[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20025-20026]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            IRS REPORTING REGULATION ON CHARITABLE DONATIONS

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to alert the Senate and all of my 
colleagues to yet another--yes, yet another--egregious action by the 
Internal Revenue Service, one that will affect every charity, every 
church, every nonprofit, and the communities they work so hard to 
serve. I emphasize ``another'' because it seems that the IRS

[[Page 20026]]

continues a march toward regulations and practices that target and 
burden hard-working Americans.
  Let me just recap. First, we learned that the IRS had released 
confidential tax return information on companies the IRS believed 
opposed the administration. Then we uncovered that the IRS had 
illegally targeted groups whose views differed from the White House, 
followed by an extensive effort to hide information on these actions--
i.e., Lois Lerner, her so-called ``lost e-mails,'' which weren't ever 
really lost. It was true injustice to law-abiding organizations and 
American citizens, which is why I should not have been surprised--but I 
was--to learn of the IRS's latest scheme.
  Hot off the press is a new IRS proposed regulation that needlessly 
targets charitable contributions. Right now, when you make a 
contribution of $250 or more, charities will send you a ``written 
acknowledgement'' confirming the details of the donation, including the 
amount of the donation. The taxpayer uses this acknowledgement to 
document his or her tax deductions should there be any question.
  Most charities take the time to send out a written confirmation of 
the donation as part of their thank-you to the donor. It is simple, it 
is inexpensive, and it builds good will. In short, it works for the 
taxpayer and also for the charity. That is it--a straightforward, 
commonsense method to confirm a donation was made, and no one, not even 
the IRS, argues that it is not working well.
  But now the IRS has proposed a new method to substantiate donations--
a method that could do great harm to the charitable sector and give the 
IRS more tools to go after taxpayers they may not like, as we know they 
have done before. The IRS wants to set up a new, more formal system 
where the charity would have to gather information about its donors, 
keep that information, and--here is the rub--report the information to 
the IRS.
  What type of information are we talking about? The return would 
include the charity's name and address, the donor's name and address 
and--here is the scary piece--the donor's Social Security number. 
Again, all of this new information would have to be sent to the donor 
and the IRS and kept on file by the charity at considerable cost. Even 
more disturbing, the IRS would store, maintain, and use this 
information in case the donor is audited.
  Although this is described as an option, given the IRS's recent track 
record, do we really trust the agency to store this information and not 
use it for other purposes? I, for one, do not. I don't think we can 
trust them with a new source of data on donors. We must do all we can 
to prevent the IRS from gaining access to this sensitive data.
  I am also alarmed at the thought of whether the IRS can properly 
safeguard this information because the agency has demonstrated zero 
capacity to keep similar data out of the hands of people who commit 
fraud, and thieves. Charities and churches that routinely receive 
thousands of dollars from their supporters now become greater targets 
for people to commit fraud.
  Earlier this year, the IRS admitted that it had been hacked and 
private taxpayer information had been compromised. If they can do it to 
the IRS, you had better believe they can do it to your local nonprofit. 
And while the IRS today says this rule as proposed would simply be 
voluntary, suffer no illusion: The IRS will eventually move to make 
this a mandatory requirement.
  Charitable organizations are also speaking out against the IRS 
proposal. They understand the chilling--chilling--effect this would 
have on their donors, but, more importantly, on the communities they 
serve.
  Tim Delaney, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, 
recently wrote:

       The IRS proposal would open the door for scam artists. . . 
     . Nonprofits have neither the financial resources nor 
     sufficient staffing to combat hackers who will see an easy 
     source for Social Security information. This also creates a 
     liability nightmare for innocent nonprofits. . . . To be 
     asked to share their address, their credit card number and 
     their Social Security number all in the same place would be 
     enough to scare even the most committed donor to decline to 
     give.

  Tim Delaney has aptly summarized this pending and serious problem. He 
poses very legitimate concerns, especially regarding how scam artists 
might operate, explaining:

       Imposters' phone scripts will go something like this: ``Hi 
     . . . I'm working for several nonprofits here in Kansas to 
     make sure that generous donors like you get full credit for 
     your wonderful contributions. . . . The nonprofits asked me 
     to thank you for your generosity and confirm your name and 
     address. . . . Also, the IRS has a new regulation that 
     nonprofits need your Social Security number so we can send 
     you a form confirming your contribution in case you get 
     audited. What's your Social Security number so we can send 
     you the form?''

  Sadly, many people who want to be sure to support their charity will 
give the scam artists exactly what they want.
  To protect the mission of our nonprofit community and the taxpayers 
who share their hard-earned dollars with those in need, I have 
introduced legislation to block this regulation and to maintain current 
law. The Protecting Charitable Contributions Act would maintain current 
IRS rules governing the substantiation of charitable contributions, and 
prohibit the IRS from issuing, revising, or completing any new 
regulation that would alter the existing rules. This just makes sense. 
And I would think the IRS would agree when in their own description of 
the proposal they state that the present system works effectively.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to join me in 
stopping this dangerous and unneeded proposal from moving forward.
  I urge all those who play a role in supporting nonprofits to go to 
the IRS Web site before December 16 to provide written comments to the 
IRS about this proposal. Yep, the IRS would like to have your comments.
  Let me repeat that. I would urge all those who play a role in 
supporting nonprofits to go to the IRS Web site before December 16 to 
provide written comments to the IRS about this proposal. The message 
should be simple: No.
  This is one Christmas greeting you had better send.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________