logo
Can the IRS revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status?

Can the IRS revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status?

Independent17-04-2025

For more than a century, the majority of colleges and universities have not paid most taxes. The Revenue Act of 1909 excused nonprofits operating 'exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes' in order to continue acting in the public interest.
President Donald Trump is looking to challenge that designation, complaining that colleges and universities are 'indoctrinating' their students with 'radical left' ideas, rather than educating them. And he has decided to start with the 488-year old Harvard University, one of the world's most prestigious institutions of learning and the first college founded in the American colonies.
On Tuesday, he targeted Harvard University in a post on his social media site, questioning whether it should remain tax-exempt 'if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting 'Sickness?' Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!'
Tax-exempt status, which is decided by the Internal Revenue Service, means that these institutions do not pay certain kinds of taxes and that their donors receive a tax deduction when they make gifts. The rules they have to follow to maintain that status are set out in the tax code. We spoke with attorneys who specialize in nonprofit law and freedom of speech to try to answer questions about this challenge.
Does a university's curriculum affect its charitable status?
In general, no. Colleges and universities have broad leeway to design the education they provide.
Genevieve Lakier, a First Amendment scholar at the University of Chicago Law School, said the U.S. Supreme Court has laid out four essential freedoms for colleges and universities — what to teach, how to teach it, who their students are and who their professors are.
'That's the irreducible core of academic freedom and it is constitutionally protected in this country,' she said, adding the government cannot threaten funding cuts or revoking a school's tax status as punishment for its views or what the school teaches.
The First Amendment also protects the rights of other nonprofits to pursue their charitable missions under freedom of assembly, Lakier said, even if those missions are odious or the government does not like them.
Can the president ask the IRS to revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status?
No, he is not supposed to, according to two nonprofit tax attorneys who wrote about a previous call from Trump to revoke the nonprofit status of colleges and universities.
In 1998, Congress passed a law that forbade federal officials from telling the IRS to investigate any taxpayer in an effort to increase trust in tax enforcement.
The attorneys, Ellen Aprill and Samuel Brunson, also pointed to legislation that forbade the IRS 'from targeting individuals and organizations for ideological reasons,' after a controversy over how it treated Tea Party groups in 2013.
H ow does a nonprofit get and keep its tax-exempt status?
The IRS recognizes multiple reasons for a nonprofit to to be exempt from paying many kinds of taxes, including pursuing charitable, religious or educational missions among many other examples. The statute specifically names sports competitions, preventing cruelty to children or animals and defending human or civil rights as exempt purposes.
Nonprofits can lose their tax-exempt status for things like improperly paying its directors, endorsing a political candidate or operating a business unrelated to its charitable mission.
In short, tax attorneys say nonprofits must operate 'exclusively for charitable purposes,' which is a different standard than what the president referred to as, 'acting in the public interest.'
Phil Hackney, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said, 'Long history and precedent suggest that Harvard and institutions of higher education are operating for educational purposes, which are considered charitable," under the tax code.
He said it would be exceedingly difficult to make a case that a college or university was not operating for charitable purposes under current law. However, Edward McCaffery, who teaches tax policy at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, warned there is precedent for the IRS revoking the tax-exempt status of colleges that the government could lean on.
'I think to dismiss it out of hand as over-the-top bluster and that the administration has no power to unilaterally pursue it, I think that's naive," McCaffery said. "This could happen.'
Has the IRS ever stripped a college of its tax-exempt status before?
Yes. In 1983, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that the IRS could deny tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University, a private Christian university that banned interracial dating and marriage on campus, and Goldsboro Christian Schools, which employed racially discriminatory admissions policies.
The court found the IRS had some discretion to determine whether an organization seeking tax-exempt status met standards of 'charity,' meaning that it 'must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy.'
Nonetheless, McCaffery said, 'The ability of the IRS just to come in and deny tax exemption, it better be a very clear, long-standing, deeply held public policy, and not political preferences for certain kinds of positions, attitudes and voting patterns.'
How can the IRS revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status?
Usually, the IRS would open an audit, where it gathers evidence that a nonprofit is not operating exclusively for charitable purposes.
'The IRS would have to send to Harvard a proposed revocation of its status,' Hackney said. 'At that point, Harvard would have many different means to talk with the IRS about why they believed they were within the law,' including suing.
However, Hackney said the U.S. Department of Treasury could implement new regulations, for example, stating that operating a diversity, equity and inclusion program is not consistent with charitable purposes. Such a change would usually take years to make and would run counter to decades of precedent, Hackney said.
'I am skeptical this effort will be successful,' he said. 'If it were, this would be the most dramatic change of charitable law in my lifetime and I would say in the history of our charitable law.'
___
Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP's philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Barron Trump's best friend claims he got ICE to detain world's biggest TikTok star Khaby Lame
Barron Trump's best friend claims he got ICE to detain world's biggest TikTok star Khaby Lame

Daily Mail​

time42 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Barron Trump's best friend claims he got ICE to detain world's biggest TikTok star Khaby Lame

One of Barron Trump's supposed best friends has claimed he's responsible for getting the world's biggest TikTok star deported out of the United States. Bo Loudon, a Gen Z MAGA influencer who's previously been pictured with Barron and Donald Trump, said he reported Khaby Lame to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Loudon's first post on X came June 6 when he wrote that Lame is an 'illegal alien ' in all caps before proclaiming that he has 'been working with the patriots at President Trump's DHS' to deport the Senegal-born influencer. ICE already confirmed Lame was detained at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas on June 6, the same day Loudon made his supposed involvement public. Lame, who has over 162 million TikTok followers, overstayed his visa after entering the country on April 30, according to an ICE spokesperson. He was granted 'voluntary departure', a bureaucratic euphemism for being kicked out. 'Serigne Khabane Lame, 25, a citizen of Italy, was detained… for immigration violations,' the spokesperson confirmed in a statement. 'Lame was granted voluntary departure… and has since departed the US.' Loudon, 18, claimed that Lame was detained at Henderson Detention Center, southeast of Las Vegas proper, though its unclear how long he may have been in custody before leaving. ICE has not confirmed whether Loudon was involved in reporting Lame to authorities. has approached immigration officials for comment but did not immediately respond. Loudon has continued to celebrate his alleged role in the TikToker's removal. He made a post Wednesday afternoon denouncing various media outlets' coverage of this incident, who reportedly called him a 'rat' and a 'rat extraordinaire'. 'Why? Because I helped President Trump's DHS deport TikTok's biggest star, Khaby Lame, for being in the U.S. illegally,' he added. 'I wish Khaby well and hope he returns as a LAW-ABIDING citizen.' Loudon also did an interview with Dylan Page, another popular TikToker who has been the 'News Daddy.' In that sit-down, Loudon said he became aware of Lame's immigration status because 'he had worked with a few of my friends and business partners' who said his visa expired years ago. 'I called some people in the administration and they said "we're gonna get on this right quick,"' Loudon said. Lame is best known known for his dead-pan skits reacting to other content on the social media site. Loudon admitted that he doesn't watch much of Lame's content but said Lame has posted videos expressing a 'hatred' for Trump. 'I'm sure he hates him much more now, which is why I posted "far-left" TikToker,' he said. Lame has not commented on his detainment or his removal from the US and has continued to post videos as if nothing happened. As recently as May 5, Lame attended the Met Gala in New York City, where he wore a three piece suit with well over a dozen timepieces attached to his vest. Loudon, from Palm Beach, Florida, is the son of Dr. Gina Loudon, a conservative pundit and former co-chair of Women for Trump in 2020. His father, John Loudon, was a Republican Missouri state senator until 2008. Loudon and Barron Trump were instrumental convincing Donald Trump that it was a strategic advantage to appear on various podcasts popular with young me, including Adin Ross' show.

China-US trade deal kicks the rare earths can down the road
China-US trade deal kicks the rare earths can down the road

Reuters

time44 minutes ago

  • Reuters

China-US trade deal kicks the rare earths can down the road

LAUNCESTON, Australia, June 12 (Reuters) - The tentative deal between the United States and China may represent a retreat from the worst-case scenario of a total collapse of trade between the world's two biggest economies, but it creates more problems than it solves. President Donald Trump touted the agreement, which is still subject to final approvals on both sides, as a "great deal" that will be good for both countries. "We have everything we need, and we're going to do very well with it. And hopefully they are too," Trump told reporters prior to attending a performance on Wednesday evening at Washington's Kennedy Center. While not all the details are known, what has been revealed shows a deal that will probably hurt both economies, and not solve some of the pressing issues, such as China's dominance of the rare earths supply chain. The United States will impose tariffs of 55% on imports from China, while China can levy 10% on its purchases from the United States. This still represents a sharp increase in tariffs from the 25% on imports from China that was in place when Trump returned to the White House in late January. Tariffs at such a level are likely high enough to cause trade to shrink while boosting inflation in the United States, and lowering economic growth in both countries. If Beijing does keep 10% tariffs on imports of U.S. energy commodities, these will be high enough to ensure that virtually no U.S. crude oil, coal or liquefied natural gas enters China, eliminating one of the few products that China is able to buy in large quantities from the United States. It's also questionable whether the tariffs will be enough to prompt more manufacturing in the United States, or whether they will simply cause some production to shift from China to countries with lower import duties. Trump did single out rare earths when talking up the trade deal, saying China will provide the metals that are found in a wide range of electronics and vehicles "up front". But the deal does little to solve the underlying problem with rare earths, magnets and other refined metals such as lithium and cobalt, which are dominated by Chinese supply chains. At best, the agreement this week is a kick the can down the road type of deal, insofar as it prevents an immediate crisis in manufacturing in the United States, but leaves open the possibility that Beijing will once again threaten supplies if there are problems between the two sides in the future. China controls 85% of global rare earths refining, a situation that has hitherto largely benefited Western companies as they have been able to source the metals at prices far lower than what they would have had to pay had they tried to mine and process the elements by themselves. Rare earths are an example of the wider problem with so-called critical minerals. It's all very well to designate a mineral as critical, but if you don't actually do anything to secure a supply chain, then you really have to question just how critical the mineral is. Rare earths aren't really that rare, although finding economic deposits is challenging. It's the same for lithium, copper, cobalt, tungsten and a range of other metals that many governments designate as critical. But developing supply chains for these minerals and refined metals outside of China is costly, and so far Western countries and companies have been unwilling to commit funds. Companies won't develop new mines and processing plants if they have to compete with China at market prices, as very few projects would be economic. Governments have been sluggish in developing policies that would support new supply chains, such as guaranteeing offtake at prices high enough to justify investment, or by providing loans or other incentives. This means that the world remains beholden to China for these metals, and is likely to remain so until governments start to act rather than just talk. It's also worth noting that China will have learned from its latest talks with the Trump administration. As Trump himself may have put it, the United States doesn't hold all the cards, with Beijing having a few aces up its sleeve as well. The danger is always in overplaying one's hand. If Beijing keeps using rare earths as a trump card, it runs the risk that the West will cough up the cash to build its own supply chain. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab. The views expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.

Israel considering military strike on Iran, sources say
Israel considering military strike on Iran, sources say

NBC News

timean hour ago

  • NBC News

Israel considering military strike on Iran, sources say

Israel is considering taking military action against Iran — most likely without U.S. support — in the coming days, even as President Donald Trump is in advanced discussions with Tehran about a diplomatic deal to curtail its nuclear program, according to five people with knowledge of the situation. Israel has become more serious about a unilateral strike on Iran as the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran appear closer to a preliminary or framework agreement that includes provisions about uranium enrichment that Israel views as unacceptable. A unilateral strike or action by Israel against Iran would be a dramatic break with the Trump administration, which has argued against such a step. The renewed threat of an Israeli strike comes as the Trump administration is awaiting a response from Iran on a proposed framework of a nuclear deal, and as the president has publicly said Tehran has become more hardline in its negotiations. The notion of a new front in a simmering conflict has prompted the Trump administration to order all embassies within striking distance of Iranian missiles, aircraft and other assets (including missions in the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Eastern Europe) to send cables with assessments about danger and about measures to mitigate risks to Americans and U.S. infrastructure, according to two sources familiar. U.S. and other officials are on alert awaiting the possibility of Israel striking Iran, the officials said. The White House has not briefed senior lawmakers on the issue, according to that aide and a U.S. official. One major concern is Iran retaliating against U.S. personnel or assets in the region for any action. Israel, which relies on intelligence or other direct and logistical assistance from the U.S., may be in a position to take unilateral action against Tehran, the source familiar said. The sources familiar and officials were not aware of any planned U.S. involvement in the possible action. The U.S. could support with aerial re-fueling or intelligence sharing rather than kinetic support but the sources and officials were not aware of plans for that either at this point. U.S. officials have announced that the voluntary departure of non-essential employees from the region. And the Pentagon announced the voluntary departure of military families from locations all across the U.S. Central Command area of operations. CENTCOM Commander General Erik Kurilla was due to testify on the Hill on Thursday, but the hearing was postponed late Wednesday without explanation. A source familiar said Kurilla had to focus on this unfolding situation. Another possible factor: Iran is rebuilding its strategic air defenses, and manned strikes will soon be exponentially more dangerous for Israeli pilots. In October, Israel damaged nearly every one of Iran's strategic air defense systems (mainly S-300s) but much of the damage was to the radars or other parts that can be rebuilt. It's possible Israel's window for manned strikes, without being threatened by Iran's coordinated strategic air defenses, is closing. While Israel would most likely prefer U.S. military and intelligence support for strikes — especially against Iranian nuclear facilities — they showed in October that they can do a lot alone. Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the evacuation of non-essential staff at the U.S. embassy in Iraq will send a message to Tehran that Trump will not necessarily hold Israel back from launching a threatened attack on Iran. 'It's about trying to get Iran to respect the president's wishes,' Knights said. Iran has failed to meet a two-month deadline set by Trump to reach an agreement on the country's nuclear activities, and the president is frustrated, he said. Both Knights and a source with knowledge of the matter said it was unclear if Israel would undertake a limited military strike now or wait until nuclear negotiations played out further. Trump has expressed growing frustration over Iran's stance at recent indirect talks, portraying Tehran as inflexible and slow moving. 'They're just asking for things that you can't do. They don't want to give up what they have to give up,' Trump told reporters on Monday. 'They seek enrichment. We can't have enrichment.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store