The word fashla is Hebrew colloquial for “screw-up”. And yes, even your accountant, an Israeli charity’s best friend, can make a few.

As a banker I see this particular slip-up more often than you think. Here are two ways to avoid your accountant inadvertently putting your organization’s bank account in the red. 

PRELUDE

In Israel, the accountant fulfills a crucial role for the amutah [Israeli Charity].

It is your accountant who will point out pitfalls to avoid and best-practices to follow. Assuming you follow your accountant’s advice, s/he will defend your tax-deductible status from less-than-cooperative regulatory bodies. Additionally, many accounting firms also offer bookkeeping services, making them a one-stop-shop for all a charity’s needs.

For these reasons and more, many nonprofits in Israel will leave with their accountant a signed check book so that the s/he can pay relevant bills without having to “bother” the nonprofit.

While efficient in theory — and assuming that an organization is aware of the risks and has obtained the agreement of all relevant stakeholders — there needs to be some ground rules before deciding to put this plan into action.

1. NOTIFY THE NONPROFIT BEFORE ANY PAYMENT

Generally, the accountant’s checkbook is used for payments to Mas Hachnasah [Tax Authority] and/or Bituach Leumi [National Insurance - think Social Security], payments that potentially differ each month and whose computations are done by the accountant. The idea is to take out the middle man — the organization — and just have the accountant pay the relevant government bodies directly. Like I said, efficient.

It can happen that a nonprofit will forget to incorporate the accountant’s checkbook into its cashflow management. The age old saying of “Out of sight, out of mind” comes to mind (no pun intended) when thinking of this scenario.

Letting an organization know of any upcoming payments can avoid these “unexpected” withdrawals. Government payments, in particular, are generally not a last-minute item and can be planned in advance. It probably isn’t a bad idea to have a working agreement regarding minimum “notify” times.

2. TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE

The other instance where accountants tend to write their own check is when they…[wait for it]…pay themselves.

Yep.

Similar to the government agencies above, monthly payments to the accountant are not always the same. Additionally, there is the added benefit of convenience for the accountant; after all, the checks are already signed and sitting in his office.

This scenario mimics the first in terms of “Out of sight, out of mind” but has the additional element of Conflict of Interest.

While I wouldn’t say that an accountant who writes him or herself a check without first notifying the client has immediately crossed any red lines, it might be indicative that this s/he isn’t a stickler for details — and a propensity for details is severely required by an accountant.

In addition to a general Conflict of Interest policy for the nonprofit, there should be an prearranged agreement of which beneficiaries will be paid from the accountant’s checkbook and which will be paid from the organization’s checkbook.

CONCLUSION

The ultimate fiscal responsibility lies with the organization. At the same time, accountants are too important to Israeli charities for there to be doubts or misgivings.

The relationship between accountant/bookkeeper and nonprofit organization is as much about expertise as it is about personalities. If these fashlas happen more than just a few times it might be a sign that this accountant is not a good match for the organization (or vice versa).

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 and ever-changing, please refer all questions to qualified and licensed professionals. Read the full disclaimer.

Photo Credit: “Empty Pockets” by Dan Moyle (Flickr)

Laura Solomon is a nonprofit attorney extraordinaire based on the East Coast (read more about her after the post).  The topic addressed is especially relevant with today’s focus on the IRS’ increased scrutiny of Americans’ activity abroad and Israeli charaties’ reliance in general on foreign charity.

Every year the IRS Exempt Organizations Division (“EO”) releases a Work Plan that shows where it plans to deploy its resources. The Work Plan is essentially a roadmap for EO activity in the coming year and, this year, the Plan includes a renewed focus on international activities by American charities.

The EO’s goal is to assure that, in keeping with US tax laws and regulations, charitable assets used internationally are not being diverted for non-charitable purposes. The Work Plan announces that “we will continue to examine exempt organizations that operate overseas to ensure that those activities are consistent with their charitable purpose. “ In addition, the EO has signaled that it plans to examine large private foundations and organizations that report ownership of a foreign bank account.

Nonprofit professionals interested in learning more may want to look at the Work Plan itself or watch the IRS August 2011 Webinar on International Activities.

This renewed focus may make Israeli charities that get funding from the US a little jittery – particularly following the IRS’s release of two private letter rulings (2010 and 2012) that denied exemption to new organizations seeking exemption for American charities that planned to do fundraising for Israeli charities. In any case, it should serve as a wakeup call to all American charities that conduct activities internationally that they need to strictly comply with the law and must avoid serving as a mere “conduit” to their foreign grantees.

Further evidence of the EO’s focus on international activities is evident in the newly proposed regulations that illustrate permissible PRI’s or “program related investments” by private foundations (Issued April 19, 2012). The regulations include helpful examples that demonstrate that a private foundation can use a broad range of programs (including investments, grants, and loans to foreign individuals, business enterprises and charities) to support their purposes through PRI’s. Perhaps the most important clarification that the proposed regs provide is confirmation that an activity in a foreign country is charitable if it would be considered charitable when conducted in the US. Interestingly, they don’t address L3C entities. For more information about low-profit limited liability companies, you can access this information on the Community Wealth Ventures site.

Laura N. Solomon, Esq. is the founder of Laura Solomon Esq. & Associates, a law firm devoted to the representation of nonprofit, charitable, and other tax-exempt organizations. She and her associates provide a full range of corporate and tax legal services, including representation for mergers, joint ventures, and complex financings.

Ms. Solomon is on the Faculty of the Nonprofit Institute and Animal Law Institute of the Philadelphia Bar Institute, and currently serves on the Charitable Organizations Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, the Tax-Exempt Organizations Subcommittee of the American Bar Association, the Standards for Excellence Committee of the Pennsylvania Association of Nonprofit Organizations, and the Advisory Committee for the Pennsylvania Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts. She is a columnist for the Pennsylvania Nonprofit Report who is quoted frequently in the media, and lectures often for lawyers, accountants, and other professional and community groups on nonprofit, corporate, and tax issues. Ms. Solomon also lectures at the La Salle University Nonprofit Center, the University of Pennsylvania, and Villanova, Drexel, and Temple Universities.

You can find more information about her practice along with links to helpful information on nonprofits at her website: www.LauraSolomonEsq.com.

After years of rumors, here-say, and unwritten code that outlawed the use of credit cards by Israeli nonprofit organizations, the newest version of the Nihul Takin [Certificate of Proper Management] from Israel’s Rasham Ha’amutot [Registrar of Charities] clearly permits the use of credit cards by Israeli charities…kind of.

Unfortunately, vague unwritten guidelines have now been replaced by confusing and unrealistic written rules. Progress?

So should your amutah [Israeli Charity] use a credit card? As no two charities are the same, that answer is best left to your organization’s board, accountant, and/or lawyer.

What I can do, however, is share the research I have done and practices I have witnessed from countless nonprofits, which will hopefully save your organization precious time. 

WHAT’S  THE PROBLEM WITH CREDIT CARDS?

Israel’s Registrar of Charities takes issue with credit cards, as written in the Nihul Takin:

“Use of credit cards by an amutah [Israeli Charity] constitutes a problem because it does not enable the signature of two authorized signatories as is required, and it therefore adversely affects control over the way in which the amutah’s funds are handled.” – Nihul Takin (See below for links to the full text.)

(In short, proper financial oversight is practiced when transaction are signed by at least two signatures, but a credit card transaction can be executed by just one person.)

HOW SHOULD MY AMUTAH USE ITS CREDIT CARD?

The Registrar acquiesced in its newest version of the Nihul Takin (the third and final draft was released in June of 2010) to the use of credit cards by Israeli charities.  Israel’s Registrar of Charities lists two options whose lack-of-clarity and wordiness, unfortunately, require me to translate its instructions and has led various experts unsure as to what to recommend:

Option #1

“A credit card that is limited to the amount permitted for use as petty cash, and uses it solely for permitted petty cash expenditure…which contains a restriction on the amount of a one-time item of expenditure (such as charged card) or a monthly limit of expenditure (such as a card with a credit facility limit of a small amount).” - Nihul Takin

Translation: A credit card can replace petty-cash, used for similar purposes.

Pro: Some consider this option to be the simplest and most straight forward because it allows for a credit in the organization’s existing bank account.

Con:  Regulations (specifically those issued by the Income Tax Authority) do not specify the proper types of petty cash expenditures nor the monthly limit for petty-cash, the optimal credit limit for this kind of card is hard to know.

Con: If the Registrar is still, indeed, worried about the possibility of executing transactions by a lone signatory, this solution doesn’t address this dilemma.

 Option #2

“A credit card, as to which the payment thereof is subject to the existence of a monetary balance in a designated account opened for the purpose of use of such a card. The use of a card of this type will be subject to transfer of funds to the designated account following a signed instruction by two authorized signatories of the amutah, for the purpose of a particular item of expenditure, noting the purpose of the transfer…for example in order to make payments that can only be made through the internet, payment of a fee to the Registrar, expenses incurred during travel abroad etc.” – Nihul Takin

Translation: Open a separate account that is designated strictly for credit card. The card’s limit will be backed by cash that will be transferred from the organization’s main account. The instruction to transfer the money that will serve as the card’s collateral will be signed by at least two people.

Pro: Even though the card is used by a single individual, the usage is pre-approved and the transfer of the collateral is authorized by the magic number of two.   Those in favor of this option feel that with two signatures approving the transfer, the amutah is better protected should its governance and financial practices be audited in the future.

Con: There is an additional headache and possible additional fees (depends on your bank) for opening/managing an additional account.

Con: The Registrar actually envisions a flexible card limit that will change according to the needs and approval of the organization.  Very few cards will actually allow this and the charity might find itself in the defensive position vis-a-vis the Registrar despite having the magic “two.”

Not only are some experts unsure as to which option is the best to recommend, other professionals actually advise not use a credit card at all.  As one lawyer put it, “This language is purposely confusing, telling me without a doubt that the Registrar really doesn’t want charities to use credit cards.”

And this lawyer is probably right.

Conversations I have had with lawyers and accountants hint that the Registrar of Charities only approved the use of credit cards by Israeli charities due to public pressure and that (not-so) deep down, it hasn’t changed its belief that a credit card is dangerous.

BUT THE SECTOR NEEDS MORE

This last suggestion, while not one of the options suggested by the Registrar, does play it safe.  The logic of that last lawyer is pretty sound, that is, except for one thing: today’s businesses NEED a credit card.  Internet purchases, certain standing orders, and corporate accounts — just to name a few — won’t accept another type of payment.

But maybe more importantly, by opting out of using a credit card, a charity is allowing the Registrar to dictate unfair and unrealistic business conditions that can cost the nonprofit valuable money and time.

(For example, take one client that is forced to shop at the local mini-mart because he can’t open a corporate account at a neighborhood supermarket since his lawyer recommended against using a credit card.)

Furthermore, if a credit card isn’t allowed for the organization then often employees or board members are forced to use their own personal cards.  Not only can this be an incredible burden on the individual that needs to be reimbursed (especially with bigger expenditures like airline tickets), but this method actually exhibits less control, transparency, and fiduciary responsibility than a credit card owned and managed by the charity.  (And I say this last point even knowing that the Registrar has accepted reimbursements as a valid payment method for years.)

Instead of being intimidated by the Registrar’s awkward wording, I would like to see charities push back, using the cards in a responsible and financially-smart manner — and defending this usage should ever and whenever it be called into question.  Only by showing the Registrar the impractical nature of the current guidelines can Israel’s nonprofit sector garner enough public support to force the Registrar of Charities to rewrite these inadequate “suggestions.”

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 and ever-changing, please refer all questions to qualified and licensed professionals. Read the full disclaimer.

The Nihul Takin: For a link to an English version of the Nihul Takin can be found on the Registrar’s website here or can be directly downloaded from my site here (the relevant paragraphs about a credit card are on page 34).  The Hebrew version is also available from my site here (with the relevant paragraphs on the bottom of page 25).  To learn more about the document and why it is a must-read for anyone thinking of joining the board of an Israeli charity, please read my previous post, “Israel’s Nihul Takin Manual Now Available in English!.”  Links to the Nihul Takin are in that post, as well.

Life Before the Update: If you’re wondering what Israel’s Registrar of Charities’ response used to be, you can read one of my earliest posts from July 2009, “Can My Israeli Nonprofit Have a Credit Card?”

Photo Credit: “Credit Card Debt” by DebtCovered

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.

The sole purpose of my previous piece, Defining a Conduit Organization, was to address the more important question of this post, “How to Choose the Right Conduit?”

After all, for many organizations operating outside the United States, specifically those in Israel, fundraising in America plays a vital role in the business strategy of the nonprofit.  Some charities choose to establish an organization known as an “American Friends of” charity to offer American donors a tax-deductible option. Others, however, will decide to use Conduit Organizations to process the donations on their behalf — also a valid option.  But I digress. (If you, on the other hand, would like to digress, see 4 Reasons Why NOT to Establish an “American Friends of” Organization.)

Those Israeli nonprofits that choose the second option of a Conduit (also referred to as an Intermediary or Fiscal Agent) are in luck, as recent years have seen an quasi-explosion in the number of American charities that offer Conduit services.  This being the case, foreign organizations have the luxury and liberty — and some might argue the responsibility and obligation — to investigate the various Intermediaries so as to choose the best fit for the nonprofit. And, yes, all Conduits are by no means the same.

My six criteria for judging a potential Fiscal Agent: Cost, Currency, Time, Payment Method, Communication and Association.

1. COST

What will the Conduit charge me for the service?

The logic being that the less a charity pays in fees, the more money actually makes it the organization’s bank account to fund programmatic and administrative expenses.

Fees generally come in three flavors:

(a) Flat

The advantage of Flat fees is that you know them upfront. While the other options are calculable, this method is the most straight forward.

There are actually two structures for this option:  (1) Flat rate regardless of the amount sent and (2) Flat rate per range of money sent.  For example, $25 up to $2,000, $50 up to $10,000 and $100 up to $50,000 etc.

Example: The Jewish Funders Network, as of March 2010, offers Intermediary Services to nonprofits based in Israel. According to a seminar I attended in March of 2010, it is a flat fee of $200 for transfers up to $100,000. (As this information was obtained when the product was first launched back in March, it may not be up-to-date.)

(b) Percentage

A percentage of the amount transferred, sometimes with a minimum fee.  The advantage of this option is that you “only” pay per what you send.  This seems to be the most popular option.

Example: The Jerusalem Foundation, The New Israel Fund, The One Israel Fund and others use this method.

(c) Free

Use the service will cost the beneficiary nothing. However, to offset costs our reduce expenses, the Intermediary might impose some restrictions on the funds, turnover or method of payment

Example: The P.E.F. offers this service free of charge but will generally only forward the money to the recipient after a month (although some have told me it could be up to three) and in the form of a dollar check. I have heard some organizations get it shorter, but truly the exception.

2. CURRENCY

In what currency will the donation arrive in my account outside the United States? Will the donation be received in the original currency (dollars) or in local currency (in this case, shekels)?  Do I get to choose?

Currency is an important factor for three reasons:

(a) Conversion Rates

Conversion rates can have a big affect on donations received from abroad; namely, the better the rate the more local currency is created when converting the money. As demonstrated above, even a small change in the rate can have a substantial effect. By receiving the money in the original currency, the beneficiary can retain control over when and how much to convert.

(b) Accountability

Certain donors like to know exactly how much buying power their donation has and might demand to know the conversion rates that their money is getting. It is quite possible that an organization might be unable to obtain this information and relevant information from its partnering Conduit.

(c) Cost

Generally speaking, it is more expensive to work with foreign currency than local currency. Thus, receiving money it is original money with come with a higher handling fee for the handling bank or financial institution.  Although, these higher fees might be mitigated by other concerns (like items one or two).

3. TIME

How long will it take me to receive the donation in my account outside the United States?

As the axiom goes, time is money.  Knowing the turn-around time is important for two reasons:

(a) Currency Exposure

One of the biggest unknowns and worries for a nonprofit that relies on donations received in foreign currency is currency fluctuation. The longer a transaction through a Conduits takes, the greater risk to a change in conversion rate.

I have seen firsthand organizations that relied on Intermediaries that didn’t forward monies in a timely manner. By the time the money was received, rates had changed for the worse (though they could just as easily change for the better).

Example: Back in September of 2010 the shekel vs. dollar rate was 3.81. The following Monday morning, only four days later, the rate stood at about 3.77 – a four agurot (4/100 of a shekel) difference. For a donation of $50,000, this four-day delay would have cost the recipient 2,000 shekel (over $500), an over 1% cost (2,000/190,500).

(b) Cashflow

Checks, pledges, and grants come with dates attached.  Budgets are then built around these deadlines.  Donations that are delayed because of a Conduit can severely hamper a nonprofit’s ability to pay its bills or run its programs, possibly leading to ruined reputations, frayed nerves, debt, and/or unexpected credit charges (to name but a few) .

Allow me to tangent for a moment: Conduits that fail to forward monies in a timely fashion are doing a disservice to the end-recipient.  As a matter of fact, receiving the money on time can be even more important that being approved for the donation/grant in the first place. Without a grant or donation a program might never have taken place. No harm, no foul. With the promise of financial support, however, commitments have now been made and money spent.

4. PAYMENT METHOD

Will the money be given to me as a wire transfer or as a check?

This question is more of a concern for those organizations that will be receiving their money in its original currency (dollars).  In Israel, for example, shekel grants and donations can be easily be forwarded by wire, though, even shekel checks clear within a few days.

Foreign currency — whether in Israel or in other countries — is more costly to process and takes longer to clear.   Two points that refer to the earlier questions of Cost and Time.

5. COMMUNICATION

How will I or my donors contact the Conduit if we need to? Or vise versa?

For two reasons, never underestimate the power of communication:

(a) Donors

Donors will have to mail/wire the money to these Conduits. It is imperative when trusting a third party to deal with your donors that it is an organization you can rely on. There will be times when the Intermediary will need to contact your donor — will this be a pleasant interaction that will ensure continued support by your donor and a swift transaction?

Organizations have told me stories of their donors that were driven away or even rescinded their check due to unpleasant experiences with a Conduit.

Furthermore, referring back to an earlier point, will the Intermediary release specific information about your donor’s check/wire, such as wiring dates and conversion rates? This is important information to donors that are looking for transparency and accountability.

(b) Turn-around

Better channels of communication and trust between recipient and Intermediary can help ensure that monies are transferred as efficiently and as quickly as possible.

6. ASSOCIATION

How will my association with this Fiscal Agent affect how people view my organization?

No nonprofit exists in a vacuum. This question can have two types of affects (not mutually exclusive):

(a) Character

Does the organization that is accepting donations on my behalf have religious or political leanings that might color the organization in the eyes of the public (for good or for bad)?  Is the Intermediary known for anything unsavory? What headlines has the Conduit made?  Do people think very highly of the organization and its leadership?

These questions and others like them can alter the flavor of even the most pareve, middle-of-the-road nonprofits.

(b) Fundraising

Will the good name, reputation, or connections of a Conduit help the organization raise more money?

…AND DON’T FORGET TO BE HELPFUL

These Conduits are taking a risk vis-a-vis the I.R.S. by providing this conduit service, regardless if the Intermediary is being paid or not.  Participating charities should, therefore, appreciate a Conduit’s position and provide the necessary paperwork requested of them.

And, of course, being helpful could lead to some of those much-desired exceptions that I mentioned above.

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.

When grants or gifts cannot be made directly to a recipient (individual or organization) many times Fiscal Agents are used. These Intermediate charities are commonly referred to as Conduit Organizations because they are not the intended final recipient, rather just a pass-through.

With the right due diligence, control, and by-laws, this type of seemingly-indirect charity can be perfectly legal and advisable. (Please consult your lawyer to see if this solution is right for you or your organization.)

One such group that uses Conduits in this way are charities located outside of the United States (and, thus, not considered tax-exempt in the eyes of the IRS) that are looking to fundraise in America.

SOME GROUND-RULES

Let us be clear: This post is not looking to define the legal interpretation of a Conduit or Fiscal Agent. Nor is it seeking to extrapolate the ramifications vis-a-vis the IRS and related tax code.  Rather, this post will seek to better understand the strategy and purpose behind these types of organizations.

This understanding is crucial in order to better address the more important question and the topic of my next post in this two-part series: How a Charity Can Choose the Right Conduit.

WHY WOULD A NONPROFIT NEED A CONDUIT?

Tax incentives are some of the most powerful marketing tools available to nonprofits trying to convince the average citizen to donate to the cause.  In general, a private individual can receive money back (a % of charity given) on the income taxes that he or she has paid to the Federal Government; an arrangement that benefits both the donor and the charity.  Granted the particulars are more complex than the simple formula I’ve presented, but the basic principles are true enough.

However, only donations to American organizations designated as 501(c)3 by the IRS are tax-deductible (see previous post summarizing What is an American Nonprofit).

This creates the obvious challenge to those registered outside the United States that would like to fundraise in America as donations given directly to these organizations are not tax-deductible.

Solution One: Establish an American nonprofit organization to support the cause abroad. These charities are commonly referred to as “Friends of” organizations. (See What is an American “Friends of” Organization? by Ellis Carter.)

Solution Two: Ask would-be supporters, instead, to send donations to a Conduit Organization registered in the United States, recommending that the funds be used for the charity registered abroad.  The donation to the local Intermediary is tax-deductible, even though the final beneficiary isn’t a tax-exempt organization.  So too, the foreign charity is, thus, not forced to set up an American 501(c)3 tax-exempt charity and is able to avoid the corresponding fiscal and regulatory headache.

Keep in mind, that not every organization can act as a Fiscal Agent and that these Conduits must have (among other things):

• Written in their by-laws the ability to forward monies to other nonprofit organizations that promote similar goals.
• Retain control of the donation, reserving the right to reject the donor’s wishes, should it deem necessary.

(Again, as these issues are very tricky, an organization’s lawyer and Board of Director should be consulted before deciding to act as or use a Conduit.)

While the first solution allows for greater independence and control by the foreign nonprofit, the first solution also necessitates the axiom made famous by Spiderman: With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility.  The second solution, in contrast, uses a preexisting Fiscal Agent and circumvents all of this hassle. Or to paraphrase the above truism: With No USA Registered Charity Comes Much Less Responsibility. (See also 4 Reasons Why Not to Establish an American Friends Organization.)

CLOSING NOTES

The name Conduit can have negative connotations as it implies lack of control or subterfuge.  This, of course, doesn’t have to be the case and these types of charities can have the full blessing of the IRS. (See International Giving by Public Charities by Guidestar for additional tips.)

Additionally, while Conduit Organizations contain certain similarities to Donor Advised Funds  and Fiscal Sponsorship, the three are each unique and different tools; i.e. this post does not address Donor Advised Funds nor Fiscal Sponsorship.

(See Time to Convert for an interesting take on DAF’s by the Wall Street Journal and Fiscal Sponsorship is Maturing as Field on the NonprofitLawBlog for more information on FS’s .)

Next Post: 6 Questions to Help Choose the Right Conduit Organization

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.

In Israel, more than in most countries, foreign currency is an integral part of every facet of the country’s daily economic enterprises – private, business, and public sectors, alike.

A recent released study showed that 53% of financial support to Israeli charities came from abroad. Thus, making foreign exchange exchange fees, rates, and processing times of the utmost importance to Israeli charities.

(N.B. While this post is most relevant for charities operating in Israel, its underlying principles are true regardless of location.)

WHY USE A MONEY CHANGER?

Cost

When using traditional financial institutions to process foreign currency, fees tend to be higher. This impression holds both for foreign currency transfers (wires) and checks — this is of course, assuming that many individuals and charities aren’t using banks that specialize in foreign currency (i.e. bankers unlike me).

The belief — and not necessarily correct — is that money changers offer better exchange rates, as well. Again, this is not always the case (see previous parentheses).

Speed

Turnaround is always an important factor when receiving money from abroad. One, because of exposure to currency fluctuation. Two, because of cash flow.

While money changers may have a shorter turnaround than banks vis-a-vis transfers, they definitely have a shorter turnaround than banks vis-a-vis foreign currency checks. (Though, everything comes at a price.)

Wow, seems pretty good. Why in the world shouldn’t a nonprofit organization use a money changer!?

After all, doesn’t the charity have an obligation to its constituents to make sure that the money it raises arrives at its destination as quickly and as cheaply as possible?

NO.

The mission of the charity is to show its donors and relevant governmental agencies transparency, control, and accountability for ever cent, agurah, peso, and shilling raised.

With respect to this charge, money changers are a danger to proper book keeping and the transparency everyone is demanding:

1. Lack of Control and Transparency

Whenever an organization uses a money changer it is voluntarily relinquishing control and permitting a third party to handle its money. While receipts can be issued and paper-trails followed, a small but unavoidable black hole is created.

Instead of having a bank statement that clearly shows where the donation originated from, the bank page will simply show an generic “incoming wire” (from the money changer) or even worse, an ambiguous “cash deposit.”

True Story: I have seen nonprofits arrive at a bank to deposit tens of thousands of shekel IN CASH. Now is this really the kind of impression an organization wants to make to its bank, donor or oversight body? Somehow, a wad of bills in a paper bag just doesn’t scream “trust me.”

2. Blurred Beneficiaries

When money is given to a money changer, the intended recipient is not the one either directly receiving the money nor cashing the check.

This is especially problematic with foreign currency checks, where the intended beneficiary never even deposits the check into the bank — an issue that effects the donor perhaps even more than the charity.

True story: Charities have no way of knowing where its money changer might redeem its check. Some money changers use Arab Banks to clear their checks. Putting politics aside, donors (and sometimes even the IRS) get mighty curious when a check earmarked for an Israeli cause has either “Bank of Cairo” or “Bank of Jordan” stamped on the back.

3. Cost is Now a Secondary Concern

In a previous post I quoted documentation that specifically mentions that cost is an irrelevant factor when the IRS examines a charity for effectiveness:

The Treasury Department is standing by its suggestions, thus, signaling to all that “life is simply more expensive and inconvenient as a result of global terrorism, and everyone is expected to bear a share of the new costs of doing business.”

And the IRS isn’t the only one using similar logic.

AND SPEAKING OF COST…

Did I mention that money changers might not even be cheaper than banks? If you’re looking for proof, contact me. I’ll make you a believer.

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 professional. Read the full disclaimer.

“What do you mean that Israeli charities can be registered as companies?”

That was the question someone asked me last year that that had me thinking to myself, yet again, that Israeli charity legal/tax structure is a language onto itself and should require its own Ulpan.

Towards this end, I hope to clarify in this post the somewhat contradictory concept of a Chevrah LeTo’elet Hatzibur [Public Benefit Company].

TERMS

A charitable organization has a choice of registering in one of two ways: (1) with the Rasham Ha’amutot [Registar of Charities] as a amutah [charity] or (2) with the Rasham HaChavarot [Registrar of Companies] as a Chevrah LeTo’elet Hatzibur [Public Benefit Company].

In Hebrew, the Chevrah LeTo’elet Hatzibur [חברה לתועלת הציבור] is more commonly called by its acronym, Chalatz [חל"צ].

REGISTRATION & DOCUMENTATION

As the name implies, a Chalatz [Public Benefit Company] is formed as a company, complete with definitive shares and rights of ownership. This is one of the reasons why a nonprofit might choose to register as a Chalatz, as opposed to a charity (the exact pros and cons are beyond the scope of this piece).

Once registered as such, this company must adhere to the same standards, protocols, and certifications if it wishes to be recognized as a nonprofit organization. This means, that a Chalatz must apply to the Registar of Charities for Nihul Takin [Certificate of Proper Management] to receive government grants and obtain a Se’if Arba’im VeSheish [Paragraph 46a] from Mas Hachnasah [Tax Authority] to be considered tax-exempt.

Because it is registered with the Rasham Hachavarot [Companies], a Chalatz will have a different registration prefix than an amutah. The registration number for amutot, registered with Rasham Ha’Amutot [Charities], begins with a “58.” In contrast, a Chalatz will start with a “51.”

Additionally, the names of these corporations in English will generally end with (or contain in parenthesis) the acronyms of PBC (Public Benefit Company) or CC (Charity Corporation).

UNITED STATES COMPARISON

For those readers familiar with United States law, the best comparison to a Chalatz is the newly established L3C type company:

“The L3C’s primary purpose is to conduct activities that further a charitable or educational purpose. Earning a profit is its secondary purpose…the L3C statutes require the managers to pursue the accomplishment of a charitable or educational purpose. They can earn a profit while pursuing their mission, but earning a profit can’t be a significant purpose.” – CharityLawyerBlog

However, while L3C is not eligible for tax-deductible gifts, a Chalatz certainly can be.

STATUS CHECK

Again, it is important to stress that a charitable organization designated as an amutah or a Chalatz does not automatically qualify for tax-exempt status.

With that said, there is a way to check if a company is at least defined as a Chalatz…as long as you understand one basic concept: The databases for amutot and PBCs are separate. Thus, any person doing research must first know with which government body – Rasham Ha’amutot [Charity] or Rasham Hachavarot [Company] – the organization is registered.

Assuming that the said organization is registered as a company, basic information can be found at the Ministry of Justice site for the Registrar of Companies: http://ow.ly/2GAk7. Information can be found through either the company’s name in Hebrew or its mispar chevrah [company number].

1. When found, after the company’s name in Hebrew will be the acronym חל”צ, generally in parentheses.
2. When clicking on the company’s number, the reader will be taken to another page that provides additional details of the company. The lowest row of the table lists תיאור החברה [Company Description]. The description will start with the words: מטרות ציבוריות בלבד [Public Purposes Only] and will then be followed by the now familiar phraseחברה לתועלת הציבור [Public Benefit Company].

While any of these two pieces designates a charitable company, having both there will seal the deal. Item #2 is copied from the description that the company submits to the Registrar of Companies upon opening and is both helpful and telling.

If you’re already on the net, here are some other good links to try:

Rasham Ha’amutot [Registrar of Charities] (Hebrew) - Basic information about Israel’s charitable organizations registered with the Registrar of Charities.

Rasham Hachavarot [Registrar of Companies] (Hebrew) - Basic information about Israel’s companies (including PBCs) registered with the Registrar of Companies.

Guidestar Israel (Hebrew and English) – FOR CHECKING AMUTOT ONLY. The site has yet to incorporate those organizations registered with the Registrar of Companies as PBCs. Here you can find scanned financial statements and other basic information about Israel’s charities.

Mas Hachnasah [Tax Authority] – Tax Exempt Status, Donations (Paragraph 46a Status) – Ability to check if an amutah or chalatz has tax-exempt status.

Tizku Lemitzvot,

Shuey

Disclaimer: This document is intended to summarize and provide basic information and should not to be considered advice. This document should not replace nor supplant recommendations by licensed professionals; such as accountants and/or lawyers. Additionally, this summary might not reflect updates to the Ministry of Justice and/or associated internet sites.

The phone number is clearly listed on its site, yet no one answers when I call.

It is a complaint I have heard from Israeli nonprofits and one that I recently verified — repeatedly.  So the question remains, how can someone get in touch with Israel’s Registrar of Charities [Rasham Ha'amutot]?

And make no mistake about it, reaching this office is crucial for those looking for general information, to change their by-laws, or simply see if a nonprofit’s file is available at the main office.

I was ecstatic — nearly giddy, even — when a colleague of mine shed some light on this question just today.  Treat the office like you would a lawyer: everything should be given in writing.  The Office, it seems, works best on goood, old fashioned A4 paper.

While faxing is the easiest, it is hard to confirm that the fax has indeed arrived (after all, you have to call).  The other way is to send an email with a scanned letter as an attachment; it serves the same purpose only arriving securely at the near instantaneous speed of modern technology.

However, the truly best way to reach the Registrar, suggests Arnie Draiman, a philanthropic consultant specializing in smaller nonprofits, is to go there in person.  He describes the personnel working there as “nice, courteous, helpful, and efficient. Though it’s still a government office, going there in person is 1,000 times better than calling, faxing or emailing.” I’ve been to the office and agree wholeheartedly with Arnie’s assessment. (So much so that I updated the post with this last paragraph 18 hours after its original upload — thanks Arnie!)

The contact information for the Registrar is:

• Beit Hate’omim, 15 Kanfei Nesharim St. Jerusalem
• Phone: 02-654-6600
• Fax: 02-654-6683
• Email: RashamA@justice.gov.il

This and other information can be found on the Registrar’s website:

• http://www.justice.gov.il/MOJHeb/RashamAmutot/

Happy Hunting,

Shuey