Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Your Cart   |   Sign In   |   Become a Member
Community Search
Member Sign In


Spatially Speaking
MAPPS Events

7/14/2019 » 7/17/2019
2019 Summer Conference

1/19/2020 » 1/22/2020
2020 Winter Conference

Spatially Speaking
Blog Home All Blogs
"Spatially Speaking" is the official MAPPS blog providing information on topics related to the association and profession and MAPPS involvement with the issues.

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: Congress  Geospatial  LIDAR  Privacy  UAV  FAA  3DEP  Mapping  MAPPS  surveying  Economy  FCC  FLAIR Act  USGS  Advocacy  Business  Exporting  FGDC  FTC  Jobs  MIO-UIMT  NOAA  parcels  private sector  qbs  Tax  USACE  2014 Winter Conference  Accomplishments  Aviation 

Why the IRS Scandal is Important to MAPPS Members

Posted By John Palatiello, Friday, May 24, 2013

The current controversy over the IRS’s politically tainted scrutiny of conservative 501(c)(4) organizations is focusing attention on the Exempt Organizations Division of the federal tax agency. As the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported, this IRS division has been a longstanding administrative problem. Moreover, it is the office that is responsible for assuring that exempt organizations comply with applicable tax laws. And, it is in charge of overseeing the activities of exempt organizations so that such entities do not engage in unfair competition with private sector, for-profit firms, including small business.


Exempt organizations are not required to pay taxes on revenue that are related to the purpose for which they receive tax exemption. However, such organizations, including MAPPS, are required to pay an unrelated business income tax, or "UBIT” on non-exempt revenue. For example, dues, conference registration fees, sponsorships, publications and other similar normal MAPPS revenues are not taxable because they directly support the association’s exempt purpose. However, revenue from the sale of advertising on our web site is subject to UBIT, inasmuch as that is not related to the mission of MAPPS and is solely for the business benefit of the advertiser. MAPPS can sell advertising, but we must pay tax on that revenue.

A look at the tax law affecting the entire family of 501(c) organizations is in order, to include IRS oversight and enforcement of commercial activities of nonprofit organizations and UBIT, as well as how the IRS is lax in enforcing the law to prevent unfair nonprofit competition with private enterprise.

Recently, the Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS, the very office now the subject of several investigations, conducted a Colleges and Universities Compliance Project, which looked at the UBIT payments (or lack thereof) of colleges and universities. The April 25, 2013 IRS Report, according to a news article, "found increases to unrelated business taxable income for 90 percent of the colleges and universities examined, totaling about $90 million. There were over 180 changes to the amounts of unrelated business taxable income reported by colleges and universities on Form 990-T; and disallowance of more than $170 million in losses and net operating losses that could amount to more than $60 million in assessed taxes."

As Accuracy in Academia has reported, at the same time the IRS Exempt Organizations Division was targeting conservative groups, it was being lax on universities engaging in commercial activities without paying UBIT on revenue from such activities, in unfair competition with private sector, tax-paying companies.

The underlying difficulty of tax fairness among exempt organizations and nonprofits is deeper and more longstanding. Gilbert M. Gaul and Neill A. Borowski of The Philadelphia Inquirer won a Pulitzer Prize for their investigation that identified rampant abuses of America's nonprofit tax laws. Many of the issues raised in this series are still evident today.

A 1980 report by the Small Business Administration also singled out universities as a major source of tax dollar-supported unfair competition with private companies, particularly small firms -- "Unfair Competition by Nonprofit Organizations With Small Business: An Issue for the 1980s” (June, 1984). SBA offered testimony, when requested by the House and Senate Small Business Committees in 1988 and 1996 and conducted some research on non-profit competition in 1999

Many MAPPS member firms encounter unfair competition from universities. Look, for example, here, here or here, to see just a sampling. We’ve held sessions at MAPPS meetings on university competition.

The 1995 White House Conference on Small Business made this a priority issue when its plank read, "Congress should enact legislation that would prohibit government agencies and tax exempt and anti-trust exempt organizations from engaging in commercial activities in direct competition with small businesses.” That was among the top 15 vote-getters at the 1995 Conference and was number one among all the procurement-related issues in the final balloting.

An entire book has been written on this issue, Unfair Competition: The Profits of Nonprofits, James T. Bennett, Thomas H. DiLorenzo, Hamilton Press, 1989. 

The Ways and Means Committee last held extensive hearings on this problem in 1987 and had GAO conduct an investigation. The Small Business Committee has also held hearings, but that was back in 1996.

I testified before the House Ways and Means Committee in February and later participated in a Roundtable hosted by Rep. Reichert and Rep. Lewis, who make up the House Ways and Means Committee Special Panel on Tax-Exempt Organizations.

John Palatiello testifies April 11, 2013 before House Ways and Means Committee

To help Congress address this issue in more detail, focused on university competition with geospatial firms, please submit your examples of university competition to John "JB" Byrd, MAPPS Government Affairs Manager.

Tags:  Congress  IRS  Tax  UBIT 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

MAPPS Opposes 3% Withholding on Federal Contracts at IRS Public Hearing

Posted By Nick Palatiello, Thursday, September 15, 2011
On September 12 MAPPS Executive Director John Palatiello was one of five witnesses who testified at a public hearing by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) entitled, "Withholding on Payments by Government Entities to Persons Providing Property or Services.” The hearing was to address legislation enacted by Congress calling for a 3 percent withholding on all federal contracts, including mapping, surveying and geospatial activities, with the IRS in charge of implementing regulations on  section 3402(t) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Palatiello reiterated MAPPS opposition to the 3 percent withholding. He said even with a recent change in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (section 52.232-10), A/E firms, including those in surveying and mapping, still face a potential retainage or withholding of 13 percent on Federal contracts, an amount often in excess of the net profit. He said small business cannot afford to be in the banking business, making interest free loans to the federal government. He also said the withholding will drive firms out of the Federal contracting market at a time when we should be encouraging more competition.

As a means to help business, Palatiello urged that all long-term contracts be grandfathered. In particular, an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract should be grandfathered, and the 3%withholding should not apply to any task order entered into or against the ID/IQ contract after the effective date of the IRS regulation.  The same policy should apply to other types of contract vehicles, such as GSA Schedule and Basic Ordering Agreements (BOAs), he told the IRS.

In 2009, MAPPS testified at an IRS oversight hearing opposing 3 percent withholding.

MAPPS is a member of the Government Withholding Coalition (the Coalition), led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Coalition was formed to seek repeal of Section 511 of Public Law No. 109-222, which mandates the sweeping new requirement that federal, sate and local governments withhold 3% of their payments for goods and services (the government withholding regime).

Currently there is bi-partisan support in Congress to repeal the withholding. H.R. 674 and S. 164 are intended to "amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities.” The bills are cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 250 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 21 U.S. Senators. This legislation is a priority for the Republican leadership in the House and is scheduled to be debated this fall. President Obama has included a delay in the effective date of the withholding in his recently unveiled jobs package.

Tags:  3% withholding  Congress  Contracts  IRS  Tax 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)