Once again, the Israeli nonprofit organization Magan David Adom (MDA) and it’s American supporting charity, American Friends of Magen David Adom (AFMDA), are in the news after all five members of AFMDA’s executive board resigned, stating that they “refuse to abdicate or compromise in any way our fiduciary duty to AFMDA and its donors.”

Second, which side is right or wrong is of secondary importance.  Regardless how the situation plays out in the near or distant future, organizations can learn RIGHT NOW from the very public debates raging between the American and Israeli arms.

Specifically, the core issues — defining roles, trust, and independence — are the same faced by all international organizations, and, as such, can provide a constructive case-study for nonprofits, their board members, and their donors.

(While I generally refrain from talking about specific groups so as to avoid accidentally tarnishing an organization’s reputation, in this case, after articles in the Forward, The Jewish Week and eJewish Philanthropy, I think it’s safe to say that the cat is out of the bag.)

1. DEFINING ROLES

The resigning board members argue that Israel’s MDA views AFMDA as purely a fundraising arm. – Forward

Let’s be very clear: establishing a “Friends of” Charity is not just about creating a PO Box in the United States. Rather, a “Friends of” Organization is about finding like-minded individuals that share a similar passion for a charity’s mission and believe that Charity X is the best way to address this particular issue.

Said somewhat differently, creating a supporting charity abroad is about empowering individuals outside of the organizational framework and arming them with the appropriate tools so they can promote your cause; hopefully, raising a heck-of-a-lot of money in the process.

The relationship a foreign charity has with its American Friends is similar to the relationship any nonprofit has with its Board Members.  This point is addressed most excellently in an articleby Hildy Gottlieb. The following short excerpt doesn’t do it justice:

Board Members and FriendRaising:

The point of engaging the community (which is really what FriendRaising is all about) is an engaged community…Friends will not let anything bad happen to your work. They will help in ways you never dreamed possible. They will want to see good things happen, and will work like the devil to be sure nothing bad happens.

Friends share all their gifts with the organization, and are thrilled that the organization sees value in those gifts! They give what they have, whatever that is – and yes, quite often, it is even money. But it is not only money. It is usually far more.

The only road to sustainability is to engage the community in your work, to turn that community into an army of friends achieving something amazing together, spreading the roots of ownership of your mission and vision throughout the community, so the community would not dream of letting that mission die.

When two sides do not agree on their particular roles there will undoubtedly be tension. It is best to address these issues early on so as to avoid them becoming a much larger issue in the future.

2. TRUST

The Israeli group has argued that AFMDA is holding a huge cache of money that donors believe is going directly and immediately to Israel, while in actuality is it waiting — at times, for years — for approval by the American body…Another factor contributing to the mistrust that some AFMDA officials harbored toward their Israeli counterparts is an ongoing criminal investigation in Israel against the CEO of MDA. – Forward

And, of course, a cornerstone for a good friendship is trust.  And the trust should flow in two directions:

• The American Friends should trust that the beneficiary (a.k.a. the foreign charity) is using the money wisely and responsibly to forward the common mission in the best way possible.
• The Foreign Charity should trust that its American Friends are supporting it — especially monetarily — in the best way possible.  This means that the foreign nonprofit trusts the methods used by the American charity to fundraise, hire staff, and publicize/market the organization etc.

If either of these trusts breakdown, a situation like what MDA is experiencing now is the inevitable result.

3. INDEPENDENCE (AND COMPLIANCE)

But on January 19, all five members of AFMDA’s executive committee resigned, warning that the renewed partnership could come at the heavy price of lost independence and possible abdication of the American group’s legal responsibilities as a charity certified in the United States. - Forward

…The leadership of Magen David Adom (MDA), and some of the members of AFMDA’s Board of Directors, do not appear to share our commitment to our roles as responsible and independent fiduciaries, exercising sound judgment in full compliance with the letter and spirit of American laws and donor expectations. – eJewishPhilanthropy

An American nonprofit’s need to be independent stems primarily from the I.R.S..

As such, foreign organizations looking to establish an American Friends of Organization in the States need to understand that the American charity must demonstrate control and financial accountability. If the U.S. nonprofit is thought to be a simple puppet of the foreign organization, the I.R.S. can remove tax-exempt status and/or levy fines.

Two key points from a previous post exemplify the level of control the U.S. Government is expecting:

• Grants should be reduced to a written agreement signed by both the charity and the grantee. In addition to requiring periodic reports, charities should perform routine, on-site audits of grantees.
• The I.R.S. insists that charities must demonstrate that it exercised an independent decision about the use of its donations and that the funds sent abroad further the charities’ own purposes.

It is important to note that the due diligence done by a “Friends Of” is not a reflection of distrust as mentioned above, rather its inherent responsibility to the government scrutinizing the charity and to its donors.

A foreign nonprofit looking to establish a “Friends of” charity in America must realize that it is not opening a branch or satellite, rather a separate entity.  If the parent organization cannot appreciate this distinction, a “Friends of” Organization  might not be the best solution for the charity; there are, after all, other types of entities that can help transfer donations abroad.

IN CONCLUSION

Let us not be naive and think that Magen David Adom is the only organization to have problems of control, independence, and fiduciary responsibility. Just the opposite, many international nonprofits have similar issues but will continue to avoid addressing them because they are “fortunate” enough not to be in the limelight. (And this, by the way, is the real danger, though, not the subject of this post.)

As I mentioned above, this piece isn’t about blame or deciding which side is right. As far as I’m concerned, both sides — and especially the charity’s beneficiaries — come out behind.

I heard Martin Brookes, CEO of New Philanthropy Capital in the UK, explain at a recent conference that he can only offer people the lessons he’s learned from the mistakes he has made.  It is my sincere hope — and perhaps the only silver lining in this whole mess — that other organizations take note of MDA’s recent struggles and learn from them.  (From my mouth to God’s ears.)

Tizku Lemitzvot,

Shuey

Disclaimer: This blog houses my personal opinions and is for informational purposes only — not advice. As charity laws can be quite complex, please refer all questions to qualified and licensed professionals. Read the full disclaimer.

Israeli charities (amutot in Hebrew) rely on donations from overseas – no secret there.  Many foreign-based charities choose to create an American based nonprofit, more commonly referred to as a “Friends of” organization so donations can be tax-deductible vis-a-vis the American Federal Government. (In a previous post, I spoke about IRS trends when a “Friends of Organization” is applying for tax-exempt status.)

However, it could be that establishing a “Friends of” organization is not in your charity’s best interest. The following are some considerations that elaborate on:

Why not to establish a U.S. registered “Friends of” Organization to help fundraise?

1. Fees and Costs

Setup Costs: Experts estimate the fees associated with opening and registering a nonprofit organization in the United States at $5,000. With a complicated request, this number could increase. The organization has to answer to itself and to its donors if this cost is worth it. (More on startup fees can be found on the Social Citizen, “Want to Start a Nonprofit — Think Again.”)

Ongoing Administrative Costs: An American charity requires a presence in America. The government and private donors will expect a local address to handle their needs. Office space, supplies, travel, and salary are just a few of the ongoing expenses that can be expected for an American-based charity to support its ongoing costs.

2. Double the Regulatory Headache

On both sides of the ocean, international charity has become more complex in the last decade. A nonprofit that wishes to operate in two countries must, therefore, also adhere to two separate sets of relevant regulations, on issues ranging from philanthropy, tax, and law (too name but a few). Operating in accordance with one country’s regulations can be trying, let alone two countries (which by the way, can sometimes contradict one another). This is not to say that it is impossible. But an organization needs to understand from the outset that additional paperwork, manpower, and money might be required to ensure that both organizations are operating as they should.

3. Independence

Charities that want to register abroad (in this case the United States) need to understand and appreciate that for all intents and purposes, they are creating a new, separate entity there. The attempt by an Israeli institution to control, force, or participate in the American “Friends of” organization is not looked upon favorably by the I.R.S. (to put it mildly). The US government has hinted – and sometimes stated outright – that no charity shall be subservient to the control of another party; including but not limited to, donors, foundations, and other charities (local or abroad).  (For more, see my article on international charity.)

An Israeli charity might not by ready or willing to relinquish control over its fundraising efforts and branding to a separate entity – even one committed to helping raise funds. One only needs to examine the recent cases of American Friends of Magen David Adom and others to understand the potential clashes that can occur.

4. No Monopoly on Raising Money

Nowadays it is possible to issue US tax-deductible receipts to donors without actually being registered in America, namely through a Middleman Organization. Also known as Conduit Organizations, these charities’ by-laws allow them to give financial support to other worthy charities that forward similar goals. While the PEF is the most famous, many other 501(c)3 tax-exempt organizations offer similar services. Recently, some online donation portals have also joined the ranks. This is even assuming that all donors want a tax-deductible receipt, which not all donors do.

What should my organization do? Register as “Friends of” or not bother?

Only the organization – through its staff and board – can know the answer to this question; it shouldn’t hire a consulting firm or be pushed around by a big donor. Like everything else, it is about strategy and purpose.

However, there are some universal factors. The following are some considerations that might influence a decision:

Cost – It takes a buck to make a buck. Do the setup and ongoing expenses outweigh the benefits?

Volunteers – Does the organization have supporters living in the States that are willing (or unwilling) to take on the responsibilities for running a nonprofit?

Board Members – The IRS, among others, has frowned upon overlapping board members between American organizations and the foreign charities they support (see same post on international charity mentioned above). Does the organization have the fresh faces to help found an independent American charity?

Ongoing Fundraising Efforts – Will the organization be engaged in ongoing fundraising efforts in the United States throughout the year or just infrequent fundraising campaigns?

Donor Relations – One of the main reasons for creating a “Friends of” organization is to communicate, recruit, and retain donors. Can the organization accomplish these goals from Israel? (Remember that for the same job, an Israeli’s salaried employee will cost less than an American’s salary.) Will an American living in America but employed by the Israeli charity suffice?

Control – Never forget that an American charity (whether its actual called a “Friends of” or not) must be independent. Is the foreign-based charity willing and able to give up control to a group of supporters and like-minded individuals? (And yes, this consideration is so important that I mentioned it twice.)

Conclusion

I want to stress that I am not advocating one over the other – there is no objectively better option. However, I will say this: the instinctive, gut-reaction for an Israeli charity to automatically setup a “Friends of” organization, regardless of whether or not it fits into the strategy of the organization is, in my opinion, premature and incorrect. Simply put, money and time might be better spent elsewhere.

What’s your experience? Why not share a story that might help another organization out…

Tizku Lemitzvot,

Shuey

Disclaimer: This blog houses my personal opinions and is for informational purposes only – not advice. As charity laws can be quite complex, please refer all questions to qualified and licensed professionals. Read the full disclaimer.

The Answer

The answer should hopefully be “yes,” nonprofit organizations can use credit cards.  Credit cards have become an integral part of running any kind of business; whether it be a not-for-profit or a for-profit corporation.   Credit cards are safer than cash and are the preferred method of payment when shopping on the internet.  Not to mention, the ease of an itemized monthly billing statement.  Nonprofit governing agencies should love credit cards and promote their use whenever possible.

But, alas, in Israel the answer is no…kind of.  Cryptic, but true. That is to say that in my experience as a banker, I have both ordered credit cards for charities that wanted them and canceled credit cards for charities that were told it was “illegal” to have them.

Why is it so Complicated?

Khok Ha’amutot [The Nonprofit Law] in Israel does not restrict a charity from ordering or using a credit card.  The law details that the default by-laws of an organization require at least two authorized signatories to sign on all transaction requests.  The law also allows for changes in the organization’s by-laws.  Examples of common changes include requirements for certain combinations of signatories that are dependant upon the amount of a transactions, as well as, permission for less than two people to sign.  This last one is pertinent as credit card transactions are viewed by the Rasham Ha’amutot [Israel's Registrar of Nonprofits] as having been approved by only one signatory.

Included in the law are the various subcategories or licenses that an Israeli nonprofit can obtain (for a full list and description please view my previous post “Defining an Israeli Nonprofit”).  Among these statuses is the Nihul Takin, or Proper Management status.  As the name implies, this license is provided to organizations that are viewed as being run well; and the Rasham has its own definition of what “being run well” means (the determination is currently left up to the complete discretion of the Rasham).  The Registrar believes that all decisions should be approved by a minimum of two signatories.  While the State law allows for only one, those organizations that want to earn their Nihul Takin status are forced to adhere to the ultra-amutah standards of kosher behavior set by the Registrar of Charities.

As previously discussed, the Israeli government and many foreign foundations use the Nihul Takin as the benchmark to determine if an Israeli nonprofit is eligible to receive a grant.  So while the State law allows for credit cards decisions, the Rasham frowns upon them.  Frowning upon, of course, is not the same as outlawing them.  And since the audits done by the Rasham are subcontracted out to a wide variety of accounting firms there seems to be no set rule.  I, personally, know of charities that the first thing they were required to do was destroy any existing credit cards while a few nonprofits seem to have not been asked at all.  Go figure.

Current Possible Solutions

I have seen organizations adopt the following solutions:

1. Create an Israeli “Friends of” organization.  Being as only the “main” amutah is concerned with obtaining a Nihul Takin, some organizations have started a brother/sister organization in Israel.  This organization absorbs the expenses and practices that are frowned upon for Nihul Takin status; thereby allowing the main amutah to avoid any troubles when applying for its Nihul Takin.  Recent auditing laws and practices designed to combine all financial statement of “related” amutotare making this option less workable.  A licensed accountant can advise if this option is relevant and feasible. 
2. Having the foreign “Friends of” organization apply for a credit card.  For this option to work, the foreign supporting charity would have to operate a bank account in Israel.  Even though this organization operates in Israel, it is not subject to Israeli charity laws (this is true even for foreign charities registered in Israel).  As such, this account can absorb the expenses and practices that are frowned upon for Nihul Takin status.  Just remember, this account must reported to the United States and should conform to IRS standards.  Somewhat simpler.  Still ask an accountant.

Hopeful Signs

I was meeting with a colleague who is a partner of a leading accounting firm in Israel.  This individual is an expert in the area of amutah financial matters and has been invited to participate in various Knesset committees concerning amutot.   In one such meeting a few months ago, the issue of credit cards for amutot arose.  The matter was supposed to be covered over a short time but ended up taking up the next hour and a half.  This person presented to the committee an article that delineated the reasons why a credit card is important and numerous ways how an organization can provide proper oversight for credit card usage; for example, one idea presented was that two signatories sign on every credit card statement.  He told me that after heated debate a few MKs were even asked to join.  It was made clear that credit cards are a way of doing business in modern times and that the Nihul Takin should reflect this.  The Rasham Ha’amutot promised to take this under advisement and provide a solution.  Let’s hope we see something sooner rather than later.

Conclusion

So how do we proceed in the interim?  Like I said, credit cards in Israel are cryptic.  Ask your accountant for the final answer and he or she will let you know if it is worth ordering a card or not. 

Tizku LeMitzvot [May you continue to merit doing good deeds],

Shuey

The arrests of 44 individuals–including, 3 mayors, 5 respected community rabbis, a score of government officials, and others–on Thursday of last week (July 23) should highlight the dangers of organizations donating to international causes; and I guarantee you, the I.R.S. is having similar thoughts.

I believe that two reactions can be expected.

1. Greater Scrutiny of Charities

The fear that a charitable donation might not be used for a charitable purpose is not new. The U.S. Department of Treasury has long known the important role that charities play in financing terror and released in 2006 its third version of “Financing Guidelines: Voluntary Best Practices for U.S. Based Charities.”

(For a more detailed analysis, I published an article entitled, “International Charity in the Face of Global Terrorism: The U.S. Department of Treasurys Response.”)

Until now the guidelines produced by the IRS and other groups have been voluntary in nature and not enforced by the U.S. Government. Incidents like the one from last week and the Spinka Hasidim in 2007 are convincing the IRS that terrorists aren’t the only ones abusing the system.

With President Obama’s civic-minded government, we can expect these recommendations to become laws (click here to read more about Obama’s nonprofit agenda). When the Treasury reviews the practices of international organizations they will find that many of them are not following the guidelines that have been suggested. Organizations that are found to be negligent can find themselves facing criminal charges, fines, and revocation of tax-exempt status.

The U.S. government has already invested the time. The literature exists. In just a few short weeks, we can theoretically find these voluntary principles mandatory, so read the letter of the law and obey even the spirit of the law. Remember, the Patriot Act of 2002 allows the IRS to freeze accounts first, and ask questions later.

2. Restriction of 501(c)3 Tax-Exempt Status

The general locker-room talk, as one accountant put it, is that the easiest way to prevent future international fraud is to restrict the organizations that can gain tax-exempt status. Many Israeli organizations currently have or are thinking of opening “Friends of” organizations in the States to help fundraise from American citizens. Donations to these American-based organizations are exempt from United States federal taxes and are channeled to the final destination in Israel.

The U.S. Department of Treasury has only enough manpower to audit between 2 – 3% of registered charities in America. Scrutiny of organizations that already have 501(c)3, then, seems almost like an impossibility. However, as every new organization that wants tax exempt status needs approval from the IRS, it would be a relatively simple procedure to restrict approval to new charities; more specifically, to new charities that donate to international causes.

This could be done simply by requiring additional paperwork or by imposing a minimum existence period, as is the case in Israel.

(More about the difference between USA and Israeli charities can be found in my article entitled “Defining an Israeli Nonprofit Organization.”)

Those that are worried about obtaining this status should forget about waiting for the “right” time and apply now. For those organizations that do not set up a “Friends of” charities, organizations such as the PEF, Central Fund, FJC, One Israel Fund and others can provide receipts to donors and forward the money to the intended Israeli causes.

Tizku LeMitzvot [May you continue to merit doing good deeds],

Shuey

———————————————————–

Related Posts:

The New Jersey Scandal, Pt. 1: The Facts

The New Jersey Scandal, Pt. 2: The Israel Fallout

Even before the dust settles in the States, Israel and her charities will already start to feel the effects from last week’s scandal.

First, we can expect that donors’ skepticism of Israeli charities will increase, which is understandable. The current proliferation of nonprofits already casts doubt on their authenticity: Israeli charity-representatives hound communities weekly; American Friend organizations exist in abundance; internet and email advertisements appear on every Jewish website broadcasting Israel’s fight for its physical and spiritual survival. In short, this scandal has cast a shadow on a situation already wrought with suspicion, doubt, and misconception.

Second, we can expect the relationship that exists between Israeli amutot [nonprofits] and money changers to come under fire. Charities need their donation-checks to clear as soon as possible. As opposed to banks, “cash houses,” or money changers, can exchange cash for checks (for a one to two percent fee) with a wait time of zero to two days. Thus, Israeli charities regularly deposit large sums of cash received from money changers into their bank accounts.

Depositing cash in a bank account (or not even reporting it) is not a good idea. It has never been a good idea. Recently, with the changes in American and Israeli oversight, it is an even worse idea yet, plenty of organizations still do it. Due to recent events, those charities that continue to do this are essentially taping a “kick me” sign to their backs. Don’t be surprised when the Rasham Ha’amutot [Israeli Registrar of Charities] comes a knocking to inquire about the large deposits of cash. Also, banks are required to report out-of-the-ordinary transactions to the Bank of Israel. An organization can bet that some or all of those below-the-radar cash deposits have been reported.

Third, we can expect that the Israeli police will become involved. Maybe not this week. Maybe not next month. But it is only a matter of time. For those who are not aware of it yet, the world is a small place and the United States has a very big reach. Just ask the banks in Switzerland, which until recently were known for their very discreet and private banking. That is until the US government came along and asked them nicely to give over the names of those American citizens who are hiding their assets from the IRS. Either due to U.S. initiative or common sense, it is only a matter of time before the Israeli authorities pick up where their American counterparts have left off.

Fourth, as mentioned above, we can expect that the Israeli Registrar of Charities will take a microscope to charities that receive money from abroad, specifically, in cash. In my experience I have seen nonprofit banking procedures boil down to one thing: convenience (not compliance). In addition to cash deposits, many nonprofit directors and employees use their own private bank accounts instead of opening/using an account under the organization’s name. In Israel, nonprofits are checked about once in every five years. The chance for an Israeli nonprofit to pull one over the governmental oversight committee is slim and only getting slimmer.

Fifth, we can expect that Israeli banks will introduce internal regulations to alert themselves of charity wrongdoing in accounts they manage. Israel was relatively late in getting approved as a country free of money laundering. Like any latecomer, the banks make up for lost time in their zealousness in adhering to the law.

Tizku LeMitzvot [May you continue to merit doing good deeds],

Shuey

———————————————————–

Related Posts:

The New Jersey Scandal, Pt. 1: The Facts

The New Jersey Scandal, Pt. 3: The IRS Expected Response