why can't a for-profit "force" donations to it to be donor tax-deductable, by paying extra taxes *itself*?

[radioministry]

Jeff in Florida here
Hello and thanks in advance for your time (& space...)

I was thinking... it's obvious why donations to non-profits are tax deductible... they're generally philanthropic and help the public, kind of like taxes.
So, to a point, the government will let you effectively divert some of your taxes to a chosen cause (the end result, anyway, since you can claim a deduction on it). Ok.

I want to collect donations for a fantastic cause but don't want to jump into claiming exempt status.
My main concerns with remaining for-profit versus non-profit 501c3 religious exempt is not that I plan to collect anywhere near an excessive salary out of the project fund, nor am I overly concerned with the loss that comes from paying taxes, (it's more to stay free to give heartfelt political advice and/or not have two other, random knuckleheads telling me what to do etc.) but what concerns me is that contributors are more inclined to donate if it's tax deductible for the donor.

Why can't *I* offer to pay an additional tax somehow on contributions, so that the donor might deduct them?
They're not even receiving goods, but if I nonetheless paid something like a sales tax, as well as an income tax, or some such additional tax "responsibility offering" on my end, then the money should theoretically be thoroughly taxed enough for them to deduct it on their end.

Is this possible? Surely if not, it's just because there's no precedence or procedure, because it makes sense otherwise. The IRS gets their money, possibly a few % more...

I'd likely clear more in contributions, even paying the extra taxes, just because I'd attract more donations and larger contributors by offering tax deductible donations.

My "salary" (stipend...pittance) would be small enough to not worry about claiming 501c3 one day, as well as the rest of the mission and budget and practices generally compliant for the most part, but my two main reservations to filing for 501c3 are that
1) a religious outfit can't urge so-called political action (despite how closely related religion, ethics, morality, and politics really are at times, I understand separation of church & state) and
2) also you must have 3 or more totally diversified, non-related (in several definitions) directors all messing with everything equally. Not to be haughty, but I do, singularly (at the moment) know what's best for the mission and, since I think differently than many, it's just not in my or the project's best interest to ambiguously find two others to trust implicitly not to become misguided & ruin everything I have worked out..

Sincerely,
Jeff in Florida

 

[Taxing Matters]

Is this possible? Surely if not, it's just because there's no precedence or procedure, because it makes sense otherwise.

It is not possible because the law as presently written does not allow it. Nor would it be wise to allow that; in that regard I disagree with you that it “makes sense.” First of all, the government would lose money doing that to effectively subsidize a regular business enterprise. Also, by doing that, you would mislead donors into thinking they are contributing money to a charity when they are not, diverting funds from the real charities out there. That's counter-productive to the whole idea of encouraging charitable activity.

Also note that while the IRS generally looks to see if the organization “has a governing body that represents the broad interests of the public rather than the personal or private interest of a limited number of donors” there is nothing in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 501(c)(3) that mandates the number of directors the organization must have. The IRS is going to look at a number of factors to determine if the organization is publicly supported; the make of the board is one of them.

Note, too, that religious organizations certainly can take a stand on various political issues and they often do. Consider for example issues like abortion, capital punishment, etc. You see fairly often clergy of various religions espousing their views on such matters. And doing that does not jeopardize the tax exemption of their religious organization. What they cannot do is express views on particular candidates for office. As the IRS states on page 22 of Publication 557, organizations “participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office” are not eligible for exemption under IRC § 501(c)(3).

Talk to a tax attorney who concentrates his/her practice in the area of exempt organizations to discuss what you want to do and see if it is workable as an exempt organization under § 501(c)(3). If it isn't, any donations to your organization will not be tax deductible to the donees. But perhaps you might still be able to get tax exemption for the organization under some other paragraph of § 501(c).

 

[radioministry]

"... by doing that, you would mislead donors into thinking they are contributing money to a charity when they are not, diverting funds from the real charities out there. "
I thought being a for-profit does not automatically mean I'm not a charity. Legally or otherwise. Wikipedia states:
A charitable for-profit entity is an organization that exists to serve a charitablemission but is legally organized as a for-profit corporation.
Both benefit corporations and Low-profit limited liability companies (L3C) fall under this category.

I understand the concern of the potential of abuse, but you kind of stated it like it would automatically be one.

What if the following was posted transparently and accurately in a budget right above the "Gift" button on the website:
If I accept $1000 in donations one week, take out $100 for stipend allowing me not to spend the time operating the charity for a day instead of plumbing or trimming trees, while the other $900 goes to the needy, how is it not a "real charity" just because I wanted to give candidate advice and not have two other legally "unrelated" board members complicating my fledgling game plan?

Thank you, I see your points other than how it doesn't "make sense" in the dollar-for-dollar sense I intended to convey, or how the government would lose money subsidizing private businesses. My idea was to pay extra taxes or tariffs or fees on the money (slightly more, perhaps, than the contributor would/should have been responsible for otherwise, to compensate the IRS for the trouble of adding the ability) so the contributor could write it off (even if there is no way in the law books to do it).
The only way the IRS could lose money is when they're doing what should have been abolished long ago, which is charging higher tax rates for higher incomes or related nonsense. It's frustrating when far-left activists keep thinking the more you make the less you're taxed, which must stem from them hearing stories of savvy moguls learning to mitigate taxes in clever ways... my father was forced to pay an entire third of his retirement nest egg in taxes simply because he was suddenly being given years or income in one lump instead of yearly so they treated it as if it was one year's income.

So unless the IRS was planning on taxing Mr. Perceived-Big-Whig 32% on his money but he donated it to me, and under my new procedure they only got 20%, yes I could see how they'd lose money instead of getting 2% more than, say, 18%.

Yes, one of my concerns is that a nonprofit's status, no matter how well the funds are used, can be stripped for educating people about the danger of electing in certain candidates they've been fleeced about everywhere else. Merely reporting testimonies of people who witnessed horrible crimes of certain candidates is news I'd like to be able to read off after I set down a bible, in the same transmission, under the same organization.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions that there probably isn't any legal way to do it.
I appreciate your time, info., and cogent opinions.

Jeff