We are proud to be named a West Coast Regional Leader for 2024

ACE Act introduced, SCOTUS overturns donor disclosure mandate and more

ARTICLE | July 19, 2021

Authored by RSM US LLP

The exempt organization sector continues to await published guidance from IRS and Treasury on donor advised funds (DAFs), allocation of expenses in computing unrelated business taxable income, co-investing between private foundations and their disqualified persons, and other priorities indicated in the Priority Guidance Plan. Meanwhile, Congress and the courts have been busy with their own developments that affect exempt organizations. This article summarizes four recent developments from the legislative and judicial branches:

  • The Accelerating Charitable Efforts (ACE) Act: Proposed legislation introduced to reform rules governing donor advised funds and private foundations.
  • Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta, Attorney General of California: Supreme Court case evaluating California’s requirement that charities disclose the name and address of their donors to the state.
  • Mayo Clinic v. United States: Eighth Circuit case evaluating the definition of “educational organizations.”
  • Fumo v. Commissioner: Tax Court case defining “disqualified person” under section 4958.

Accelerating Charitable Efforts (ACE) Act

On June 9, 2021, Senators Angus King (D-N.Y.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced the ACE Act (S. 1981), stating that its purpose is to “reform tax laws that cover charitable contributions, so that philanthropic funds are made available to working charities within a reasonable time period.” As proposed, the ACE Act would:

  • Establish three types of DAFs
  • Require a publicly supported public charity to aggregate contributions from all DAFs as contributions from a single donor, unless the original donor is specifically identified
  • Prohibit a private foundation from claiming a qualifying distribution for amounts contributed to a DAF
  • Preclude a private foundation from claiming a qualifying distribution for expenses paid to certain disqualified persons
  • Exempt certain private foundations from the section 4940 excise tax on net investment income if it distributes at least 7% of its assets or is limited in duration to no more than 25 years
  • If enacted as currently drafted, the ACE Act would be prospective and not affect funds currently held in DAFs.



Payout requirement

Deduction timing

Qualified community foundation DAFs

DAF held by a public charity that operates in no more than 4 states with at least 25% of its assets outside of DAFs

Limits aggregate advisory privileges to no more than $1 million OR requires annual distributions of at least 5%

None (see description)

At time of gift

Qualified DAFs

Terminates advisory privileges within 15 years of contribution

Identifies preferred charity to receive final distribution at termination

Within 15 years

At time of gift

Nonpublicly traded assets only at time of sale, limited to gross proceeds

Other DAFs

Any DAF that is neither a qualified community foundation DAF nor a qualified DAF

Within 50 years

At time of distribution

Noncash contributions limited to sales proceeds

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, Attorney General of California

On July 1, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States (in a 6-3 decision) upheld a First Amendment challenge and invalidated California’s requirement that charities soliciting contributions in California must disclose the identities of its major donors to the Attorney General’s office. Although this information generally is required to be furnished to the IRS on Form 990, Schedule B, the instructions permit public charities to redact the personally identifiable information from any public disclosure copy. California’s law mandated that the charity provide the same information to the state as was provided to the federal government.

Mayo Clinic v. United States

On May 13, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld, in part, Treasury regulations defining an educational institution and remanded the case to the lower court to evaluate whether Mayo Clinic’s primary purpose is educational. The Court enumerated three requirements for an organization to qualify as an “educational institution” under section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii):

  • Be organized and operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes,
  • Be organized and operated exclusively for educational purposes, and
  • Meet statutory criteria regarding faculty, curriculum, students, and place.

Fumo v. Commissioner

On May 17, 2021 the Tax Court held that an individual was a disqualified person under section 4958, even though he did not hold a position as an officer, director, or employee of the organization. The individual exercised “substantial influence” over the organization as a founder, significant fundraiser, and a person with authority over and significant participation in the organization’s decision making. The Court emphasized that an individual’s status as a disqualified person is governed by facts and circumstances and may include any person in a position to exercise substantial influence over the affairs of the organization.

Let's Talk!

Call us at +1 213.873.1700, email us at or fill out the form below and we'll contact you to discuss your specific situation.

  • Topic Name:
  • Should be Empty:

This article was written by Alexandra O. Mitchell and originally appeared on Jul 19, 2021.
2022 RSM US LLP. All rights reserved.

The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. RSM US LLP guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. RSM US LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.

RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each is separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit us for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM logo is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.

​Vasquez & Company LLP is a proud member of the RSM US Alliance, a premier affiliation of independent accounting and consulting firms in the United States. RSM US Alliance provides our firm with access to resources of RSM US LLP, the leading provider of audit, tax and consulting services focused on the middle market. RSM US LLP is a licensed CPA firm and the U.S. member of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax and consulting firms with more than 43,000 people in over 120 countries.

Our membership in RSM US Alliance has elevated our capabilities in the marketplace, helping to differentiate our firm from the competition while allowing us to maintain our independence and entrepreneurial culture. We have access to a valuable peer network of like-sized firms as well as a broad range of tools, expertise and technical resources.

For more information on how ​Vasquez & Company LLP can assist you, please call +1 213.873.1700.

Subscribe to receive important updates from our Insights and Resources.

  • Should be Empty: