Presenters: Karl E. Emerson, Of Counsel, Montgomery McCracken, and Chuck McLean, Vice President of Research, GuideStar USA Do you know what a “rebuttable presumption” is? Can you name the “disqualified persons” in your organization? Do you know why these things are important? If you answered, “No,” to any of these questions, this free Webinar is for you. Join attorney (and former state charity official) Karl Emerson and GuideStar’s Chuck McLean to find out what are best practices in nonprofit compensation. The IRS, Congress, and donors are all taking hard looks at what nonprofits pay their leaders. Make sure you can justify your organization’s compensation practices to these important audiences.

1. The Private Inurement
Prohibition, Excess
Compensation, Intermediate
Sanctions, And The IRS’s
Rebuttable Presumption ---- A
Basic Primer For 501(c)(3)
Public Charities
Karl E. Emerson
Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP

2. Disclaimer
• This presentation is intended to provide only
a general summary and overview of these
topics as they pertain to public charities that
have been granted tax-exempt status under
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code.

3. Disclaimer
• This presentation will not address the
applicability of these topics to other types of
tax-exempt organizations such as private
foundations and those that have been
granted tax-exempt status under other parts
of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code.

4. Disclaimer
• The information provided during this
presentation is not to be considered legal
advice applicable to any particular situation,
and organizations needing specific advice
and counsel on these matters should always
consult with knowledgeable counsel.

5. The Private Inurement Prohibition
• The private inurement prohibition requires
that a public charity that has been granted
tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code (“charity”)
operate so that none of its income or assets
unreasonably benefits any of its board
members, trustees, officers, or key
employees.
• These types of individuals are commonly
referred to as “insiders”.

6. The Private Inurement Prohibition
• Thus, the prohibition precludes any of the
income or assets of a charity from unfairly or
unreasonably benefiting, either directly or
indirectly, individuals who have close
relationships with their organizations and the
ability to exercise control over them.
• The most common type of private inurement
is excessive compensation paid to insiders
and this topic will be covered in much
greater detail later in the presentation.

7. The Private Inurement Prohibition
• There are, however, many other forms of
private inurement that can also result in the
revocation of a charity’s tax-exempt status
and/or in the imposition of significant
“intermediate sanctions” that will be
discussed shortly.
• These other forms of possible private
inurement include, but are not limited to:
• the sale of a charity’s asset to an insider;

8. The Private Inurement Prohibition
• the charity’s purchase of an asset from an
insider;
• the charity’s rental of property from, or to, an
insider;
• the charity’s lending of money to an insider;
and
• the use of facilities and/or other assets of the
charity by an insider.

9. The Private Inurement Prohibition
• Just as with assessing the appropriateness
of an insider’s compensation, the decisive
factor in determining whether a transaction
with an insider violates the private inurement
prohibition is whether the transaction is fair
and reasonable under the circumstances.
• For example, it would not necessarily be
improper to sell a charity’s asset to an
insider at, or above, its fair market value.

10. The Private Inurement Prohibition
• It would, however, probably be improper to
sell a charity’s asset to an insider for less
than its fair market value.
• Similarly, it would not necessarily be
improper to rent a charity’s office facilities
from an insider at, or below, fair market
value, but it would be improper to do so for
more than fair market value.

11. The Private Inurement Prohibition
• Likewise, it would not necessarily be
improper for a charity to purchase assets
and/or services from an insider, or from an
entity with which the insider or a family
member is affiliated, as long as the assets
and/or services are purchased at, or below,
their fair market value rather than for more
than their fair market value.

12. The Private Inurement Prohibition
• The courts and the IRS have consistently
ruled that any unreasonable benefit or
inurement, however small, is impermissible
and can result in the revocation of a charity’s
tax-exempt status.
• However, even if private inurement is clearly
present in a particular fact situation, it can
often be argued that the ultimate sanction of
revoking a charity’s tax-exempt status should
not be imposed if the unreasonable benefit is
incidental or insignificant.

13. The Private Inurement Prohibition
• In such instances, a strong case can be
made to only have the “intermediate
sanctions” that will be discussed shortly
imposed instead of revoking the charity’s
tax-exempt status.

14. Excessive Compensation
• As was noted earlier, the most common type
of private inurement is the payment of
excessive compensation to insiders.
• The IRS has significantly increased its
enforcement efforts in this area and recently
assessed millions of dollars in penalties for
these types of violations. In addition, the
IRS has indicated that it will now include
excessive compensation analyses in every
future audit it conducts.

15. Excessive Compensation
• It is important to note, however, that
individuals working for a charity are not
required to donate their services and are
allowed to be reasonably compensated.
• In other words, they are not required to work
for free or accept reduced compensation
simply because they provide their services to
a charity rather than to a taxable
organization, although such individuals often
do.

16. Excessive Compensation
• The private inurement prohibition simply
requires that the total compensation paid by
a charity to an insider be fair and
reasonable.
• Whether an insider’s total compensation is
fair and reasonable is determined on a case-by-
case basis using a process similar to that
used to value anything: this process requires
a charity to gather comparable data
regarding what similarly situated individuals
running similar organizations are paid.

17. Excessive Compensation
• There are numerous sources for obtaining
this comparability information. For example,
ERI Economic Research Institute,
www.erieri.com and GuideStar,
www.guidestar.org, are two excellent
sources.

18. Excessive Compensation
• For an insider’s compensation to be fair and
reasonable, there must be an approximately
equal exchange of benefits between the
charity and the insider so that the insider
does not receive an unreasonable or
unwarranted benefit from the charity.
• Bruce Hopkins, a nonprofit law expert, notes
that there are several factors commonly
considered to evaluate the reasonableness
of an insider’s compensation, including:

19. Excessive Compensation
• the compensation paid by similar
organizations, both exempt and taxable, for
equivalent positions in the same community
or geographic area;
• the charity’s need for the particular services
of the person in question;
• the uniqueness of the person’s background,
education, training, experience, and
responsibilities;

20. Excessive Compensation
• whether the compensation was approved by
an independent board of directors;
• the size and complexity of the charity’s
income and assets and the number of
employees the charity has;
• the person’s prior compensation
arrangements;
• the person’s job performance;

21. Excessive Compensation
• the relationship of the person’s
compensation to the compensation paid to
the charity’s other employees; and
• the number of hours the person spends
performing his or her job.

22. Excessive Compensation
• It is important to note that “total
compensation” paid by a charity to an insider
includes more than just the insider’s salary
or wages. It includes all other forms of
compensation the insider receives, such as
bonuses, commissions, royalties, fringe
benefits, deferred compensation, severance
payments, retirement and pension benefits,
expense allowance, and insurance benefits.

23. Excessive Compensation
• The bottom line is that an unreasonably
large or excessive salary paid by a charity to
an insider can be considered private
inurement ---- especially when the insider
also receives other forms of compensation
from the charity.

24. Excessive Compensation
• It is important to note, however, that very
large salaries and non-cash benefits paid to
certain key employees can often be
reasonable when one considers the
employee’s experience and expertise.
• For example, highly-skilled and experienced
physicians at a nonprofit hospital are
sometimes paid significantly more than the
hospital’s CEO and other executive-level
staff.

25. Excessive Compensation
• According to nonprofit law expert Bruce
Hopkins, a charity can avoid violating the
private inurement prohibition for
compensation it pays to an insider as long
as it is able to:
• describe fully and accurately all aspects of
the insider’s total compensation package;
• explain exactly how the charity determined
the insider’s total compensation package;

26. Excessive Compensation
• describe adequately and accurately the
insider’s duties and responsibilities;
• provide adequate documentation, such as
comparable salaries paid by similar
organizations, that show the reasonableness
of the insider’s compensation;

27. Excessive Compensation
• show through appropriate documentation
that the charity’s governing body approved
the amount of the insider’s compensation
and that the insider or someone related to
the insider did not participate in the process;
• show that the amount of the insider’s total
reportable compensation agrees with the
amount reported on the insider’s Form W-2
or Form 1099 to avoid an automatic excess
benefit transaction; and

28. Excessive Compensation
• show through appropriate documentation
that the insider’s use of any of the charity’s
assets, such as cars, real estate, credit
cards, laptops, or cell phones, for other than
fulfilling the charity’s exempt purposes, were
properly included in his or her compensation
and properly included in the insider’s Form
W-2 or Form 1099, again, in order to avoid
penalties for automatic excess benefit
transactions.

29. Intermediate Sanctions
• As was noted earlier, not all findings of
private inurement will result in revocation of
a charity’s tax-exempt status.
• Section 4958 of the Internal Revenue Code
provides for “intermediate sanctions” that
allow the IRS to impose significant taxes on
insiders, whom the applicable regulations
refer to as “disqualified persons”, when they
engage in excess benefit transactions with a
charity.

30. Intermediate Sanctions
• Therefore, Section 4958 gives the IRS the
authority to impose a sanction short of
revocation when revocation would be
inappropriate and/or unnecessarily harsh.

31. Intermediate Sanctions
• In an excessive compensation case, the
“excess benefit” is the amount by which the
total compensation paid by the charity to an
insider exceeds the reasonable value of the
services provided by the insider to the
charity.

32. Intermediate Sanctions
• So, for example, if a comparison of relevant
salaries shows that an insider is being paid
$100,000 more than comparable individuals
performing similar functions at similar
organizations and that there is no legitimate
reason for doing so, the amount of the
“excess benefit” received by the insider
would be $100,000.

33. Intermediate Sanctions
• Section 4958(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code imposes an initial tax equal to 25
percent of the excess benefit. The insider in
this example would have to pay a $25,000
penalty to the IRS as well as make the
charity whole by repaying the $100,000, plus
interest.

34. Intermediate Sanctions
• If the insider does not make the charity
whole within the time frame set by the IRS,
Section 4958(b) of the Internal Revenue
Code imposes an additional tax equal to 200
percent of the excess benefit on the insider –
an additional $200,000 penalty in the current
example.

35. Intermediate Sanctions
• Section 4958(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code also imposes a tax equal to 10 percent
of the excess benefit on any charity
manager, typically a board member, who
knowingly approved the excess benefit
transaction, unless his or her participation
was not willful. Again, in the above example,
the tax on any board member who knowingly
approved the unreasonable or excessive
salary would be $10,000.

36. Intermediate Sanctions
• It is important to note that participation
includes a board member’s silence or
inaction where he or she is under a duty to
speak or act as well as any affirmative action
by the board member. A board member is
not considered to have participated in an
excess benefit transaction, however, if he or
she opposed the transaction by, for example,
having his or her objection to the transaction
noted in the charity’s board meeting minutes.

37. Intermediate Sanctions
• In addition, a board member’s participation
will not normally be considered to have been
knowing within the meaning of Section
4958(a)(2) if there was full disclosure of all
relevant facts to an appropriately qualified
professional and the board member relied on
a reasoned written opinion of that
professional that the transaction in question
was reasonable.

38. The IRS’s Rebuttable Presumption
• To help charities comply with this sometimes
complex area of the law, the IRS has
established a “rebuttable presumption” that
payments to insiders are presumed to be
reasonable and not excessive if the following
steps were taken:
• the charity’s board obtained and relied on
appropriate comparability data prior to
making its determination;

39. The IRS’s Rebuttable Presumption
• the total compensation package was
approved in advance by the charity’s board,
and no individuals who had an actual or
potential conflict of interest with respect to
the compensation arrangement participated
in the deliberations; and
• the charity’s board adequately and
contemporaneously documented the basis
for its determination.

40. The IRS’s Rebuttable Presumption
• If the above three steps were taken, the IRS
may only rebut the presumption of
reasonableness if it can show that the
comparability data relied on by the charity’s
board was inappropriate.
• For charities with annual gross receipts of
less than $1 million, a board is considered to
have had appropriate comparability data if it
had data on compensation paid by three
comparable organizations in the same or
similar communities for similar services.

41. Conclusion
• In this age of significantly heightened
scrutiny of the charitable sector by state and
federal regulators, Congress, the media, and
donors, it is especially critical that a charity
take all necessary steps to ensure that it
doesn’t violate the private inurement
prohibition by paying one or more of its
officers or employees excessive
compensation.

42. Conclusion
• Not to do so can jeopardize the charity’s tax-exempt
status and/or result in the imposition
of significant financial penalties against
those determined to have been excessively
compensated as well as against those who
knowingly approved the excessive
compensation.

43. Conclusion
• Given the fact that the IRS has significantly
increased its enforcement efforts in this area
and recently assessed millions of dollars in
penalties for these types of violations – and
has indicated that it will be routinely
including excess compensation analyses in
every future audit it conducts – a charity that
fails to follow the basic steps suggested by
the IRS to ensure that the compensation it
pays insiders is reasonable and not
excessive is acting irresponsibly, and its
directors may

44. Conclusion
• not be properly exercising their fiduciary
responsibilities.
• In addition, a charity’s failure to follow these
basic steps for determining compensation for
insiders will now be public information
because, starting in 2008, a charity must
indicate on its annual IRS Form 990 return
whether it followed these steps in
determining the compensation of its insiders
and other employees.

45. Conclusion
• Consequently, a charity will want to consider
carefully how it answers these questions.

46. How the GuideStar Compensation Report
Can Help You To Determine Appropriate
Executive Compensation
Chuck McLean
GuideStar Vice President of Research

47. GuideStar Nonprofit Compensation
Report
• Uses IRS Form 990 compensation data
exclusively.
• Reports on both total compensation and
annual percentage increases for
incumbents.
• 2014 report includes 129,126 positions
drawn from 91,724 Form 990 filings of 501(c)
organizations for fiscal year 2011 (other than
private foundations).

48. Positions Reported On
• CEO/Executive Director (83,472)
• Top Administrative Position (6,118)
• Top Business Position (2,746)
• Top Development Position (2,395)
• Top Education/Training Position (704)
• Top Facilities Position (644)
• Top Financial Position (19,523)
• Top Human Resources Position (1,496)
• Top Legal Position (1,138)
• Top Marketing Position (815)
• Top Operations Position (6,320)
• Top Program Position (1,658)

49. Breakdown of Data
• Geography (National, State and MSA)
• Annual Expenses
• Gender
• Organization Type (NTEE Codes)

50. Statistics Reported
• Number of organizations in the category
• The average compensation for the position
across the category
• The 10th, 25th, 50th (median), 75th, and 90th
percentiles of compensation for the position
across the category

51. Understanding the Statistics
• 10th percentile – 10 percent of the people reported
upon in the category made less than this amount,
and 90 percent made more.
• 25th percentile - 25 percent of the people reported
upon in the category made less than this amount,
and 75 percent made more.
• 50th percentile (median) - half of the people reported
upon in the category made less than this amount,
and half made more.
• 75th percentile - 75 percent of the people reported
upon in the category made less than this amount,
and 25 percent made more.
• 90th percentile - 90 percent of the people reported
upon in the category made less than this amount,
and 10 percent made more.

52. Understanding the Statistics
• The larger the number of organizations in the
category, the more reliable the data. The
average compensation is especially susceptible
to being skewed when there are few
organizations in the category.
• The closer together the average compensation
and the median compensation, the more
reliable the data.

58. In cases where a executive compensation
package is complicated and anticipated total
compensation is well above the norm, The
GuideStar Nonprofit Compensation Report
probably does not provide sufficient
information to satisfy the requirements of a
rebuttable presumption. However, in most
routine cases, the report provides an
adequate “reality check” for setting
executive compensation.

59. For example, suppose that your organization:
• Provides various human services
• Has an annual budget of $5.3 million
• Is located in Boston, MA
• Is seeking an experienced executive director
Looking in the GuideStar report, you find 92 similar
organizations in Boston, where executive director pay
was $129,581 at the 25th percentile, $160,722 at the
median, and $240,395 at the 75th percentile. It seems
reasonable, then, that target compensation would be
somewhere between the median and the 75th
percentile. If compensation is to be set significantly
higher than that, however, a more rigorous process is

60. Rules to Live By
• The best source of compensation data that
the IRS has is Form 990 data.
• The more the compensation of executives
strays above Form 990 norms, the more likely
the IRS is to question it, thus
• The more rigorous the organization needs to
be in following proper procedures and
documenting the reasons for what might
appear to excessively high compensation.

61. To download Karl Emerson’s
White Paper:
http://bit.ly/neu91Y

62. If you have questions
• Karl Emerson, Montgomery McCracken
KEmerson@mmwr.com
• Chuck McLean, GuideStar
cmclean@guidestar.org