxpayer identification number (TIN)
field. To avoid overstating the amount owed by charities with unpaid
federal tax debts and to capture only significant tax debt, we excluded
tax debts meeting specific criteria. The criteria we used to exclude
tax debts are as follows:
* tax debts the IRS classified as compliance assessments or memo
accounts for financial reporting,[Footnote 18]
* tax debts from calendar year 2005 tax periods, and:
* charities with total unpaid taxes of $100 or less.
The criteria above were used to exclude tax debts that might be under
dispute or generally duplicative or invalid and tax debts that are
recently incurred. Specifically, compliance assessments or memo
accounts were excluded because these taxes have neither been agreed to
by the taxpayers nor affirmed by the court, or these taxes could be
invalid or duplicative of other taxes already reported. We excluded tax
debts from calendar year 2005 tax periods to eliminate tax debt that
may involve matters that are routinely resolved between the taxpayers
and the IRS, with the taxes paid or abated within a short period. We
also excluded tax debts of $100 or less because they are insignificant
for the purpose of determining the extent of taxes owed by CFC
charities.
The 2005 pledged donation (pledges) information was unavailable at the
time we selected our charity cases for investigations. We requested
pledge information from the CFC and were in the process of receiving
these data, piecemeal, from the CFC's 299 campaigns as of the end of
our fieldwork. The pledge information we received through the end of
fieldwork lacked the detail necessary to efficiently determine the
amount of pledges for tax-delinquent charities. Consequently, we were
unable to determine the amount of pledges received for tax-delinquent
charities we identified.
To determine whether selected charities, their directors, or senior
officers are abusing the federal tax system, we selected 15 charities
for a detailed audit and investigation. We selected the 15 charities
using a nonrepresentative selection approach based on our judgment,
data mining, and a number of other criteria, including the amount of
unpaid taxes, number of unpaid tax periods, amount of payments reported
by the IRS, and indications that key officials might be involved in
multiple charities with tax debts.
We obtained copies of automated tax transcripts and other tax records
(for example, revenue officers' notes) from the IRS as of September 30,
2005, and reviewed these records to exclude charities that had recently
paid off their unpaid tax balances and considered other factors before
reducing the selection of charities to 15 case studies. For the
selected 15 cases, we reviewed the charity CFC application files and
performed additional searches of criminal, financial, and public
records. Our investigators also contacted several of the charities and
conducted interviews.
To determine whether and to what extent OPM screens charities for
federal tax problems before allowing them to be listed with the CFC, we
reviewed OPM's policies and procedures, performed process walkthroughs,
and interviewed key CFC officials at CFC Headquarters and three local
campaigns. We reviewed laws and regulations governing OPM's
administration of the CFC. We identified processes and procedures
performed by the CFC during the annual application period. To confirm
our understanding of the requirements placed on charity applicants and
to test whether OPM's processes would identify fraudulent charities, we
attempted to gain acceptance into the 2006 CFC by posing as a charity.
We prepared and submitted application packages for each of three local
campaigns using fake documentation for a fictitious charity. To test
the effectiveness of OPM's processes and procedures to identify charity
applicants that are not valid tax-exempt organizations, a primary
requirement for participation in the CFC, we matched the list of CFC
charities that participated in the 2005 campaign with the IRS's
database of tax-exempt organizations.
We conducted our audit work from January 2006 through May 2006 in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards,
and we performed our investigative work in accordance with standards
prescribed by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency.
Data Reliability Assessment:
For the IRS unpaid assessments data, we relied on the work we performed
during our annual audits of the IRS's financial statements. While our
financial statement audits have identified some data reliability
problems associated with the coding of some of the fields in the IRS's
tax records, including errors and delays in recording taxpayer
information and payments, we determined that the data were sufficiently
reliable to address this testimony's objectives. Our financial audit
procedures, including the reconciliation of the value of unpaid taxes
recorded in IRS's master file to IRS's general ledger, identified no
material differences.
To help ensure reliability of CFC-provided data, we performed
electronic testing of specific data elements in the databases that we
used to perform our work and performed other procedures to ensure the
accuracy of the charity data provided by the CFC.
Based on our discussions with agency officials, our review of agency
documents, and our own testing, we concluded that the data elements
used for this testimony were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Background:
The Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) is the only authorized solicitation
of employees in the federal workplace on behalf of charitable
organizations. The CFC's mission is to promote and support philanthropy
through a program that provides all federal employees the opportunity
to improve the quality of life for others through donations to eligible
nonprofit organizations. In 1971, the CFC began operation as a combined
campaign with donations solicited once a year. Also during this period,
charitable contributions in the form of payroll deduction were made
possible. Contributions grew dramatically from $12.9 million in 1964 to
$82.8 million in 1979. Growth in the number of participating charities
was slow through the 1970s, increasing from 23 charities in 1969 to
only 33 charities in 1979. Significant changes in CFC regulations
occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s[Footnote 19] which in April
1984 opened the CFC to organizations that received tax-exempt status
under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The CFC has grown to a
campaign consisting of approximately 1,700 (2005 campaign) national and
international charitable organizations and more than 21,000 local
charities. Contributions have also increased from about $95 million in
1981 to more than $255 million in 2004.
Each campaign is conducted during a 6-week period, varying by local
campaign from September 1 through December 15, at every federal agency
in the campaign community. During this period, current federal civilian
and active duty military employees, throughout the country and
internationally, donate tens of millions of dollars to these nonprofit
organizations that provide health and human service benefits throughout
the world.
The Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) exercises
general supervision over all operations of the CFC and takes steps to
ensure the campaign objectives are achieved. The CFC is decentralized;
therefore, each of the approximately 300 campaigns manages its local
campaign and then reports statistics in aggregate to OPM. The Local
Federal Coordinating Committee (LFCC) is the leadership element of the
local CFC and is comprised of members from the federal community--
federal civilian, military, and postal. The LFCC solicits annually a
principle combined fund organization (PCFO), conducts local agency
eligibility, approves campaign material, conducts compliance audits, is
the liaison to federal agency heads, and is generally engaged in a host
of the scheduled campaign activities. The PCFO manages all aspects of
the campaign. The PCFO develops campaign materials; serves as fiscal
agent; collects, processes, and distributes pledges; and trains loaned
executives and campaign personnel. The PCFO and the LFCC are
responsible for reporting to the OPM summary data about their campaign
results.
[End of section]
Appendix III: CFC Charities with Unpaid Taxes:
Table 1 in the main portion of this testimony provides data on 5
detailed case studies. Table 2 shows the remaining case studies that we
audited and investigated. As with the 5 cases discussed in the body of
this testimony, for all 10 of these case studies we found abuse or
potentially criminal activity related to the federal tax system. All 10
charities in table 2 had unpaid payroll taxes.
Table 2: CFC Charities with Unpaid Federal Taxes:
Charity: 6;
Nature of charity: Rehabilitation services;
Tax debt[A]: Over $100,000;
Comments: * The charity failed to pay its payroll taxes in full or on
time, resulting in delinquent payroll taxes and subsequent interest and
penalties; * A federal tax lien has been filed against the charity; *
Although these taxes remain outstanding, one of the executives of this
charity recently placed property into a family trust.
Charity: 7;
Nature of charity: Psychiatric center;
Tax debt[A]: Over $1 million;
Comments: * This entity owes more than $600,000 in penalties and
interest; * A state tax lien of $200,000 has been filed against the
charity; * The charity repeatedly underpaid payroll taxes in 1 year
recently; * Executive director received a salary of more than $100,000;
* A recent independent auditor's report states there is substantial
doubt regarding the entity's ability to continue operating (i.e., a
going concern); * An officer of the charity told us that rather than
remitting the payroll taxes to the IRS, the officer used them to pay
operating expenses, which included the officer's own salary.
Charity: 8;
Nature of charity: Healthcare provider of hospital and nursing home
services;
Tax debt[A]: Over $400,000;
Comments: * Federal tax lien has been filed against the charity; * The
charity filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection; * The top
executives of the charity and several part-time management personnel
were employed through a contracting firm and were paid wages that
totaled more than $3 million; * The charity received over $2 million in
grants from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Charity: 9;
Nature of charity: Drug and alcohol rehabilitation center;
Tax debt[A]: Over $70,000;
Comments: * The charity has substantial equity in a multi-acre parcel
of real estate located in a major metropolitan area; * The charity owns
a boat that is primarily used by the executive director.
Charity: 10;
Nature of charity: Charity provides social welfare programs;
Tax debt[A]: Nearly $300,000;
Comments: * A recent independent auditor's report states there is
substantial doubt regarding the entity's ability to continue operating
(i.e., a going concern); * The charity received federal grants of more
than $2.5 million from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Charity: 11;
Nature of charity: Social services for the blind;
Tax debt[A]: Nearly $100,000;
Comments: * The charity has more than 13 periods of payroll tax debt
dating back several years; * The charity entered into an installment
agreement that the IRS terminated after the charity did not make the
required payments.
Charity: 12;
Nature of charity: Prevent and treat child abuse;
Tax debt[A]: Over $120,000;
Comments: * Charity owes over $120,000 in payroll taxes, penalties and
interest from the late 1990s; * Charity requested an offer in
compromise on the tax debt; * State and local tax liens have been filed
against the charity's real estate; * After the charity was delinquent
in paying its payroll taxes, it obtained more than $600,000 to
construct a new building; * An officer of the charity told us that
rather than remitting the payroll taxes to the IRS, the officer used
them to pay the charity's workers, which included the officer's own
salary; * The charity received federal grants of $40,000.
Charity: 13;
Nature of charity: Counseling service for adults, adolescents, and
children;
Tax debt[A]: Over $500,000;
Comments: * The charity's tax debt covers more than six tax periods; *
Charity paid consultant more than $100,000 for professional services.
Charity: 14;
Nature of charity: Adult and senior services;
Tax debt[A]: Nearly $200,000;
Comments: * Federal tax lien has been filed against the charity; * The
charity received federal grants of $140,000.
Charity: 15;
Nature of charity: Family social services;
Tax debt[A]: Over $500,000;
Comments: * The charity's tax debt covers more than 20 tax periods of
payroll taxes; * Federal tax lien has been filed against the charity; *
An officer of the charity told us that rather than remitting the
payroll taxes to the IRS, the officer used them to pay operating
expenses, which included the officer's own salary.
Source: GAO's analysis of IRS, OPM, public, and other records.
[A] Tax debt amount includes principal, interest, and penalties as of
September 30, 2005.
[End of table]
FOOTNOTES
[1] We considered activity to be abusive when a 501(c)(3)
organization's actions (e.g., diversion of payroll tax funds) or
inactions (e.g., failure to remit the annual Form 990 return, which is
the basis for review of whether an organization continues to meet
requirements for exempt status) took advantage of the existing tax
enforcement and administration system to avoid fulfilling federal tax
obligations and were deficient or improper when compared with behavior
that a prudent person would consider reasonable.
[2] See GAO, Financial Management: Thousands of GSA Contractors Abuse
the Federal Tax System, GAO-06-492T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2006),
Financial Management: Thousands of Civilian Agency Contractors Abuse
the Federal Tax System with Little Consequence, GAO-05-637 (Washington,
D.C.: June 16, 2005), and Financial Management: Some DOD Contractors
Abuse the Federal Tax System with Little Consequence, GAO-04-95
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 2004).
[3] 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).
[4] 26 U.S.C. § 7202.
[5] The campaign cycle for CFC consists of a 2-year reporting period,
which marks the beginning of a campaign and the end of a campaign. Most
campaigns will begin operation on or about March 15 of the first year
of the campaign and end around March 14 2 years later, depending on the
final disbursement for the campaign. For example, March 15, 2005,
begins the fall 2005 campaign and March 14, 2007, marks the end of the
fall 2005 campaign. Typically, the annual campaign runs for a 6-week
period from September 1 through December 15. Actual dates may vary from
one campaign to another.
[6] 26 U.S.C. § 7202. Under section 7202, it must be shown that a
defendant voluntarily and intentionally acted in violation of a known
legal duty. Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).
[7] Exempt from this requirement are organizations seeking local
eligibility in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands. However, these
organizations must include in their applications, the appropriate local
forms demonstrating their status as charitable organizations. 5 C.F.R.
Pt. 950.204(b)(2)(iii).
[8] A tax period varies by tax type. For example, the tax period for
payroll and excise taxes is generally one quarter of a year. The
taxpayer is required to file quarterly returns with IRS for these types
of taxes, although payment of the taxes occurs throughout the quarter.
In contrast, for income, corporate, and unemployment taxes, a tax
period is 1 year.
[9] We eliminated from our analysis all tax debt coded by IRS as not
having been agreed to by the taxpayer (for example, by filing a balance
due return) or a tax court. For financial reporting, those cases are
referred to as compliance assessments.
[10] Abatements are reductions in the amount of taxes owed and can
occur for a variety of reasons, such as to correct errors made by IRS
or taxpayers or to provide relief from interest and penalties. 26
U.S.C. § 6404.
[11] 26 U.S.C. § 7202.
[12] 26 U.S.C. § 6672. The amount of a TFRP does not include employers'
matching amounts.
[13] 26 U.S.C. § 6103.
[14] Under section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code, IRS has the
authority to file a lien upon all property and rights to property,
whether real or personal, of a delinquent taxpayer.
[15] GAO, IRS Lien Management Report: Opportunities to Improve
Timeliness of IRS Lien Releases, GAO-05-26R (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 10,
2005).
[16] A determination letter to an organization is the IRS's
notification that it has reviewed the organization's application
package and qualified it as exempt from federal income taxes.
[17] Data from the remaining 8 local campaigns were either not received
or not sufficient for analysis.
[18] Under federal accounting standards, unpaid assessments require
taxpayer or court agreement to be considered federal taxes receivables.
Compliance assessments and memo accounts are not considered federal
taxes receivable because they are not agreed to by the taxpayers or the
courts.
[19] Including a court order that prohibited OPM from excluding legal
defense and advocacy groups from the CFC because of their "indirect"
support of health and welfare or their lobbying/advocacy activities.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:
United States Office Of Personnel Management:
Washington, DC 20415:
JUL 14 2006:
Mr. Gregory D. Kutz:
Managing Director:
Government Accountability Office:
Forensic Audits and Special Investigations:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Kutz:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) report "Tax Debt - Some Combined Federal
Campaign Charities Owe Payroll and Other Federal Taxes (GAO-06-887)."
We appreciate the audit and investigative work performed by GAO and
welcome its findings. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is
working to address the recommendations set forth in the report and has
provided a summary of the actions taken to date as well as our plans
for the future. In the last section of our response we discuss specific
observations concerning limiting factors that may add to the complexity
of meeting the GAO recommendations.
I. Management and Structure of the CFC:
OPM's mission is to ensure the Federal Government has an effective
civilian workforce. As part of its mission, OPM is responsible for the
overall management of the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC). However, OPM
does not directly manage the Federal employee contribution process. The
CFC structure relies on the dedication and commitment of the Federal
employees who make up the Local Federal Coordinating Committees (LFCC)
which administer local campaigns. LFCCs are responsible for reviewing
and approving applications for participation by local charities in each
of the 299 local CFCs. OPM's Office of CFC Operations (OCFCO) serves a
similar role in reviewing and approving the applications of national
and international charities, which participate in all of the local
CFCs. Thus, Federal employees in the geographic areas of the 299 local
CFC's have a wide choice of donating to charities that provide local
services, to charities that provide national and international service,
or to a combination of both.
OPM provides oversight and guidance to each of the local campaigns to
ensure that each campaign is conducted in accordance with OPM
regulations, congressional mandates, and operating policy. This
oversight is primarily conducted through the review of required
accountability and status reports provided by each local campaign
throughout the year.
II. Screening Charities for Participation in the CFC:
All CFC participating charities must apply each year for that year's
campaign, with an application made either to OPM or the appropriate
LFCC, depending on whether the applicant is applying as a national/
international or local charity. These applications set forth the
information and background submissions required by OPM's regulatory
eligibility criteria and public accountability standards. Each
applicant charity must demonstrate that it meets those standards in
order to participate in the CFC. These criteria were designed to ensure
Federal donors that only legitimate, accountable, and responsible
charities are admitted to the CFC. The criterion for both local and
national/international applicants includes, but is not limited to, a
demonstration by the applicant that it:
* Has status as an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined tax-exempt
charity under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code;
* Accounts for funds in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and has an audit of financial activities performed by an
independent certified public accountant performed in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards;
* Completed and provided to the IRS a Form 990, the annual tax return
for non-profit organizations;
* Provides real health and human services, benefits, assistance or
program activities; and,
* Has an active and responsible Board of Directors, in which a majority
of such Board members serve without compensation and without conflict
of interest.
Determinations of eligibility are based in part on a series of self
certifications by the applicant charity, affirming that the information
provided in the application is correct and that the charity agrees to
comply with the eligibility criteria. In some cases, the charity is
required to provide specific documentation to support the
certification. For example, OPM requires that all applicants submit
either to OPM or the local LFCC, depending on application status, a
copy of its IRS 501(c)(3) determination letter to substantiate that it
is recognized by the IRS as a tax-exempt charity as described above.
During the screening process, OPM and the LFCCs compare the IRS
determination letter and the applicant's IRS Form 990, to detect
inconsistencies and possible fraud.
For example, OPM requires verification that the applicant's name and
Employer Identification Number (EIN) on the applicant's IRS exemption
letter match the name and EIN on the IRS Form 990, also provided with
the application. If an advanced ruling period is provided by the IRS,
its expiration date must fall within the upcoming CFC campaign period.
If the advanced ruling period has expired, the applicant must either
provide OPM with evidence that it has applied for or that it has
otherwise received its permanent tax-exempt status ruling under
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Since a charity does not lose
its tax-exempt status even when the temporary ruling expires, OPM
cannot solely rely on the expiration date of the ruling.
In the event that the names on the various documents do not match, the
applicant charity must provide a State-issued certification approving
the use of a fictitious name. Also, use of DBAs is a fairly common
practice by nonprofits in order to better associate the charity's name
with a cause for marketing purposes. It is also our experience that,
while the IRS requires that charities register their name changes; many
fail to do so, thus complicating the verification process.
As noted in GAO's report, the current eligibility criteria do not
require the applicant charity to disclose the status of its payment of
payroll or any other taxes. A requirement for this type of information
was not included in the Executive Orders applicable to the CFC or in
the existing congressional eligibility mandates. In addition, current
law prevents OPM from making the existing eligibility criteria more
restrictive than it was in 1984. To further complicate consideration of
adding such a public accountability standard, the IRS is prevented, by
law, from sharing such tax data with OPM.
As such, OPM currently cannot screen charities for compliance with tax
payments to the IRS and has never denied a charity the opportunity to
participate in the CFC because of non-compliance in this area.
III. Accountability within the CFC:
In addition to the eligibility determination process for national/
international applicants, OPM conducts a number of monitoring
activities over local campaigns to minimize the risk of non-compliance
with CFC regulations and prevent abuse in the CFC. In particular, OPM's
OCFCO receives copies of audit reports for each local campaign as
required by CFC regulations. OPM also receives audit reports from OPM's
Office of the Inspector General, which audits a number of local CFCs
each year. The OCFCO reviews all audit findings and works with the
local CFC's to resolve each finding. The OCFCO also selects a sample of
local CFC brochures each year to review for compliance with CFC
regulations and OPM guidance. In addition, the OCFCO requires each
local campaign to report campaign results, including amounts raised,
campaign costs, and Federal employee participation rates, after the
solicitation period. This information helps OPM identify campaign
performance and potential at-risk campaigns that might need assistance,
consider requiring a merging with another, more efficient campaign, or
require dissolution. OPM recognizes the importance of the PCFO, as the
local campaign administrator, and works with each PCFO to correct any
non-compliance with CFC regulations. However, if OPM determines a
pattern of non-compliance by the campaign, OPM has the authority to
impose sanctions and penalties on the local PCFO, including removal
from the position of local administrator, suspension of local campaign
operations, merger of the local campaign with an adjacent campaign, and
removal of the PCFO as a CFC participating charity or federation.
Finally, OPM regularly communicates with the local campaigns to ensure
that each campaign is fully operational and has an active LFCC.
IV. OPM Response to GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1. Create and maintain a comprehensive database of all
local, national, and international charities that participate in the
CFC.
OPM recognizes the benefit in having a single database or "National
Charity Registry (NCR)" for the estimated 20,000 CFC local, national,
and international charities. Such a database would provide OPM with the
ability to independently verify data on participating charities. As the
GAO report suggested, had such a system existed, the GAO process of
data gathering and verification would have been greatly expedited.
In 2005, OPM began the design of just such a database, which is now a
central part of our efforts to modernize the CFC. The NCR will provide
OPM with information to allow verification of the IRS tax-exempt status
of all charities applying to be included in the CFC. Eventually it will
lead to the development of an online workplace giving system designed
to promote giving electronically among Federal donors, provide donors
with central access to all CFC participating charities, and eliminate
current geographic restrictions to giving.
This project is proceeding in two phases. First, OPM must design a
system to assign a new code to all participating charities and register
all relevant information regarding CFC participation. The recoding is
necessary because under the current decentralized local campaign
system, charities in different campaigns may have identical codes. In
addition, with the growth in the number of charities participating in
the CFC, the existing four-digit code structure that serves the Federal
donor as the primary identifier of charities is no longer adequate.
This recoding process and compilation of data for the NCR is projected
for completion in the fall of 2007.
The next phase involves the development and deployment of a system that
would achieve the goal of converting the CFC into a fully electronic
online giving system. OPM is currently exploring various financing
options for the development of a system that would be financed through
a portion of donations; much like the CFC works today. In May 2006, OPM
released a "Request for Information" to begin the process of assessing
what type of vendors might be qualified to undertake this project and
what level of resources it would involve. A decision on the feasibility
of the various financing options will be made later this year.
Whatever options are chosen, OPM intends to ensure that the system has
the necessary functional capabilities to facilitate the IRS tax-exempt
verification process.
Recommendation 2. Verify with the IRS the tax-exempt status of all
charities applying to be included in the CFC.
As GAO noted, neither OPM nor the local campaigns and federations
currently validate each CFC applicant's tax-exempt status with the IRS.
Local campaigns do not possess the staff resources and database
management capabilities to perform such verifications. To perform
verifications of all participating charities in the upcoming 2006 CFC
at the national and local level, OPM will assume responsibility for
centralizing the verification process and is taking the following steps
to achieve this:
* OPM has requested that all local campaigns send OCFCO information
about participating charities new to the CFC for 2006 to OPM for
verification (see Attachment).
* Local campaigns also have been instructed to periodically (at least
quarterly) review the IRS listing of charities determined to no longer
qualify as entities to which contributions are tax-deductible.
* OPM's Center for Information Services is developing the programming
to upload charity data to perform EIN verifications as the initial
source of validation.
* Information on all 2006 participating charities is being compiled
into a single database at OPM.
* Verifications are being made against IRS master files and exceptions
are being classified according to findings (i.e. tax-exempt, but other
than 501(c)(3); EINs with no IRS matching record; mismatch between EIN
and charity name; IRS tax exemption terminated or merged; failure to
establish IRS tax-exemption, etc).
* A protocol has been developed to further research all exceptions with
priority given to charities that "fail to establish" or whose tax-
exemption was terminated or merged.
* Once review and analysis is completed, OPM will corroborate findings
with IRS for all charities that fail to establish their tax-exemption.
* As appropriate, OPM will implement steps to suspend participation and
refer charities to the OPM Office of the Inspector General or other
entities as necessary.
Given the timing of this report and the anticipated amount of time it
will take to complete the verification process, OPM anticipates that
these activities will be completed no later than September 30, 2006, in
time for the fall 2006 CFC.
V. The GAO-Created CFC Applicant and Local Charity Eligibility
Screening Controls:
GAO created a fictitious charity and applied to three local campaigns
utilizing realistic documents and a fabricated IRS electronic
identification number (EIN). The fictitious charity was admitted to all
three campaigns. OPM recognizes that this is a matter of great concern
and importance.
OPM is developing additional guidance to be provided to each local
campaign on possible fraud indicators to assist in the identification
of a fictitious charity as well as procedures for more definitively
determining the legitimacy of such charities. In conjunction with the
upcoming implementation of the NCR and improved training, OPM is
confident that we have implemented sufficient controls to dramatically
improve our ability to protect against fraudulent applications as
brought to light by the GAO activities.
VI. Issues and Limitations of the IRS Database Verification Process:
As described previously, OPM is developing and implementing procedures
for comparing charities deemed eligible for participation in the CFC
against an IRS master file of tax-exempt charities. OPM is coordinating
this effort with the IRS, but has found this comparison to be a more
difficult task than anticipated. We understand that GAO encountered
similar difficulties in comparing IRS data with CFC applicants and
could not validate approximately 1,300 CFC participants against IRS
data. GAO referred these charities to the IRS for its determination of
the tax-exempt status. The information available on the IRS web based
master file has only limited information that OPM can use to try and
determine tax-exempt status. The IRS has provided and agreed to
continue to provide us with more detailed extracts, on a periodic
basis, of publicly available information from IRS master files to
better assist OPM with our comparisons.
However, the actual process of performing this comparison of CFC
participants against the IRS master file has required significant OPM
resources. OCFCO staff obtained assistance from OPM's Center for
Information Services to develop a program to upload CFC charity data
and the IRS master file data into a database and develop a program to
run the comparison and identify charities that may not be currently
recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt. This comparison and identification
of charities not on the IRS master file still does not allow OPM to
make a definite conclusion on the charities' tax-exempt status. The IRS
has notified us that there are circumstances where a charity may have
been removed from its master file, but still maintains its tax-exempt
status for a variety of reasons. In these cases, the IRS cannot provide
us with any confirmation or additional information because of the
limitations of current law regarding what is considered public
information and what IRS can share with OPM.
We will continue to perform our comparison of CFC charities against the
IRS master file of tax-exempt charities to the best of OPM's ability
under current law. We agree it will provide additional assurances to
donors that only legitimate charities are participating in the CFC.
Because of the difficulties in corroborating tax-exemption for all
charities OPM will continue to rely on the IRS for assistance in this
area.
VII. Conclusion:
OPM has taken steps to ensure that all 2006 CFC participating charities
are validated against IRS master files and is implementing additional
controls in the charity eligibility screening process based on the
lessons learned from the GAO review.
In addition, we will continue to modernize the CFC with the objective
of bringing the greatest accountability possible at an affordable cost
to donors and charities alike. The implementation of the NCR with the
capacity to perform periodic verifications which is to be implemented
in 2007 represents a significant step in this direction.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to GAO's report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Mara T. Patermaster, Director:
Office of CFC Operations:
Attachment:
CFC Memorandum 2006-16 June 20, 2006:
To: Local Federal Coordinating Committees (LFCCs) And Principal
Combined Fund Organizations (PCFOs):
From: Mara T. Patermaster:
Director:
Office Of CFC Operations:
Subject: Verification of New 2006 CFC Applicant Organizations Tax
Exempt Status:
In follow-up to the recently concluded Government Accountability Office
(GAO) review of CFC participating charities, the Office of CFC
Operations will be performing an independent verification of the tax-
exempt status for all new applicants to the 2006 CFC against IRS
publicly available data. Your timely cooperation is required to ensure
that we can obtain a complete and properly formatted database in order
to perform this verification as soon as possible.
Local campaigns are required to submit an Excel list of new 2006
applicants only to the Office of CFC Operations (OCFCO) no later than
5:00 pm EST, June 30, 2006. By "new applicants" we refer to only those
charities that applied to participate in the 2006 CFC and which either
had not applied for or were denied, participation in the 2005 CFC.
Please include only new 2006 applicants, regardless of whether or not
they have been admitted for the 2006 Campaign.
The list must be formatted as shown in the attached example and include
the following information:
* Employer Identification Number (EIN):
* Legal Name (as it appears on the IRS Letter of Determination):
* Doing Business As (DBA) Name or Brochure Listing Name-required only
if different from the Legal Name:
* Campaign Name:
* Campaign Code (ID):
* 2006 LFCC Decision (admitted/denied):
Please create a record for each organization by following the "Local
CFC Charity Upload File Layout Description" with special attention to
the EIN. (Most errors in data entry for these records tend to be linked
with the EIN.) An attached Excel spreadsheet is included with a sample
entry. This spreadsheet may be used for your local charity information,
saved, and returned to OPM with the required information.
Please e-mail your Excel list to the OCFCO no later than 5:00 pm EST,
June 30, 2006 to cfc@opm.gov Please include your four-digit campaign
number and campaign name in the subject line. For example, "0001 East
Alabama CFC 2006 Charities".
Your full cooperation and timely response is appreciated. If you have
any questions regarding this matter, please contact Pamela Rodgers at
202/606-2564 or by e-mail at cfc@opm.gov.
Enclosures:
Charity Upload File Description:
Excel Spreadsheet Example:
Local CFC Charity Upload File Layout Description for Verification of
New 2006 CFC Applicants' Tax Exempt Status:
Each charity record contains the following fields in the order shown:
Field name: EIN;
Format: 9 digits in text format e.g. 234574366;
Description: The 9-digit employer identification number (EIN) issued by
IRS. All EINs must be nine digits without a hyphen in your excel list.
Family Support and Youth Activities (FSYA), also known as Military
Welfare and Recreation (MWR) organizations, may or may not have an EIN.
They must still be included. Use nine zeros without a hyphen mark in
the EIN field for these organizations.
Field name: Legal name;
Format: Less than 100 characters;
Description: A text field for the organizations' legal name as found on
the IRS Determination Letter.
Field name: DBA name;
Format: Less than 100 characters;
Description: A text field for the organizations' name listing in CFC
materials if different from the Legal name.
Field name: 2006 LFCC Decision;
Format: Less than 10 characters;
Description: A text field documenting the LFCC's decision on the
organization for the 2006 CFC. Enter either "Admitted' or "Denied".
Field name: Campaign ID;
Format: 4 digit number in text format;
Description: The 4 digit campaign (code) ID.
Field name: Campaign Name;
Format: Less than 200 characters;
Description: The name of the campaign.
Text Fields: All of the fields in this request are text fields. Do not
use punctuation in text fields.
[End of table]
Examples:
EIN: 234560900 Campaign ID: 0700:
Legal Name: The "Historical Society, Inc." should be submitted as
Historical Society Inc:
"P.A.T.T" should be submitted as P A T T:
"International Children's Services" should be submitted as
International Childrens Services:
DBA: The "Historical Society of Hawaii, Inc." should be submitted as
Historical Society Hawaii Inc:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Internal Revenue Service:
Department Of The Treasury:
Internal Revenue Service:
Washington, D.C. 20224:
Commissioner:
Tax Exempt And Government Entities Division:
JUL 19 2006:
Mr. Gregory Kutz:
Managing Director:
Forensic Audits and Special Investigations:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Kutz:
Charities participating in the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) are
required to be tax-exempt under Internal Revenue Code section
501(c)(3). As part of GAO's investigation into whether charities
participating in the CFC have unpaid taxes (GAO-06-887), GAO performed
a computer match of CFC charities against the IRS' database of
organizations recognized as tax-exempt. This database is known as the
Exempt Organizations Business Master File (EOBMF) and is available to
the public pursuant to Internal Revenue Code section 6104. While EOBMF
contains information on all tax-exempt organizations, the match was
limited to organizations described in section 501(c)(3). This match
resulted in a list of approximately 1300 participating organizations
that were potentially not tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) and thus
unqualified to participate in the CFC. You provided us` with this list,
which includes names and employer identification numbers (EINs) ofthe
1300 organizations, for the purpose of assisting the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) in verifying the section 501(c)(3) status of
these organizations. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the
results of our inquiry into these matters, as well as provide
information and comments on your draft report of investigation.
The draft report indicates "from our referral of more than 1,300 CFC
charities whose 501(c)(3) status we could not confirm using publicly
available IRS data, the IRS identified a number of charities that are
not valid 501(c)(3) entities. " This is correct. Ultimately, however,
we believe that further research will confirm that the number of
entities that are not qualified 501(c)(3) organizations will be quite
small[Footnote 5]. We believe it would be helpful to explain our
findings in this regard.
We performed a match of the EINs you provided against our Returns
Inventory and Classification System (RICS) database. This database
provided us with information about each organization and its current
status. Based on the results of the match and some amount of manual
research, we believe that the vast majority of the mismatches occurred
because of data input errors. For example, in numerous cases in which
the charity was obviously legitimate, the EIN had two or more
transposed digits. As we discussed with Aaron Hollings of your office,
because the data was initially input by the local CFC campaigns, we
have recommended to OPM that the data for these organizations be
reviewed and verified prior to any subsequent match against the EOBMF.
The match with our RICS database did indicate that some of the EINs
belonged to organizations that had terminated or terminated following a
merger, or were otherwise not recognized as exempt under section
501(c)(3). We provided the names and EINs of these organizations to
OPM, which is all that we are permitted to disclose under section 6104
of the Internal Revenue Code, which governs the publicity of
information relating to exempt organizations. In a number of cases,
however, this did not necessarily mean that the organization named was
not tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3). In some cases we found that a
new organization, or the organization resulting from a merger, was in
fact tax-exempt but had provided the terminated organization's EIN.
We found that some of the organizations were in a status "unable to
locate." This status does not necessarily mean that the organization is
no longer tax-exempt--only that the organization has failed to respond
to IRS correspondence. We are, however, considering our own follow up.
In addition, we are providing assistance to OPM in implementing a
program to verify the tax-exempt status of CFC charities. We met with
OPM and explained what data elements were available from the EOBMF. We
agreed to provide a quarterly EOBMF extract of section 501(c)(3)
organizations so that OPM could electronically match up the list of CFC
charities with the recognized 501(c)(3)s. We have also provided a
cumulative list of names and EINs of organizations whose names have
appeared in the bulletins because we no longer recognize them as tax-
exempt.
Your report notes that the fifteen charities discussed in your
testimony have been referred to the IRS. Collection and Criminal
Investigation are reviewing those cases and will take further action if
warranted.
If you have any questions, please contact Lois G. Lerner, Director of
Exempt Organizations, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division at
(202) 283-2300.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steven T. Miller:
[End of section]
Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Michael C Zola (202) 512-3867, zolam@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
Key contributors to this report include Beverly Burke, Ray Bush, Joonho
Choi, William Cordrey, Paul Desaulniers, Steve Donahue, Dennis Fauber,
Jessica Gray, Mary Ann Hardy, Ken Hill, Aaron Holling, Jason Kelly,
John Kelly, Rick Kusman, Jenny Li, Renee McElveen, John Mingus, John
Ryan, Matt Valenta, Ting-Ting Wu, and Michael Zola.
(192213):
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Tax Debt: Some Combined Federal Campaign Charities Owe Payroll
and Other Federal Taxes, GAO-06-755T (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2006).
[2] 26 U.S.C. § 7202. Under section 7202, it must be shown that a
defendant voluntarily and intentionally acted in violation of a known
legal duty. Cheek v. United States, 498 US 192 (1991).
[3] We characterized as "potentially criminal" any activity related to
federal tax liability that may be a crime under a specific provision of
the Internal Revenue Code. Depending on the potential penalty provided
by statute, the activity could be a felony (punishable by imprisonment
of more than 1 year) or a misdemeanor (punishable by imprisonment of 1
year or less). Some potential crimes under the Internal Revenue Code
constitute fraud because of the presence of intent to defraud,
intentional misrepresentation or deception, or other required legal
elements.
[4] Exempt from this requirement are organizations seeking local
eligibility in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands. However, these
organizations must include in their applications the appropriate local
forms demonstrating their status as charitable organizations. 5 CFR §
950.204(b)(2)(iii).
[5] Some of the names on the list appeared to be state and local
government entities, or instrumentalities of state and local government
entities, which are not tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), but may
receive tax deductible contributions. The disclosure provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code do not permit the IRS to confirm or deny the tax-
exempt status of these entities.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
