Skip to Main Content

Blog

Gain perspectivesOur blog

Editor’s note: read this if you work for, or are affiliated with, a charitable organization that receives donations. Even the most mature nonprofit organizations may miss one of these filings once in a while. Some items (e.g., the donor acknowledgement letter) may feel commonplace, but a refresher—especially at a particularly busy time of the year as it pertains to giving—can fend off fines.

As the holiday season is now in full swing, the season of giving is also upon us. Perhaps not surprisingly, the month of December is by far the most charitable month of the year, accounting for almost one-third of all charitable gifts made annually. And with all that giving comes the requirement of charitable organizations to provide donor acknowledgements, a formal “thank you” of the gift being received. Different gifts require differing levels of acknowledgement, and in some cases an additional IRS form (or two) may need to be filed. Doing some work now may save you time (and a fine or two) later. 

While children are currently busy making lists for Santa Claus, in the spirit of giving we present to you our list of donor acknowledgement requirements―and best practices―to help you gain control of this issue for the holiday season and beyond.

Donor acknowledgement letters

Charitable (i.e., 501(c)(3)) organizations are required to provide a donor acknowledgement letter to each donor contributing $250 or more to the organization, whether it be cash or non-cash items (i.e., publicly traded securities, real estate, artwork, vehicles, etc.) received. The letter should include the following: 

  1. Name of the organization
  2. Amount of cash contribution
  3. Description of non-cash items (but not the value) 
  4. Statement that no goods and services were provided (assuming this is the case)
  5. Description and good faith estimate of the value of goods and services provided by the organization in return for the contribution, if any
  6. Statement that goods or services provided by the organization in return for the contribution consisted entirely of intangible religious benefit, if any

It is not necessary to include either the donor’s social security number or tax identification number on the written acknowledgment and as a best practice should not be included in the letter.

In addition to including the elements above, the written acknowledgement is also required to be contemporaneous, that is, sent out in a timely fashion. According to the IRS, a donor must receive the acknowledgment by the earlier of:

  • The date on which the donor actually files his or her individual federal income tax return for the year of the contribution
  • The due date (including extensions) of the return in order to be considered contemporaneous

Quid pro quo disclosure statements

When a donor makes a payment greater than $75 to a charitable organization partly as a contribution and partly as a payment for goods and services, a disclosure statement is required to notify the donor of the value of the goods and services received in order for the donor to determine the charitable contribution component of their payment.

An example of this would be if the organization sold tickets to its annual fundraising dinner event. Assume the ticket costs $100 and at the event the ticketholder receives a dinner valued at $40. In this example, the donor’s tax deduction may not exceed $60. Because the donor’s payment (quid pro quo contribution) exceeds $75, the charitable organization must furnish a disclosure statement to the donor, even though the deductible amount doesn’t exceed $75.

It’s important to note that there are some exclusions to these requirements if the value received is considered to be de minimis (known as the Token Exception), but the value received needs to be relatively small (ex: receiving a coffee mug with a picture of the organization’s logo on it). Please consult your tax advisor for more details.

If the organization does not issue disclosure statements, the IRS can issue penalties of $10 per contribution, not to exceed $5,000 per fundraising event or mailing. An organization may be able to avoid the penalty if reasonable cause can be demonstrated.

Receiving or selling donated noncash property? Forms 8283 & 8282 may be required.

If a charitable organization receives noncash donations, it may be asked to sign Form 8283. This form is required to be filed by the donor and included with their personal income tax return. If a donor contributes noncash property (excluding publicly traded securities) valued at over $5,000, the organization will need to sign Form 8283, Section B, Part IV acknowledging receipt of the noncash item(s) received.

By signing Form 8283, the donee organization is not only acknowledging receipt, but is also affirming that if the property being received is sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of within three years of the original donation date, the organization will be required to file Form 8282. A copy of this form is filed with the IRS and must also be provided to the original donor. Form 8282 is not required for sales of donated publicly traded securities. The penalty for failure to file Form 8282 when required is generally $50 per form.

Cars, boats, and yes, even airplanes? That would be Form 1098-C.

An airplane? Yes, even an airplane can be donated, and the donee organization must file a separate Form 1098-C, Contributions of Motor Vehicles, Boats, and Airplanes, with the IRS for each contribution of a qualified vehicle that has a claimed value of more than $500. Contemporaneous written acknowledgement requirements apply here too, and Form 1098-C can act as acknowledgement for this purpose. An acknowledgment is considered contemporaneous if it is furnished to the donor no later than 30 days after the date of the contribution if you plan to use the item for a mission-related purpose, or 30 days after the date of the sale of the item to an unrelated third party.

Penalties for failure to provide contemporaneous written acknowledgement for qualified vehicles can be pretty stiff, generally calculated as a percentage of the sale price if sold, or a percentage of the claimed value if not sold. Should you have any questions or receive a request regarding any of the forms noted above, please consult your tax advisor.

As you can see, the rules around donor acknowledgements can seem a lot like Grandma’s fruitcake―complex and perhaps a bit on the nutty side. When issuing donor acknowledgements this holiday season and beyond, be sure to review the list above and check it twice. Doing so may end up keeping you off of the IRS’s naughty list!

Blog
Donor acknowledgements: We have to file what?

Read this if you are a State Medicaid Director, State Medicaid Chief Information Officer, State Medicaid Project Manager, or State Procurement Officer—or if you work on a State Medicaid Enterprise System (MES) certification effort.

On October 24, 2019, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) published the Outcomes-Based Certification (OBC) guidance for the Electronic Visit Verification (EVV) module. Now, CMS is looking to bring the OBC process to the rest of the Medicaid Enterprise. 

The shift from a technical-focused certification to a business outcome-focused approach presents a unique opportunity for states as they begin re-procuring—and certifying—their Medicaid Enterprise Systems (MES).

Once you have defined the scope of your MES project—and know you need to undertake CMS certification—you need to ask “what’s next?” OBC can be a more efficient certification process to secure Federal Financial Participation (FFP).

What does OBC certification entail?

Rethinking certification in terms of business outcomes will require agencies to engage business and operations units at the earliest possible point of the project development process to define the program goals and define what a successful implementation is. One way to achieve this is to consider MES projects in three steps. 

Three steps to OBC evaluation

Step 1: Define outcomes

The first step in OBC planning seems easy enough: define outcomes. But what is an outcome? To answer that, it’s important to understand what an outcome isn’t. An outcome isn’t an activity. Instead, an outcome is the result of the activity. For example, the activity could be procuring an EVV solution. In this instance, an outcome could be that the state has increased the ability to detect fraud, waste, and abuse through increased visibility into the EVV solution.

Step 2: Determine measurements

The second step in the OBC process is to determine what to measure and how exactly you will measure it. Deciding what metrics will accurately capture progress toward the new outcomes may be intuitive and therefore easy to define. For example, a measure might simply be that each visit is captured within the EVV solution.

Increasing the ability to detect fraud, waste, and abuse could simply be measured by the number of cases referred to a Medicaid fraud unit or dollars recovered. However, you may not be able to easily measure that in the short-term. Instead, you may need to determine its measurement in terms of an intermediate goal, like increasing the number of claims checked against new data as a result of the new EVV solution. By increasing the number of checked claims, states can ensure that claims are not being paid for unverified visits. 

Step 3: Frequency and reporting

Finally, the state will need to determine how often to report to measure success. States will need to consider the nuances of their own Medicaid programs and how those nuances fit into CMS’ expectations, including what data is available at what intervals.

OBC represents a fundamental change to the certification process, but it’s important to highlight that OBC isn’t completely unfamiliar territory. There is likely to be some carry-over from the certification process as described in the Medicaid Enterprise Certification Toolkit (MECT) version 2.3. The current Medicaid Enterprise Certification (MEC) checklists serve as the foundation for a more abbreviated set of criteria. New evaluation criteria will look and feel like the criteria of old but are likely to be a fraction of the 741 criteria present in the MECT version 2.3.

OBC offers several benefits to states as you navigate federal certification requirements:

  1. You will experience a reduction in the amount of time, effort, and resources necessary to undertake the certification process. 
  2. OBC refocuses procurement in terms of enhancements to the program, not in new functions. Consequently, states will also be able to demonstrate the benefits that each module brings to the program which can be integral to stakeholder support of each module. 
  3. Early adoption of the OBC process can allow you to play a more proactive role in certification efforts.

Continue to check back for a series of our project case studies. Additionally, if you are considering an OBC effort and have questions, please contact our team. You can read the OBC guidance on the CMS website here
 

Blog
Three steps to outcomes-based certification

Editor's note: Read this if you are a CTO, CIO, or administrator at a college or university. This is the first blog in a series on business lessons and best practices from American literature. For this series, interviewees select from a list of American literary quotes through which to view, and discuss, their focus or industry. The goal? To generate some novel insight.

The interviewees: David Houle and Joseph Traino, consultants at BerryDunn
The focus: Higher education
The quote: “Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys . . . They are but improved means to an unimproved end.”  -- Henry David Thoreau, Walden; or, Life in the Woods

Thoreau wrote this shortly after the Industrial Revolution. How does its cynicism apply to higher education during the Digital Revolution?

David Houle (DH): It speaks to my basic philosophy about applying technology to the needs of higher education clients. I’m not a “technology for the sake of technology” cheerleader. 

Joseph Traino (JT): People often believe that applying new technology to a business problem is going to solve the business problem. That rarely happens. For example, most higher education clients have a student information system. These clients often feel that, in order to resolve certain issues, they should update the system software, whereas the issues are often resolved by updating business practices to be more efficient and effective. 

DH: Right. We are often brought in to identify needed technology changes but end up stressing practices, processes, and people. If staff can’t correctly use a new technology, then the technology will not provide a real, valuable service.

When implementing a new technology, what’s the #1 thing that a higher education institution can do to prevent or avoid “an unimproved end”?

JT: Fully understand the technology’s impact on stakeholders, such as students, faculty, and staff, and answer the “why?”

DH: Keep people in mind and gain their buy-in when making technology decisions.

What technology, or technology-related change, is going to have the biggest effect on higher education over the next five years?

DH: Clients love to ask us this question (laughs). And if I truly knew the answer, I’d be on some Caribbean island right now, filthy rich and sipping a piña colada. That said, I think the technology demands of the new workforce are going to have the biggest effect. To paraphrase the new workforce: “I don’t want to stare at a green screen. And what in the world is DOS?” Conversely, the personnel who used to support these homegrown, in-house “green screen” products want to retire and leave the workforce. 

JT: I agree that the demands of the new workforce will continue to affect higher education and steer institutions away from term-based courses and programs and toward more flexible, student-centric courses and programs. From a technology standpoint, I think AI and bots are going to replace many of the manual processes that we still see today in higher education. These new technologies will create greater efficiencies—but also possibly reduce jobs—at institutions.

DH: Higher education leaders with vision have already grasped this idea of cutting administrative costs wherever possible, because those costs are not what place students in seats—or in front of screens. On the flip side, advising is currently an underserved area in higher education. So there is an opportunity for leaders to reallocate administrative resources to fulfill advising roles and to help students—such as at-risk and first-generation students—not just in the classroom, but through their learning journey.

Circling back to the Thoreau quote, I’m sure many higher education staff fear technology will lead to “unimproved ends” for their careers. How do you navigate those fears when working with clients? 

JT: It’s certainly a challenge. We currently face some of those fears when working with IT departments—more services are being moved to the cloud, and there is less of a need for on-site database administrators and system administrators, as an example. Alluding to what Dave said about advising, I think many higher education jobs can be shifted to provide interactive high-tech, high-touch services to students.

DH: And to be blunt, some people don’t want to shift, don’t want to change. The people part is the most challenging part of technology adoption. 

In this discussion about technology, we keep returning to people—and the people side of change. Are higher education clients typically responsive to the concept of change management?

JT: There’s typically some reticence, and a lack of understanding about the value of change management. In most cases, change management requires an investment beyond the technology investment. But change management is key to success. 

DH: Reticence is a good word. Yet I do think that views about change management are changing rapidly. Higher education leaders who have been through a significant system or process change now seem to understand the value of change management and know that change management is a necessity, not a luxury. 

In the end, are you confident that new technology is going to benefit students and their educational goals? 

DH: I’m unsure if technology improves the quality of education. However, I am sure that technology increases the options for the delivery of education. And greater flexibility in education delivery is certainly beneficial, especially because the traditional student is now non-traditional. Ongoing and 24/7 access demands in education are here to stay.

JT: I agree with Dave wholeheartedly. I think technology will help improve the means to the end, but I’m not sure if technology is going to improve the end. Technology is just one part of the education equation. 
 

Blog
Technology ≠ Education

Read this if you are a solar investor, developer, or installer.

The solar carve out of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) has been a great incentive for taxpayers to invest in solar assets over the last several years. It established an increased 30% tax credit for solar assets placed in service, up from the normal 10%. 

Starting January 1, 2020, the solar carve out will begin to phase out and will return to 10% by January 1, 2024. 

With the first phase-out of the ITC set to drop the credit from 30% to 26% after December 31, 2019, many taxpayers are evaluating ways to make sure their project still qualifies for the 30% credit. The IRS has issued two safe harbor provisions (IRS Notice 2018-59) to allow for projects placed in service after December 31, 2019 and before January 1, 2024 to still qualify for the 30% credit, but timing is key and certain actions must be taken before midnight on December 31, 2019.

Safe harbor methods

The two safe harbor methods are the Physical Work Test and the Five Percent of Cost Test. If a project satisfies either of these tests it can still qualify for the 30% tax credit as long as it is completed and in service before January 1, 2024.

The Physical Work Test requires that the taxpayer performs, or has performed on their behalf, “work of a significant nature” on the project prior to December 31, 2019. This is a little open to interpretation, but generally involves physical construction of the asset, such as the installation of mounting equipment, rails, racking, inverters, or even the panels themselves. Purchasing of equipment generally held in inventory by either the taxpayer or the vendor does not qualify. However, if the equipment is customized or specially designed for the specific project, it might. Preliminary activities do not qualify, which include planning, designing, surveying, and permitting. 

In general, the purpose of this test is to prove that construction has already begun, and is in place to help projects that have been started but won’t be in service before year end still maintain the 30% tax credit. Projects that are substantially complete and waiting for an interconnection or a permission to operate in order to be considered as in service will most easily qualify for this safe harbor test.

The Five Percent of Cost Test is a little more straightforward, and is likely to be more commonly used to qualify projects for the safe harbor provision as the end of the year deadline approaches. This test requires at least five percent of the total project cost be paid or incurred before December 31, 2019. It is important to note that the denominator in this test is the final total cost of the project when it goes in service. The taxpayer may wish to pay more than the five percent to account for project overruns or unanticipated changes to the project in order to make sure they maintain the qualification for safe harbor. 

Another consideration is if the taxpayer files on the cash or accrual method as to whether the project cost needs to be paid or incurred in order to satisfy the chosen filing method.

In either case, the taxpayer should also evaluate the cost of prepaying for equipment that may decrease in cost in the future, compared to the benefit they will receive in maintaining the additional four percent of the tax credit that can safe harbor from the phase out. 

Additionally, an analysis of total project costs and eligible vs. ineligible ITC costs early on in project development can help identify how best to spend the cash before the end of the year, and ensure that the taxpayer receives the return they require once the project goes into service.

Have questions?

If you have questions on these safe harbors or need more information, please contact the green tax experts on our renewable energy team

Blog
Safe harbor options for taxpayers as the solar ITC begins to sunset

Editor's note: read this blog if you are a state liquor administrator or at the C-level in state government. 

Surprisingly, the keynote address to this year’s annual meeting of the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association (NABCA) featured few comments on, well, alcohol. 

Why? Because cannabis is now the hot topic in state government, as consumers await its legalization. While the thought of selling cannabis may seem foreign to some state administrators, many liquor agencies are―and should be―watching. The fact is, state liquor agencies are already equipped with expertise and the technology infrastructure needed to lawfully sell a controlled substance. This puts them in a unique position to benefit from the industry’s continued growth. Common technology includes enterprise resource planning (ERP) and point-of-sale (POS) systems.

ERP

State liquor agencies typically use an ERP system to integrate core business functions, including finance, human resources, and supply chain management. Whether the system is handling bottles of wine, cases of spirits, or bags of cannabis, it is capable of achieving the same business goals. 

The existing checks and balances on controlled substances like alcohol in their current ERP system translate well to cannabis products. This leads to an important point: state governments do not need to procure a new IT system solely for regulating cannabis.

By leveraging existing ERP systems, state liquor agencies can sidestep much of the time, effort, and expense of selecting, procuring, and implementing a new system solely for cannabis sales and management. In control states, where the state has exclusively control of alcohol sales, liquor agencies are often involved in every stage of product lifecycle, from procurement to distribution to retailing.

With a few modifications, the spectrum of business functions that control states require for liquor—procuring new product, communicating with vendors and brokers, tracking inventory, and analyzing sales—can work just as well for cannabis.

POS

POS systems are necessary for most retail stores. If a state liquor agency decides to sell cannabis products in stores, they can use a POS system to integrate with the agency’s ERP system, though store personnel may require training to help ensure compliance with related regulations.

Cannabis is cash only (for now)

There is one major difference in conducting liquor versus cannabis sales at any level: currently states conduct all cannabis sales in cash. With cannabis illegal on the federal level, major banks have opted to decline any deposit of funds earned from cannabis-related sales. While some community banks are conducting cannabis-related banking, many retailers selling recreational cannabis in places like Colorado and California still deal in cash. While risky and not without challenges, these transactions are possible and less onerous to federal regulators. 

Taxes 

As markets develop, monthly tax revenue collections from cannabis continue to grow. Colorado and California have found cannabis-related tax revenue a powerful tool in hedging against uncertainty in year-over-year cash flows. Similar to beer sold wholesale, which liquor agencies tax even in control states, cannabis can be taxed at multiple levels depending on the state’s business model.

E-commerce

Even with liquor, few state agencies have adopted direct-to-consumer online sales. However, as other industries continue shifting toward e-commerce and away from brick and mortar retailing, private sector competition will likely feed increased consumer demand for online sales. Similar to ERP and POS systems, states can increase revenue by selling cannabis through e-commerce sales channels. In today’s online retail world, many prefer to buy products from their computer or smart phone instead of shopping in stores. State agencies should consider selling cannabis via the web to maximize this revenue opportunity. 

Applying expertise in the systems and processes of alcoholic beverage control can translate into the sale and regulation of cannabis, easing the transition states face to this burgeoning industry. If your agency is considering bringing in cannabis under management, you should consider strategic planning sessions and even begin a change management approach to ensure your agency adapts successfully. 

Blog
Considering cannabis: how state liquor agencies can manage the growing industry

This site uses cookies to provide you with an improved user experience. By using this site you consent to the use of cookies. Please read our Privacy Policy for more information on the cookies we use and how you can manage them.