A distinction here: The NFL (as corporate entity) is essentially a shell company with little-to-no profit anyway, existing merely as a cash conduit to the owners of the individual franchises. Even so, the league’s dropping of the tax exemption was done largely to take away a governmental bargaining chip.
I agree with Mondo. The comparison here to the NFL doesn’t make much sense. If you want to make a case that Endowments and Foundations should have to pay taxes on their investments, I would be very interested in hearing it, but saying they have more assets than the NFL doesn’t mean anything in this discussion. Sure, it seems outrageous that the NFL ever was tax-exempt, but universities and the NFL are completely different creatures with different missions (despite the existence of college football), so comparing the two is disingenuous.
Honestly, I would enjoy it if you would write about the tax-exempt status of universities. I can think of good reasons both for and against their tax-free nature. This is a topic seems like it could use some critical investigation.
Stephen: My argument is that only a few schools – Harvard and Princeton come to mind – should feel various sorts of pressure about justifying their tax exempt status. I’ve written about universities and tax exemption on this blog for many years. Just put “tax exemption” in my search engine. Or if you prefer, you could start here:
Something that would make a great deal of sense (although it wouldn’t much affect Harvard) is disallowing individual tax deductions for contributions to college athletic programs. It is annoying that fat cat donors can get tax breaks for gifts that qualify them for “premium seating.” I suggested this to our Congressman, but he smiled and pointed out that he has three Division 1 programs in his district.
The NFL and unis may be different creatures, but the league is a money making venture, and has a profit of over $1 billion per year.
watchdog.org/107862/nfl-tax-subsidies
The pro game’s growth is very much tied to its non-profit status, The NFL also negotiates for the individual teams, and gouges tax payers for billions in subsidies, in order to build stadiums, and infrastructure, to service those venues.
A distinction can be made between Harvard, a private uni, and the NFL, in that Harvard doesn’t get public subsidies, in the form of public bonds, in order to build a new sports venue. But the fact that their non-profit status allowed to them to aggregate tens of billions in their endowment gives them the means to build anything they want, with or without debt. In that way, I suppose you can say that Harvard and the NFL are similar….
I’m definitely a non-expert here, but the whole business of tax code gaming seems to me a stinker. (E. g., ask someone why he pays no income tax on the value of the group medical insurance in which he’s enrolled.)
Harvard may not get subsidies for its bonds, but an important thing to remember about most educational (and health care) organizations, is that a significant share of their revenue comes either directly from government (including grants to students) or is indirectly subsidized by government (educational tax credits, public low-cost loans).
There are many good reasons why we provide those subsidies. But, it also means that we should hold those organizations accountable not just to their students/patients, but to the public taxpayers who are directly or indirectly providing the funds.
anon, thanks. Back in the 1980s my boss asked me to look into the possibility of legally concealing our for-profit ad business within a tax-exempt cover enterprise. I didn’t have enough time to work on the idea. Yeah, the idea was to use the moral glow of goodie-goodie stuff to make more money for ourselves.
BTW-I did a quick eye-roll of UD’s tax exemption posts, and the idea that university “investors” (i.e ., donors) may extract “dividends” in the form of undue, improper favorable treatment of all sorts sounds credible.
May 5th, 2015 at 4:05PM
A distinction here: The NFL (as corporate entity) is essentially a shell company with little-to-no profit anyway, existing merely as a cash conduit to the owners of the individual franchises. Even so, the league’s dropping of the tax exemption was done largely to take away a governmental bargaining chip.
For more details, see:
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/04/28/nfl-drops-tax-exempt-status
May 5th, 2015 at 5:46PM
I agree with Mondo. The comparison here to the NFL doesn’t make much sense. If you want to make a case that Endowments and Foundations should have to pay taxes on their investments, I would be very interested in hearing it, but saying they have more assets than the NFL doesn’t mean anything in this discussion. Sure, it seems outrageous that the NFL ever was tax-exempt, but universities and the NFL are completely different creatures with different missions (despite the existence of college football), so comparing the two is disingenuous.
Honestly, I would enjoy it if you would write about the tax-exempt status of universities. I can think of good reasons both for and against their tax-free nature. This is a topic seems like it could use some critical investigation.
May 5th, 2015 at 8:04PM
Stephen: My argument is that only a few schools – Harvard and Princeton come to mind – should feel various sorts of pressure about justifying their tax exempt status. I’ve written about universities and tax exemption on this blog for many years. Just put “tax exemption” in my search engine. Or if you prefer, you could start here:
http://www.margaretsoltan.com/?p=41589
May 5th, 2015 at 9:24PM
Something that would make a great deal of sense (although it wouldn’t much affect Harvard) is disallowing individual tax deductions for contributions to college athletic programs. It is annoying that fat cat donors can get tax breaks for gifts that qualify them for “premium seating.” I suggested this to our Congressman, but he smiled and pointed out that he has three Division 1 programs in his district.
May 6th, 2015 at 1:21AM
The NFL and unis may be different creatures, but the league is a money making venture, and has a profit of over $1 billion per year.
watchdog.org/107862/nfl-tax-subsidies
The pro game’s growth is very much tied to its non-profit status, The NFL also negotiates for the individual teams, and gouges tax payers for billions in subsidies, in order to build stadiums, and infrastructure, to service those venues.
A distinction can be made between Harvard, a private uni, and the NFL, in that Harvard doesn’t get public subsidies, in the form of public bonds, in order to build a new sports venue. But the fact that their non-profit status allowed to them to aggregate tens of billions in their endowment gives them the means to build anything they want, with or without debt. In that way, I suppose you can say that Harvard and the NFL are similar….
May 6th, 2015 at 6:18AM
I’m definitely a non-expert here, but the whole business of tax code gaming seems to me a stinker. (E. g., ask someone why he pays no income tax on the value of the group medical insurance in which he’s enrolled.)
May 6th, 2015 at 11:20AM
Harvard may not get subsidies for its bonds, but an important thing to remember about most educational (and health care) organizations, is that a significant share of their revenue comes either directly from government (including grants to students) or is indirectly subsidized by government (educational tax credits, public low-cost loans).
There are many good reasons why we provide those subsidies. But, it also means that we should hold those organizations accountable not just to their students/patients, but to the public taxpayers who are directly or indirectly providing the funds.
May 7th, 2015 at 5:09AM
anon, thanks. Back in the 1980s my boss asked me to look into the possibility of legally concealing our for-profit ad business within a tax-exempt cover enterprise. I didn’t have enough time to work on the idea. Yeah, the idea was to use the moral glow of goodie-goodie stuff to make more money for ourselves.
BTW-I did a quick eye-roll of UD’s tax exemption posts, and the idea that university “investors” (i.e ., donors) may extract “dividends” in the form of undue, improper favorable treatment of all sorts sounds credible.