Financial Institutions: Issues Regarding the Tax-Exempt Status of
Credit Unions (03-NOV-05, GAO-06-220T). 			 
                                                                 
Unlike other depository institutions, credit unions are exempt	 
from federal corporate income taxes. Recent legislative and	 
regulatory changes to credit union membership restrictions and	 
allowable products and services have blurred some of the	 
historical distinctions between credit unions and other 	 
depository institutions. As a result, some observers have raised 
questions about whether tax exemption provides credit unions with
an advantage over other depository institutions and whether the  
original basis for tax exemption is still valid. As part of its  
continuing oversight of the tax-exempt sector, the House	 
Committee on Ways and Means asked GAO to address (1) the	 
historical basis for the tax-exempt status of credit unions; (2) 
the arguments for and against taxation, including estimates of	 
potential revenue from eliminating the exemption; (3) the extent 
to which credit unions offer services distinct from those offered
by banks of comparable size, and serve low-and moderate-income	 
individuals; and (4) the extent to which credit unions are	 
required to report information on executive compensation and	 
assessments of their internal controls. 			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-220T					        
    ACCNO:   A40977						        
  TITLE:     Financial Institutions: Issues Regarding the Tax-Exempt  
Status of Credit Unions 					 
     DATE:   11/03/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Banking law					 
	     Banking regulation 				 
	     Comparative analysis				 
	     Credit unions					 
	     Executive compensation				 
	     Financial institutions				 
	     Income taxes					 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Tax exempt organizations				 
	     Tax exempt status					 
	     Cooperatives					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-220T

Testimony

Before the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Thursday, November 3, 2005

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Issues Regarding the Tax-Exempt Status of Credit Unions

Statement of Richard J. Hillman, Managing Director

Financial Markets and Community Investments

GAO-06-220T

Mr. Chairman Thomas and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss issues regarding the tax-exempt
status of credit unions. Credit unions are the only type of financial
institution currently exempt from federal income taxes.1 As we have noted
in a prior testimony before this Committee, the size of the tax-exempt
sector has grown in recent years in both the number and assets of
institutions.2 Today's hearing on issues related to the credit union
tax-exempt sector is timely in light of current and projected fiscal
imbalances and renewed emphasis on accountability and governance in both
the corporate and nonprofit sectors. A comprehensive examination could
help determine whether exempt entities such as credit unions are providing
services that are commensurate with their favored tax status, and whether
an adequate framework exists for ensuring that these entities are meeting
the requirements for tax-exempt status. The information that I am
providing today is based primarily on prior work completed on the credit
union industry and on ongoing work underway for this Committee.3

Based on your request, I will discuss:

           o  the historical basis for the tax-exempt status of credit
           unions;
           o  arguments for and against the taxation of credit unions,
           including estimates of the potential tax revenues from eliminating
           the tax-exempt status of credit unions;
           o  the extent to which credit unions offer services that are
           distinct from those offered by banks of comparable size;
           o  the extent to which credit unions are serving low- and
           moderate-income individuals, including relevant programs of the
           National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) that target these
           individuals; and
           o  the extent to which credit unions are required to report or
           make public certain information such as executive compensation and
           assessments of their internal controls for financial reporting.

           In summary, we found that:

           o  The basis for continuing tax exemptions for credit unions,
           although not often articulated in legislation over the years,
           appears to be related to the perceived distinctness of credit
           unions and their service to people of modest means. Congress
           originally granted tax-exempt status to credit unions in 1937
           because of their similarity to other mutually owned financial
           institutions that were tax exempt at that time. While the other
           institutions lost their exemption in the Revenue Act of 1951,
           credit unions specifically retained the exemption. The legislative
           history on the 1951 act did not articulate a rationale for the
           continued exemption of credit unions. However, more recent
           legislation (the Credit Union Membership Access Act of 1998 or
           CUMAA) states that credit unions are exempt from taxes because
           "they are member-owned, democratically operated, not-for-profit
           organizations generally managed by volunteer boards of directors,
           and because they have the specified mission of meeting the credit
           and savings needs of consumers, especially persons of modest
           means."4
           o  Recently, arguments for taxing credit unions have centered on
           creating a "level playing field" among financial institutions in
           terms of taxation, referencing the notable recent growth of the
           credit union industry to support the idea that credit unions
           compete more and more directly with banks. Proponents of taxing
           credit unions also point to the potential revenue associated with
           repealing the tax exemption. There is also some debate regarding
           the extent to which credit unions are serving people of modest
           means, especially in comparison with small banks. In response,
           opponents of taxation have argued that credit unions remain
           distinct-both organizationally and operationally-from other
           financial institutions, and that taxation would jeopardize the
           safety and soundness of credit unions by adversely impacting their
           net worth or capital levels, which are restricted to retained
           earnings. Opponents also note that other depository institutions
           do have opportunities for tax relief as S-corporations. Federal
           estimates of the potential tax revenues fall within a somewhat
           narrow range-$1.2 billion to $1.6 billion annually-while
           nongovernmental sources have produced higher estimates of up to
           $3.1 billion annually.
           o  As the credit union industry has evolved, the historical
           distinction between credit unions and other depository
           institutions has continued to blur. The number of credit unions
           declined between 1992 and 2004, although the total assets of the
           industry have grown. As of 2004, credit unions with more than $100
           million in assets represented about 13 percent of all credit
           unions and 79 percent of total assets. The consolidation in
           numbers and concentration of assets has resulted in two distinct
           groups of credit unions: a few relatively large institutions
           providing a wide range of services that resemble those offered by
           banks of the same size, and a number of smaller credit unions that
           provide basic financial services. For example, the loan portfolios
           of larger credit unions tend to hold more mortgage and real estate
           loans, resembling those of similarly sized banks. Smaller credit
           unions tend to carry smaller loans such as car loans.
           Additionally, larger credit unions tend to offer a range of
           products and services similar to those offered by banks.
           o  As credit unions have become larger and begun offering a wider
           variety of services, the issue of whether these institutions are
           serving households with low and moderate incomes has become a
           matter for debate. Yet, limited comprehensive data are available
           on the income of credit union members. In prior work on the credit
           union industry, our assessment of available data -the Federal
           Reserve's 2001 Survey of Consumer Finances and other
           studies-suggested that credit unions served a slightly lower
           proportion of households with low and moderate incomes than
           banks.5 To NCUA's credit, it has established programs that are
           intended for low-income individuals and underserved areas.
           However, NCUA does not collect comprehensive data such as the
           overall income of individuals benefiting from these programs to
           allow definitive conclusions about the membership served.
           o  Most credit unions are not specifically subject to reporting
           requirements that would disclose information on executive
           compensation or assessments of internal controls for financial
           reporting-information that can enhance public confidence in
           tax-exempt entities. Publicly available financial reports reflect,
           and support, strong governance and transparency-essential elements
           in assuring that tax-exempt entities operate with integrity and
           effectiveness and maintain public trust. For example, public
           disclosure of revenue and expenses, such as the compensation of
           officers and directors, enhances transparency. However, most
           credit unions do not individually file the Internal Revenue
           Service (IRS) form that would provide such information-Form 990,
           Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax-because of
           exclusions and group filings.6 Further, as we noted in a 2003
           report, credit unions with assets over $500 million are not
           subject to internal control reporting requirements applicable to
           banks and thrifts under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
           Improvement Act (FDICIA), which are similar to the reporting
           requirements of public companies affected by the Sarbanes-Oxley
           Act of 2002.7 As we suggested in 2003, making credit unions of
           $500 million or more subject to the FDICIA internal control
           reporting requirements would provide a commensurate tool to NCUA
           and appropriate state regulators to ensure that credit unions
           establish and maintain internal control structure and procedures
           for financial reporting purposes.

           Credit unions have historically occupied a unique niche among
           financial institutions. Credit unions differ from other depository
           institutions because they are (1) not-for-profit entities that
           build capital by retaining earnings (they do not issue capital
           stock), (2) member-owned cooperatives run by boards elected by the
           membership, and (3) tax-exempt. Like banks and thrifts, credit
           unions have either federal or state charters. Federal charters
           have been available since 1934, when the Federal Credit Union Act
           was passed. States have their own chartering requirements. As of
           December 2004, the federal government chartered about 62 percent
           of the slightly more than 9,000 credit unions and states chartered
           the remainder. Both federally and state-chartered credit unions
           are exempt from federal income taxes, with federally chartered and
           most state-chartered credit unions also exempt from state income
           and franchise taxes.

           Another distinguishing feature of credit unions is that they may
           serve only an identifiable group of people with a common bond.
           More specifically, credit union membership may be based on one of
           three types of common bond: single, multiple, or community. For
           example, a group of people that share a single characteristic,
           such as a common profession, could constitute the "field of
           membership" for a single-bond credit union. Field of membership is
           used to describe all the individuals and groups, including
           organizations, which a credit union is permitted to accept for
           membership.8 More than one group having a common bond could
           constitute the membership of a multiple-bond credit union. And,
           persons or organizations within a well-defined community,
           neighborhood, or rural district could form a community-bond credit
           union. Further, credit unions can offer members additional
           services made available by third-party vendors and by certain
           profit-making entities with which they are associated, referred to
           as credit union service organizations (CUSO).9

           The tax-exempt status of credit unions originally was predicated
           on the similarity of credit unions and mutual financial
           institutions; however, while Congress did not always cite its
           reasons for continuing this exemption, recent legislation mentions
           the cooperative structure and service to persons of modest means
           as reasons for reaffirming their exempt status.10 The Revenue Act
           of 1913 exempted domestic building and loan associations (now
           called "savings and loans"), and mutual savings banks not having a
           capital stock represented by shares, from federal income tax.11
           Further, the Revenue Act of 1916 exempted from taxation
           cooperative banks without capital stock organized and operated for
           mutual purposes and without profit.12 However, credit unions were
           not specifically exempted in either of these acts. Their
           tax-exempt status was addressed directly for the first time in
           1917, when the U.S. Attorney General determined that credit unions
           closely resembled cooperative (mutual savings) banks and similar
           institutions that Congress had expressly exempted from taxation in
           1913 and 1916.

           The Federal Credit Union Act of 1934 authorized the chartering of
           federal credit unions. The stated purpose of the act was to
           "establish a further market for securities of the United States
           and to make more available to people of small means credit for
           provident purposes through a national system of cooperative
           credit, thereby helping to stabilize the credit structure of the
           United States." The 1934 act did not specifically exempt federal
           credit unions from taxation. In 1937, the act was amended to
           exempt federal credit unions from federal tax and limit state
           taxation to taxes on real and tangible personal property.13 Two
           reasons were given for the exemption: (1) that credit unions are
           mutual or cooperative organizations operated entirely by and for
           their members; and (2) that taxing credit unions on their shares,
           much as banks are taxed on their capital shares, places a
           disproportionate and excessive burden on the credit unions because
           credit union shares function as deposits.14

           The Revenue Act of 1951 amended section 101(4) of the 1939
           Internal Revenue Code to repeal the tax-exempt status for
           cooperative banks, savings and loan societies, and mutual savings
           banks, but it specifically provided for the tax exemption of
           state-chartered credit unions.15 While the act's legislative
           history contains extensive discussion of the reasons why the
           tax-exempt status of the other mutual institutions was revoked, it
           is silent regarding why the tax exempt status of credit unions was
           not also revoked.

           The Senate report accompanying the Revenue Act of 1951 stated that
           the exemption of mutual savings banks was repealed in order to
           establish parity between competing financial institutions.16
           According to the Senate report, tax-exempt status gave mutual
           savings banks the advantage of being able to finance growth out of
           untaxed retained earnings, while competing corporations
           (commercial banks) paid tax on income retained by the corporation.
           The report stated that the exempt status of savings and loans was
           repealed on the same grounds. Moreover, it stated that savings and
           loan associations were no longer self-contained mutual
           organizations, for which membership implied significant
           investments over time, risk of loss, heavy penalties for
           cancellation of membership or early withdrawal of shares, and in
           which members invested in anticipation of becoming borrowers at
           some time. Instead, investing members were simply becoming
           depositors who received relatively fixed rates of return on
           deposits that were protected by large surplus accounts, and
           borrowing members dealt with savings and loans in the same way as
           other mortgage lending institutions.17

           More recently (in 1998), CUMAA amended the Federal Credit Union
           Act to, among other things, allow multiple-bond federal credit
           unions under certain circumstances (such as a general limitation
           on the size of each member group to 3,000 members).18 In addition,
           CUMAA reaffirmed the federal tax exemption of credit unions,
           despite contentions that allowing multiple-bond credit unions
           would permit credit unions to become more like banks.
           Specifically, the findings section of CUMAA stated:

           Credit unions, unlike many other participants in the financial
           services market, are exempt from Federal and most State taxes
           because they are member-owned, democratically operated,
           not-for-profit organizations generally managed by volunteer boards
           of directors and because they have the specified mission of
           meeting the credit and savings needs of consumers, especially
           persons of modest means.

           At various times, the executive branch has proposed taxing credit
           unions, generally endorsing the creation of a "level playing
           field" among financial institutions in which organizations engaged
           in similar activities would be taxed similarly. Proponents of
           taxation contend that larger credit unions compete with banks in
           terms of the services they provide. Proponents also have
           questioned the extent that credit unions have remained true to
           their historical mission of providing financial services to
           persons of modest means. In response, opponents of the taxation of
           credit unions have argued that credit unions remain distinct
           organizationally and operationally from other financial
           institutions, providing their membership with services they would
           not receive from other institutions. Opponents also have argued
           that taxation would hinder the ability of credit unions to build
           capital (which is restricted to retained earnings), jeopardizing
           their safety and soundness. Finally, opponents have argued that
           other depository institutions, particularly smaller banks, also
           have opportunities for tax and regulatory relief such as
           S-corporation status.19 Some studies have attempted to quantify
           potential tax revenue from repealing the tax exemption, with
           estimates ranging from $1.2 billion to $3.1 billion, depending on
           the fiscal year considered, tax rates used, and other underlying
           assumptions.

           Unlike income retained by most other financial institutions,
           income retained by credit unions is not taxed until it is
           distributed to members. Thus, tax exemption allows credit unions
           to utilize untaxed retained earnings to finance expansion of
           services. Proponents of taxing credit unions claim that this
           ability to use untaxed retained earnings provides credit unions
           with a competitive advantage over banks and thrifts. In 1978, the
           Carter administration proposed that the tax-exempt status of
           credit unions be gradually eliminated to mitigate this advantage
           and establish parity between credit unions and thrift
           institutions. The administration also argued that the relaxation
           of rules regarding field of membership criteria, the expansion of
           credit union powers, and the rising median income of credit union
           members indicated that credit unions were no longer true mutual
           institutions serving low-income workers excluded from banking
           services elsewhere.

           In 1984, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) report to the
           President included a proposal to repeal the tax exemption of
           credit unions, which also argued that the exemption gave credit
           unions a competitive advantage over other financial institutions
           and its repeal would "eliminate the incentive for credit unions to
           retain, rather than distribute, current earnings." In 1985, the
           Reagan administration proposed taxing credit unions with more than
           $5 million in gross assets, but would have maintained the
           exemption on credit unions with less than $5 million of gross
           assets, since it was reasoned that taxing small credit unions
           would significantly increase the administrative burden for a
           relatively small revenue increase.20 Similarly, in the budget for
           fiscal year 1993 the first Bush administration proposed taxing
           credit unions with assets of more than $50 million.

           More recent arguments for the taxation of credit unions note the
           strong growth rates among large credit unions, which tend to offer
           a wider array of services. As a result, taxation proponents argue
           that larger credit unions compete with banks in terms of the
           services they provide and the households to which they provide
           these services. They question both the extent to which credit
           unions serve people of modest means and pass on their tax subsidy
           to members. While limited data are available to evaluate the
           income of credit union members-which precludes any definitive
           conclusion- some studies, including one of our own, indicate that
           credit unions serve a slightly lower proportion of households with
           low and moderate incomes than banks.21 We discuss this issue in
           more detail later in this statement.

           Arguments against repealing the tax exemption for credit unions
           assert that the exemption does not offer competitive advantages
           and that it is justified by the unique services credit unions
           offer and by their capital structure. As we reported in 1991,
           credit unions as organizations are exempt from federal and state
           income taxes. However, the income that their members receive is
           taxed. Members who receive dividends on share accounts are taxed
           on that income, just as depositors at commercial banks are taxed
           on interest income from savings or checking accounts. If credit
           unions distribute all income to shareholders and do not retain
           earnings at the entity level, all income will be taxed at the
           individual level. In this case, credit unions would have little
           tax advantage relative to taxable mutual financial institutions,
           whose income is taxed once at either the individual or entity
           level.

           In 2005 and in previous testimonies, trade and industry groups and
           private individuals presented arguments supporting the tax-exempt
           status of credit unions, maintaining that tax-exempt status is
           justified because credit unions provide unique services, such as
           small loans, financial counseling, and low-cost checking accounts
           that for-profit financial institutions are unable or unwilling to
           provide.22 They stated that taxing credit unions would lead credit
           unions away from their mutual, nonprofit orientation and
           structure, leading to reductions in these types of services. They
           also testified that taxation would hinder credit unions in
           building reserves, and since credit unions do not have the ability
           to raise capital through the sale of stock, their safety and
           soundness would be jeopardized. They argued that while the number
           of large credit unions has grown over the last 10 years, they hold
           a relatively small share of overall depository institution assets.
           Opponents also argued that there is no clear rationale for
           targeting larger credit unions because, regardless of asset size,
           larger credit unions retain a distinct organizational structure
           and must still adhere to limits on their field of membership as
           sanctioned by Congress. Furthermore, they argued that larger
           credit unions, relative to smaller credit unions, were more stable
           and efficient and therefore better able to offer programs targeted
           to low- and moderate-income households.

           Opponents of credit union taxation also have argued that other
           financial institutions are not without tax privileges and tax
           relief. Specifically, credit union trade organizations have
           pointed out that an increasing number of banks have converted to
           S-corporation status and, thereby, have avoided paying corporate
           income taxes. In general, U.S. tax law treats corporations and
           their investors as separate taxable entities. Corporate earnings
           are taxed first at the corporate level and again at the
           shareholder level, as dividends if the corporation distributes
           earnings to shareholders, or as capital gains from the sale of
           stock. In contrast, the earnings of S-corporations are taxed only
           once at the shareholder level, whether or not the income is
           distributed. Corporations that elect Subchapter S status are
           subject to certain restrictions on the number of shareholders and
           capital structure. For example, an S-corporation may not have more
           than 75 shareholders, all of whom must be U.S. resident
           individuals (except for certain trusts and estates) and may issue
           only one class of stock. Prior to 1996, banks and other depository
           institutions could not elect S-corporation status. A provision of
           the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 repealed this
           prohibition.

           Like credit unions, mutual thrifts are owned by their depositors
           and their equity is derived from retained earnings. Mutual thrifts
           are permitted a tax deduction for amounts paid or credited to
           their depositors as dividends on their accounts if the amounts may
           be withdrawn on demand (subject only to the customary notice of
           intention to withdraw). These dividends are taxed only at the
           depositor level, whether they represent interest or a return on
           equity, so that mutual thrifts are taxed only on retained
           earnings. Further, some farmer's cooperatives are allowed
           additional tax deductions for dividends on capital stock and
           distributions to patrons. The earnings of a cooperative generally
           flow through to the patron and are taxed once at that level.
           Finally, some other similar entities, like rural electric
           associations and telephone cooperatives are tax-exempt.23

           Governmental entities have attempted to estimate the potential
           revenue to the federal government from repealing the tax exemption
           that ranged from $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion on an annualized
           basis. In a 2001 report, the Department of the Treasury estimated
           potential revenue between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion annualized
           over the five year period from 2000-2004, and $1.4 and $1.6
           billion over the ten-year period from 2000 to 2009, if all credit
           unions were taxed. More recently, in Analytical Perspectives,
           Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2005, Treasury
           estimated the potential tax revenue from repealing the credit
           union tax exemption at $7.88 billion from fiscal years 2005
           through 2009, or $1.58 billion on average annually.24 However,
           according to Treasury officials, the 2005 Analytical Perspectives
           estimate did not account for any behavioral changes in response to
           taxation by credit unions in contrast with estimates from their
           earlier 2001 study. The Joint Committee on Taxation in a February
           2005 Congressional Budget Office report estimated that taxing
           credit unions with assets greater than $10 million dollars would
           potentially raise $6.5 billion from fiscal years 2006 through
           2010, or $1.3 billion on average annually over that five year
           period.25

           Nongovernmental entities have produced estimates that tend to be
           higher than the estimates generated by government agencies. A
           study issued by the Tax Foundation, which was funded by the
           Independent Community Bankers of America, estimated the potential
           revenue from taxing all insured credit unions to be as high as
           $3.1 billion per year when averaged over the 10-year period from
           2004 to 2013.26 Another private study conducted by Chmura
           Economics & Analytics for the Jefferson Institute for Public
           Policy estimated the revenue from taxing all credit unions to be
           $1.89 billion in 2002, when the same corporate tax rate as banks
           paid was applied to credit unions (in categories differentiated by
           asset size).27 In reviewing these studies, we note that
           assumptions vary on the tax rates imposed and the response of
           credit unions to the imposition of taxes (such as distributing
           higher dividends, lowering loan rates, or increasing deposit
           rates, which would reduce taxable income and therefore potential
           tax revenue). However, large credit unions, though small in
           numbers, are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the
           potential tax revenue as compared with small credit unions.

           Since 1992, credit unions have become less distinct from other
           depository institutions of similar size, particularly in terms of
           the products and services offered by larger credit unions. Between
           1992 and 2004, the total assets held by federally insured credit
           unions more than doubled, while the total number of federally
           insured credit unions declined. As a result of the increase in
           total assets and the decline in the number of federally insured
           credit unions, the credit union industry has seen an increase in
           the average size of its institutions and a slight increase in the
           concentration of assets. Total assets in federally insured credit
           unions grew from $258 billion in 1992 to $647 billion in 2004, an
           increase of 150 percent. During this same period the number of
           federally insured credit unions fell from 12,595 to 9,014. As of
           the end of 1992, credit unions with more than $100 million in
           assets represented 4 percent of all credit unions and 52 percent
           of total assets; as of the end of 2004, credit unions with more
           than $100 million in assets represented about 13 percent of all
           credit unions and 79 percent of total assets. From 1992 to 2004,
           the 50 largest credit unions (by asset size) went from holding
           around 18 percent of industry assets to around 24 percent of
           industry assets.

           This industry consolidation contributed to a widening gap between
           two distinct groups of federally insured credit unions-larger
           credit unions, which are relatively few in number and provide a
           wider range of services, and smaller credit unions, which are
           greater in number and provide more basic banking services. Figure
           1 illustrates institution size and asset distribution in the
           credit union industry, with institutions classified by asset
           ranges. As of December 31, 2004, the 2,873 smallest credit
           unions-those with $5 million or less in total assets-constituted
           almost one-third of all credit unions but slightly less than one
           percent of the industry's total assets. Conversely, the 98 credit
           unions with assets over $1 billion (up to just under $23 billion)
           held 33 percent of total industry assets but represented just 1
           percent of all credit unions. In our 2003 report, we noted that as
           of December 31, 2002, 71 credit unions with assets over $1 billion
           held 27 percent of total industry assets.

1Qualified financial institutions can elect to avoid federal corporate
income tax as Subchapter S corporations (S-corporations). S-corporation
tax status mainly allows small, closely held corporations meeting certain
requirements to elect to eliminate corporate-level taxation. S-corporation
shareholders are taxed on their portion of the corporation's taxable
income, regardless of whether they receive a cash distribution. For more
information on S-corporations, see GAO, Banking Taxation: Implications of
Proposed Revisions Governing S-Corporations on Community Banks,
GAO/GGD-00-159 (Washington, D.C.: Jun. 23, 2000).

2GAO, Tax-Exempt Sector: Governance, Transparency, and Oversight Are
Critical for Maintaining Public Trust, GAO-05-561T (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
20, 2005), and GAO, Nonprofit, For-Profit, and Government Hospitals:
Uncompensated Care and Other Community Benefits, GAO-05-743T (Washington,
D.C.: May 26, 2005).

3 GAO, Credit Unions: Financial Condition Has Improved, but Opportunities
Exist to Enhance Oversight and Share Insurance Management, GAO-04-91
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 27, 2003) and GAO, Credit Unions: Reforms for
Ensuring Future Soundness, GAO/GGD-91-85 (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 10,
1991).

4See Public Law 105-219 (Aug. 7, 1998), 112 STAT. 914. The Federal Credit
Union Act of June 26, 1934 refers to "make more available to people of
small means credit for provident purposes." While these statutes have used
"small means" and "modest means" to describe the type of people who credit
unions might serve, these terms are not defined in the statutes.

5GAO-04-91.

                                   Background

6Most tax exempt entities annually must file a Form 990 with the IRS. Form
990 is publicly available and contains various revenue and expense
information, including compensation data for officers, directors,
trustees, and key employees.

7GAO-04-91.

          Rationale for the Historical Tax Exemption of Credit Unions

8See GAO/GGD-91-85 for additional background on the history of NCUA and
state field of membership regulatory policies.

9A CUSO is a corporation, limited liability corporation, or limited
partnership that provides services such as insurance, securities, or real
estate brokerage, primarily to credit unions or members of affiliated
credit unions. Credit unions can invest up to 1 percent of their capital
in CUSOs. CUSOs must maintain a separate identity from the credit union.
See 12 C.F.R. Part 712 (2003).

10Internal Revenue Code section 501(c) describes 28 categories of
organizations that are exempt from federal income tax. State credit unions
are exempt in a category by themselves under section 501(c)(14)(A).
Federal credit unions are exempt under section 501(c)(l). Section
501(c)(l) exempts certain corporations that have been organized under an
act of Congress, designated as instrumentalities of the United States, and
that are exempt from tax by the Internal Revenue Code or by certain
congressional acts.

11Public Law 63-16.

12Public Law 64-271.

13Public Law 416.

14H.R. Rep. No. 75-1579, at 2 (1937).

15Public Law 80-183.

16S. Rep. No. 82-781 (1951).

17While both banks and thrifts were subject to federal corporate income
tax after 1951, some special provisions served to reduce their tax
liability relative to corporations in other industries. Over time,
Congress scaled back many of these provisions, including special
deductions for additions to bad debt reserves.

18Public Law No. 105-219.

              Arguments for and against Taxation of Credit Unions

Arguments for Taxation

19See GAO, Banking Taxation: Implications of Proposed Revisions Governing
S-Corporations on Community Banks, GAO-00-159 (Washington, D.C.: June
2000).

Arguments against Taxation

20See the President's Tax Proposals to the Congress for Fairness, Growth,
and Simplicity, May 1985, 247-248.

21GAO-04-91, p.16.

22Representatives of the Credit Union National Association, the National
Association of Federal Credit Unions, and the Consumer Federation
testified before Congress in 1985 as well as in 2005.

Estimates of the Potential Tax Revenues from Taxing Corporations Vary Widely
Based on the Source and Underlying Assumptions

23There are three categories of cooperatives under the Internal Revenue
Code: (1) exempt farmers cooperatives, described in section 521; (2)
certain mutual or cooperative entities described in section 501(c)(12),
which are exempt from taxation pursuant to section 501(a); and (3) taxable
cooperatives, governed by subchapter T of the code (sections 1381-1388).

24U.S. Department of the Treasury estimates as published in Analytical
Perspectives: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005,
(Washington, D.C.: 2004).

25Joint Committee on Taxation estimates as published in the Congressional
Budget Office's Budget Options (Washington, D.C.: February 2005).

26John A. Tatom, Competitive Advantage: A Study of the Federal Tax
Exemption for Credit Unions (The Tax Foundation: Washington, D.C.: 2005).

27Chmura Economics & Analytics, An Assessment of the Competitive
Environment Between Credit Unions and Banks (Jefferson Institute for
Public Policy: Virginia, May 2004).

Historical Distinctions between Credit Unions and Other Depository Institutions
                             Have Continued to Blur

Figure 1: Credit Union Industry Size and Total Assets Distribution, as of
December 31, 2004

Note: This figure depicts credit union industry distribution in terms of
the number of federally insured credit unions in a particular asset size
category and the percentage of industry assets that are held by credit
unions in that category.

As credit unions' assets have grown in recent years, credit unions have
generally shifted to larger loans such as mortgages. Between 1992 and
2004, the amount of first mortgage loans held grew from $29 billion to
$130 billion, while that of new vehicle loans increased from $29 billion
to $71 billion and that of used vehicle loans increased from $17 billion
to $85 billion. In terms of the relative importance of different loan
types, we compared the growth in the amounts of various loan types
relative to credit unions' assets over the same period. Amounts held in
first mortgage loans grew from around 11 percent of assets in 1992 to
around 20 percent of assets in 2004, while amounts held in used vehicle
loans grew from just under 7 percent to slightly more than 13 percent.

As shown in figure 2, larger credit unions generally held relatively
larger loans (e.g., first mortgage loans) than smaller credit unions,
which generally held relatively more small loans (e.g., used vehicle
loans). Since 1992, the amount of first mortgage loans held relative to
assets has more than doubled for credit unions with over $1 billion in
assets, from around 12 percent to over 25 percent of assets, while it has
grown less than 40 percent for credit unions with less than $100 million
in assets, from around 9 percent to slightly more than 12 percent of
assets.

Figure 2: Loan Types as a Percentage of Total Assets, Smallest versus
Largest Credit Unions, 1992-2004

The discrepancy between smaller and larger credit unions is more apparent
through an analysis of more recently collected data on more sophisticated
product and service offerings, such as the availability of automatic
teller machines (ATM) and electronic banking (see table 1). While less
than half of the smallest credit unions offered ATMs and one-third offered
transactional websites, nearly all larger credit unions offered these
services.

Table 1: Credit Union Size and Offerings of More Sophisticated Services,
as of December 31, 2004

                                      Percentage of institutions offering the following services
                                                                                   Website
                                      Financial                                                            
                            Financial  services                                              
                             services   through        Electronic                            
                     Group    through     audio      applications                            
Asset               assets        the  response           for new                            
range    Number (billions)   Internet  or phone ATMs        loans  Informational Interactive Transactional
$10                                                                                                        
million                                                                                      
or less   7,859       $138       37.8      44.3 47.0         25.3           16.0         4.0          32.9
Greater                                                                                                    
than                                                                                         
$100                                                                                         
millions                                                                                     
to $250                                                                                      
million     644       $102       94.7      97.4 95.0         82.1            3.7         2.2          92.2
Greater                                                                                                    
than                                                                                         
$250 to                                                                                      
$500                                                                                         
million     266        $94       98.5      98.5 96.6         89.8            0.8         1.5          97.0
Greater                                                                                                    
than                                                                                         
$500                                                                                         
million                                                                                      
to $1                                                                                        
billion     147       $100       98.0      98.0 98.0         92.5            2.0         1.4          95.9
Greater                                                                                                    
than $1                                                                                      
billion      98       $213       98.0      98.0 98.0         95.9            1.0         2.0          96.9
Total     9,014       $647       51.2      51.2 53.3         33.1           14.3         3.7          40.7 

Source: GAO analysis of NCUA Form 5300 data.

Note: Data are based on all federally insured credit unions filing call
reports.

Despite the growth in credit union assets over recent years, the credit
union industry remains much smaller than the banking industry, with credit
unions representing around 6 percent of total assets of both industries.28
For example, at the end of 2004, the largest credit union had nearly $23
billion in assets, while the largest bank, with $967 billion in assets,
was larger than the entire credit union industry combined.

Although credit unions are on average much smaller than banks, larger
credit unions and banks of comparable size tend to offer the same products
and services (see fig. 3).29 In particular, nearly all banks and larger
credit unions reported holding first mortgage loans, while a majority of
the smaller credit unions did not.

28Credit union assets grew from $438 billion at year-end 2000 to $647
billion at year-end 2004-an increase of 48 percent-while banking industry
assets grew from $7.5 trillion at year-end 2000 to $10.1 trillion at
year-end 2004-an increase of 35 percent. Credit unions represented 6.0
percent of the combined assets of the banking and credit union industries
as of December 31, 2004, versus 5.6 percent as of December 31, 2000.

29Given the disproportionate size of the banking industry relative to the
credit union industry-the average credit union had $72 million in assets
versus $1.1 billion in assets for the average bank at year-end 2004-we
developed peer groups by asset size to mitigate the effects of this
discrepancy. We constructed five peer groups in terms of institution size
as measured by total assets, reported as of December 31, 2004. We further
refined the sample of FDIC-insured institutions to exclude those banks and
thrifts we determined had emphases in credit card or mortgage loans. The
largest bank included in our analyses had total assets of nearly $23
billion at year-end 2004, and the average bank in this peer group sample
had $359 million in assets.

Figure 3: Percentages of Credit Unions and Banks Holding Various Loans, by
Institution Size, as of December 31, 2004

Notes: Data are based on all federally insured credit unions, banks, and
thrifts filing call reports. We excluded insured U.S. branches of
foreign-chartered institutions and banks that we determined had emphases
in credit card or mortgage loans. Credit union data on other consumer
loans may include member business and agricultural loans. Agricultural and
business loans for credit unions include both member business loans and
participation in nonmember loans.

     The Extent to Which Credit Unions Serve Persons of Modest Means Is Not
       Definitively Known because of Limited Data and Lack of Indicators

While credit union fields of membership have expanded, the extent to which
they serve people or communities of low or moderate incomes is not
definitively known. In 1998, CUMAA affirmed preexisting NCUA policies that
had allowed credit unions to expand their field of membership and include
underserved areas.30 After the legislation was passed, NCUA revised its
regulations to enable credit unions to serve larger communities or
geographic areas. As they have become larger and begun offering a wider
variety of services, questions have been raised about whether credit
unions are more likely than banks to serve households with low and
moderate incomes. However, limited comprehensive data are available to
evaluate the income of credit union members. Our assessment of available
data -the Federal Reserve's 2001 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) and
other studies-provided some indication that, compared with banks, credit
unions served a slightly lower proportion of households with low and
moderate incomes. Although NCUA has undertaken initiatives to enhance the
availability of financial services to individuals of modest means, as of
October 15, 2005, it had not implemented our 2003 recommendation to
develop indicators to evaluate the progress credit unions made in reaching
the underserved.

Credit Unions Can Serve More People and Larger Areas because CUMAA Permitted
NCUA to Continue Preexisting Policies That Expanded Field of Membership

In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled against NCUA's practice of permitting
federally chartered credit unions based on multiple bonds.31 Subsequently,
Congress passed CUMAA, which specifically permits multiple-bond credit
unions. The act permits these credit unions to retain their current
membership and authorizes their future formation.32 Figure 4 provides
additional information on the percent and assets of federally chartered
credit unions by bond type. While multiple-bond credit unions have
constituted on average slightly under 50 percent of all credit unions
since 2000, they tend to be larger than the other two types of credit
union bonds in terms of asset size.33 For example, at year-end 2004,
multiple bond credit unions made up 45 percent of the total number of
federal credit unions but represented 57 percent of federal credit union
assets.

30The Federal Credit Union Act defines an "underserved area" as a local
community, neighborhood, or rural district that is an "investment area" as
defined by the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions
Act of 1994. An investment area includes locations experiencing poverty,
low income, or unemployment.

31National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust
Company. 522 U.S. 479 (1998).

32See 12 U.S.C. S: 1759(b), (d), as amended.

Figure 4: Percent and Assets of Federally Chartered Credit Unions, by
Bond, 2000-2004

Note: NCUA provided revised data for the year 2000 from that previously
provided for our 2003 report.

In addition to permitting multiple-bond credit unions, CUMAA further
qualifies the definition of community bond. The act adds the word "local"
to the preexisting requirement that community-based credit unions serve a
"well-defined community, neighborhood or rural district," but provides no
guidance on how "local" or any other part of this requirement should be
defined.34 However, after the passage of CUMAA, NCUA revised its
regulations to make it easier for credit unions to serve increasingly
larger areas (e.g., entire cities or counties). As a result, NCUA approved
a community-based charter application in July 2005 covering Los Angeles
County with a potential membership of 9.6 million.

33With the exception of the statistics provided for multiple-bond credit
unions for 1996, NCUA cannot provide us data on federal chartering trends
before 2000. However, NCUA was able to report that by 1996, about half of
all federally chartered credit unions were multiple-bond credit unions.

Limited Comprehensive Data Are Available to Evaluate Income of Credit Union
Members

While it has been generally accepted that credit unions historically have
emphasized service to people with modest means; currently, there are no
comprehensive data on the income characteristics of credit union members,
particularly those who actually receive loans and other services. Industry
groups and consumer advocates have debated which economic groups benefit
from credit union services, especially in light of the credit unions'
exemption from federal income taxes. As stated in our 1991 report, and
still true, none of the common-bond criteria available to federally
chartered credit unions refer to the economic status of their members or
potential members.

Information on the extent to which credit unions are lending and providing
services to households with various incomes is scarce because NCUA,
industry trade groups, and most states (with the exception of
Massachusetts and Connecticut) have not collected specific information
describing the income of credit union members who obtain loans or benefit
from other credit union services.35 Credit unions-even those serving
geographic areas-are not subject to the federal Community Reinvestment Act
(CRA), which requires banking regulators to examine and rate banks and
thrifts on lending and service to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods
in their assessment area.36 Consequently, NCUA and most state regulators
do not require credit unions to maintain data on the extent to which loans
and other services are being provided to households with various incomes.

34Pub. L. No. 105-219 S: 101. See 12 U.S.C. S: 1759(c)(2), as amended.

35The Credit Union National Association, a trade association, collects
information about the characteristics (for example, income, race, and age)
of credit union members but not specifically the income levels of members
who actually receive mortgage and consumer loans or use other services.
Also, Massachusetts and Connecticut collect information on the
distribution of credit union lending by household income and the
availability of services because their state-chartered credit unions are
subject to examinations similar to those of federally regulated
institutions. Massachusetts established its examination procedures in 1982
and Connecticut in 2001.

Federal Reserve Board Data Suggest That Credit Unions Serve a Slightly Lower
Proportion of Low- and Moderate-Income Households Than Do Banks

Our prior work, which included an analysis of data from the Federal
Reserve Board's 2001 SCF, suggested that credit unions overall served a
lower percentage of households of modest means (low- and moderate-income
households combined) than banks.37 More specifically, while credit unions
served a slightly higher percentage of moderate-income households than
banks, they served a much lower percentage of low-income households. We
combined the SCF data into two main groups-households that primarily and
only used credit unions versus households that primarily and only used
banks.38 As shown in figure 5, this analysis indicated that about 36
percent of households that primarily and only used credit unions had low
or moderate incomes, compared to 42 percent of households that used banks.
Moreover, our analysis suggested that a greater percentage of households
that primarily and only used credit unions were in the middle and upper
income grouping than the proportion of households that primarily and only
used banks.

36CRA requires federal bank and thrift regulators to encourage depository
institutions under their jurisdiction to help meet the credit needs of the
local communities, including low- and moderate-income areas, in which they
are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operations. See 12 U.S.C.
S:S: 2901, 2903, and 2906 (2000). Federal bank and thrift regulators
conduct CRA examinations to evaluate the services that depository
institutions provide to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. However,
CRA provides for enforcement only when regulators evaluate an
institution's application for a merger or new branch, requiring that the
agencies take an institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its
community into account.

37The SCF is an interview survey of U.S. households conducted by the
Federal Reserve Board that includes questions about household income and
specifically asks whether households use credit unions or banks. It is
conducted every 3 years and is intended to provide detailed information on
the balance sheet, pension, income, and other demographic characteristics
of U.S. households, and their use of financial institutions.

38See GAO-04-91, pages 19-23, for a more detailed discussion of our
analysis and limitations of the SCF data.

Figure 5: Income Characteristics of Households Using Credit Unions versus
Banks, and Low and Moderate Income versus Middle and High Income

Note: We used the same income categories as used by federal regulators in
their CRA examinations.

We also looked at each of the four income categories separately. As shown
in figure 6, this analysis suggested that the percentage of households in
the low-income category that used credit unions only and primarily (16
percent) was lower than the percentage of these households that used banks
(26 percent). In contrast, more moderate- and middle-income households
were likely to use credit unions only and primarily (41 percent) than
banks (33 percent). Given that credit union membership traditionally has
been tied to occupational- or employer-based fields of membership, that
higher percentages of moderate- and middle-income households using credit
unions is not surprising.

Figure 6: Income Characteristics of Households Using Credit Unions versus
Banks, by Four Income Categories

Note: We found no statistical difference in the percent of upper-income
households when the "primarily and only" using credit union group and the
"primarily and only" using bank group were compared.

We also attempted to further explore the income distribution of credit
unions members by separately analyzing households that only used credit
unions or banks from those that primarily used credit unions or banks.
However, the results were ambiguous and difficult to interpret, due to the
characteristics of the households in the SCF database. For example,
because such a high percent of the U.S. population only uses banks (62
percent), the data obtained from the SCF is particularly useful for
describing characteristics of bank users but much less precise for
describing smaller population groups, such as those that only used credit
unions (8 percent).

Other relatively recent studies-notably, by the Credit Union National
Association and the Woodstock Institute-generally concluded that credit
unions served a somewhat higher-income population. The studies also noted
that the higher income levels could be due to the full-time employment
status of credit union members.39 Officials from NCUA and the Federal
Reserve Board also noted that credit union members were likely to have
higher incomes than nonmembers because credit unions are occupationally
based. A National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions
representative noted that because credit union membership is largely based
on employment, relatively few credit unions are located in low-income
communities.40 However, without additional research, especially on the
extent to which credit unions with a community base serve all their
potential members, it is difficult to know whether the relative importance
of full-time employment is the primary explanatory factor.

NCUA Has Established Initiatives That Target Low-Income Individuals and
Underserved Areas

NCUA recently has established two initiatives to further enhance the
availability of financial services to individuals of modest means: the
low-income credit union program and expansion into underserved areas.
According to NCUA, its Low Income Credit Unions (LICU) program is designed
to assist credit unions whose members are of modest means in obtaining
technical and financial services. LICUs grew in number from more than 600
in 2000 to nearly 1,000 by the end of 2004. To obtain a low-income
designation from NCUA, an existing credit union must establish that a
majority of its members meet the low-income definition.41 According to
NCUA, credit unions that meet this criterion are presumed to be serving
predominantly low-income members. Also, newly chartered credit unions can
receive low-income designation based on the income characteristics of
potential members.

39Credit Union National Association 2002 National Member Survey and
Woodstock Institute, Rhetoric and Reality: An Analysis of Mainstream
Credit Unions' Record of Serving Low Income People (February 2002).

40 The National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions
represents and provides, among other things, financial, technical
assistance, and human resources to about 215 community development credit
unions for the purpose of reaching low-income consumers.

41 Section 701.34 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations defines the term
"low-income members" as those members who (1) make less than 80 percent of
the average for all wage earners as established by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics or (2) whose annual household income falls at or below 80
percent of the median household income for the nation as established by
the Census Bureau. The term "low-income members" also includes members who
are full- or part-time students in a college, university, high school, or
vocational school.

Credit unions that receive a low-income designation from NCUA are measured
against the same standards of safety and soundness as other credit unions.
However, NCUA grants benefits that other credit unions do not have,
including:

           o  greater authority to accept deposits from nonmembers such as
           voluntary health and welfare organizations;
           o  access to low-interest loans, deposits, and technical
           assistance through participation in NCUA's Community Development
           Revolving Loan Fund;
           o  ability to offer uninsured secondary capital accounts and
           include these accounts in the credit union's net worth for the
           purposes of meeting its regulatory capital requirements;42 and
           o  a waiver of the aggregate loan limit for member business loans.

           NCUA has stated that one of its goals is to encourage the
           expansion of membership and make quality credit union services
           available to all eligible persons. It has done so in part by
           allowing credit unions to expand into underserved areas in recent
           years, from 40 in 2000 to 564 in 2004 (see fig. 7).

           Figure 7: Credit Union Expansions into Underserved Areas,
           2000-2004

           CUMAA and NCUA's Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS)
           03-1, the Chartering and Field of Membership Manual, allows credit
           unions to include in their fields of membership, without regard to
           location, communities in underserved areas. The Federal Credit
           Union Act defines an underserved area as a local community,
           neighborhood, or rural district that is an "investment area" as
           defined by the Community Development Banking and Financial
           Institutions Act of 1994-that is, experiencing poverty, low
           income, or unemployment.43 In order to expand into an underserved
           area, credit unions must receive approval from NCUA by
           demonstrating that a community qualifies as an investment area.
           Credit unions must also provide a business plan describing how the
           underserved community will be served. Finally, although the
           underserved and LICU initiatives are intended to help serve the
           underserved, NCUA does not collect data such as overall income
           levels of individuals using specific credit union products.

           Although NCUA has targeted underserved individuals and areas, in
           our 2003 report on credit unions we found that NCUA had data on
           potential-but not actual-membership of low- and moderate-income
           individuals in underserved areas adopted by credit unions. We
           recommended that NCUA use tangible indicators, other than
           potential membership, to determine whether credit unions have
           provided greater access to credit union services in underserved
           areas.44

           As of October 15, 2005, NCUA had not adopted any indicators.
           According to NCUA, it has established a working group to study
           credit union success in reaching people of modest means. NCUA
           indicated that the working group was exploring meaningful measures
           of success for this objective, determining how to best quantify
           the measures with available or readily obtainable data. The
           working group has also been evaluating the impact of other
           regulations, such as the Privacy of Consumer Financial
           Information, on the collection and use of such data. According to
           NCUA officials, as of October 15, 2005, the working group had not
           issued its report or recommendations.

           Most credit unions are not subject to IRS and other federal
           reporting requirements that would disclose information such as
           executive compensation and assessments of internal controls for
           financial reporting-information that can enhance public confidence
           in tax-exempt entities. Public availability of key financial
           information (that is, transparency) can provide incentives for
           ethical and effective operations as well as support oversight of
           the tax-exempt entities. At the same time, the disclosure of such
           information helps to achieve and maintain public trust.

           Recognizing the importance of transparency for tax-exempt
           entities, Congress made returns of the IRS Form 990 (Return of
           Organizations Exempt from Income Tax) into publicly available
           documents. Since tax exemptions are granted to entities so that
           they can carry out particular missions or activities that Congress
           judges to be of special value, the public availability of Form 990
           promotes public oversight. Most tax-exempt organizations, other
           than private foundations with gross receipts of $25,000 or more,
           are required to file Form 990 annually. The form contains
           information on an organization's income, expenditures, and
           "activities" including compensation information for officers,
           directors, trustees, and key employees. IRS also uses these forms
           to select organizations for examination.

           However, most credit unions do not individually file Form 990. In
           2002 and 2003, credit unions filed 1,435 and 1,389 Form 990s,
           respectively. On August 23, 1988, IRS issued a determination that
           annually filing Form 990 was not required for federal credit
           unions because of their status as tax-exempt organizations under
           section 501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. Depending on the
           state, some state-chartered credit unions file through a group
           filing process. For these states, IRS receives only the names and
           addresses of individual credit unions. As a result, scrutiny of
           the compensation of credit union executives and other key
           personnel is difficult. As you are aware, we have ongoing work in
           this and other areas, and we hope to provide you with additional
           information on the compensation of credit union executives and
           officials as part of this follow-up work.

           As noted in our 2003 report, the Federal Credit Union Act, as
           amended, requires credit unions with assets over $500 million to
           obtain an annual independent audit of financial statements by an
           independent certified public accountant. But, unlike banks and
           thrifts, these credit unions are not required to report on the
           effectiveness of their internal controls for financial reporting.
           Under FDICIA and its implementing regulations, banks and thrifts
           with assets over $500 million are required to prepare an annual
           management report that contains:

           o  a statement of management's responsibility for preparing the
           institution's annual financial statements, for establishing and
           maintaining an adequate internal control structure and procedures
           for financial reporting, and for complying with designated laws
           and regulations relating to safety and soundness; and
           o  management's assessment of the effectiveness of the
           institution's internal control structure and procedures for
           financial reporting as of the end of the fiscal year and the
           institution's compliance with the designated safety and soundness
           laws and regulations during the fiscal year. 45

           Additionally, the institution's independent accountants are
           required to attest to management's assertions concerning the
           effectiveness of the institution's internal control structure and
           procedures for financial reporting. The institution's management
           report and the accountant's attestation report must be filed with
           the institution's primary federal regulator and any appropriate
           state depository institution supervisor, and must be available for
           public inspection.

           The reports, with their assessments and attestations on internal
           controls, allow depository institution regulators to gain
           increased assurance about the reliability of financial reporting.
           Also as we stated in our 2003 report, the extension of the
           internal control reporting requirement to credit unions with
           assets over $500 million could provide NCUA with an additional
           tool to assess the reliability of internal controls over financial
           reporting.

           Moreover, bank and thrift reporting requirements under FDICIA are
           similar to the public company reporting requirements in the
           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Under Sarbanes-Oxley, public companies
           are required to establish and maintain adequate internal control
           structures and procedures for financial reporting; the company's
           auditor is also required to attest to, and report on, the
           assessment made by company management on the effectiveness of
           internal controls. As a result of FDICIA and the Sarbanes-Oxley
           Act, reports on management's assessment of the effectiveness of
           internal controls over financial reporting and the independent
           auditor's attestation on management's assessment have become
           normal business practice for financial institutions and
           businesses.

           In a letter dated October 2003, NCUA's Chairman stated that while
           the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not apply specifically to federal
           credit unions, certain provisions may be appropriate to consider
           for some federal credit unions. Federal credit unions are
           encouraged (but not required) to consider the guidance provided
           and are urged to periodically review their policies and procedures
           as they relate to matters of corporate governance and auditing.

           Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
           pleased to respond to any questions you or other Members of the
           committee may have.

           For further information regarding this testimony, please contact
           Richard Hillman at (202 512-8678) or [email protected]. Individuals
           making key contributions to this testimony include Janet Fong, May
           Lee, John Lord, Harry Medina, Jasminee Persaud, Barbara Roesmann,
           and Richard Vagnoni.

           The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
           investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
           meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
           the performance and accountability of the federal government for
           the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
           evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
           recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
           informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
           commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
           accountability, integrity, and reliability.

           The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
           no cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO
           posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
           Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
           every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to
           Updates."

           The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
           are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
           Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
           Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are
           discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

           U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
           Washington, D.C. 20548

           To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax:
           (202) 512-6061

           Contact:

           Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
           [email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
           (202) 512-7470

           Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400
           U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
           Washington, D.C. 20548

           Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
           512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548

42A "secondary capital instrument" is either unsecured debt or debt that
has a lower priority than that of another debt on the same asset. These
subordinated debt instruments are not backed or guaranteed by the federal
share insurance fund.

43Quoted from NCUA Chartering and Field Membership Manual, March 2003,
p.3-4 & 3-5.

NCUA Has Not Fully Implemented Our Recommendation to Develop Indicators to
Evaluate Credit Union Progress in Reaching the Underserved

  Credit Unions Lack Transparency on Executive Compensation and Larger Credit
       Unions Do Not Have to Report on Effectiveness of Internal Controls

44GAO-04-91, p. 83.

4512 U.S.C. S: 1831m; 12 C.F.R. Part 363 (2003).

                          Contact and Acknowledgments

(250259)

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Congressional Relations

Public Affairs

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-220T.

To view the full product, click on the link above. For more information,
contact Richard Hillman at (202) 512-8678 or [email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-220T, testimony before the Committee on Ways and
Means, House of Representatives

November 3, 2005

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Issues Regarding the Tax-Exempt Status of Credit Unions

Unlike other depository institutions, credit unions are exempt from
federal corporate income taxes. Recent legislative and regulatory changes
to credit union membership restrictions and allowable products and
services have blurred some of the historical distinctions between credit
unions and other depository institutions. As a result, some observers have
raised questions about whether tax exemption provides credit unions with
an advantage over other depository institutions and whether the original
basis for tax exemption is still valid.

As part of its continuing oversight of the tax-exempt sector, the House
Committee on Ways and Means asked GAO to address (1) the historical basis
for the tax-exempt status of credit unions; (2) the arguments for and
against taxation, including estimates of potential revenue from
eliminating the exemption; (3) the extent to which credit unions offer
services distinct from those offered by banks of comparable size, and
serve low-and moderate-income individuals; and (4) the extent to which
credit unions are required to report information on executive compensation
and assessments of their internal controls.

Congress originally granted tax-exempt status to credit unions in 1937
because of their similarity to other mutually owned financial institutions
that were tax-exempt at that time. While the other institutions lost their
exemption in the Revenue Act of 1951, credit unions specifically remained
exempted. The act's legislative history is silent regarding why the
tax-exempt status of credit unions was not revoked. More recently, the
Credit Union Membership Access Act of 1998 indicates that credit unions
continue to be exempt because of their cooperative, not-for-profit
structure, which is distinct from other depository institutions, and
because credit unions historically have emphasized serving people of
modest means.

Arguments for taxing credit unions center on creating a "level playing
field" since credit unions now compete more directly with banks.
Proponents also point to associated potential revenues, with federal
estimates ranging from $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion per year. Opponents of
taxation argue that credit unions remain distinct-organizationally and
operationally-from other financial institutions and taxation would impair
their capital levels.

Prior GAO work has found that relatively large credit unions offer many of
the same services that same-sized banks offer, while smaller credit unions
tend to provide more basic financial services. Limited comprehensive data
exist on the income of credit union members. GAO's assessment of Federal
Reserve data suggested that credit unions served a slightly lower
proportion of low- and moderate-income households than banks, but the lack
of comprehensive data prevents definitive conclusions.

Most credit unions are not subject to reporting requirements that provide
information on executive compensation or internal controls. Specifically,
federal credit unions are not required to file the Internal Revenue
Service form that most other tax-exempt entities must file and some states
allow credit unions to file on a group basis. Further, credit unions are
not subject to internal control reporting requirements applicable to banks
and thrifts, an item we identified for Congressional action in 2003.

Credit Union Industry Size and Assets Distribution, as of December 31,
2004
*** End of document. ***