Logos or slogans that are an established part of the sponsor’s identity are not considered to contain qualitative or comparative descriptions. Mere display or distribution (whether for free or remuneration) of a sponsor’s product by the sponsor or the tax-exempt organization to the general public at a sponsored activity will not be considered an inducement to purchase, sell or use the sponsor’s product and thus will not affect the determination as to whether a payment constitutes a qualified sponsorship payment.
Advertising. “Advertising” is defined as any message or other programming material that is broadcast or otherwise transmitted, published, displayed, or distributed, and that promotes or markets any trade or business, or any service, facility, or product. Advertising includes:
- messages containing qualitative or comparative language;
- price information or other indications of savings or value;
- an endorsement; or
- an inducement to purchase, sell or use any company, service, facility, or product.
A single message that contains both advertising and an acknowledgment is considered advertising. The above rules do not apply to activities conducted by a sponsor on its own.
Overview. Royalties are excluded in computing the unrelated business taxable income of tax-exempt organizations. This exclusion does not apply to debt-financed income or to royalties received from a “controlled subsidiary.” The IRS defines a “royalty” as any payment received in consideration for the use of a valuable intangible property right, whether or not payment is based on the use made of the intangible property. Payments for the use (even on an exclusive basis) of trademarks, trade names, service marks, copyrights, photographs, facsimile signatures, and members’ names are ordinarily considered royalties and are tax-free. However, payments for services (such as marketing or administrative services) provided in connection with the granting of this type of right are not royalties—and are generally taxable as unrelated business income (unless such services are substantially related to the nonprofit’s purposes, which, in most cases, they are not).
Examples. In an example provided by a federal appeals court in the Sierra Club case, if the Sierra Club manufactured and sold T-shirts with the organization’s logo or other designs on them, the income earned from the sale of such T-shirts would be taxable, as the activity of manufacturing and selling T-shirts is not substantially related to the Sierra Club’s tax-exempt purposes. However, if the Sierra Club created the designs to be screened onto the T-shirts and then licensed those designs to a T-shirt manufacturer in exchange for a fee (perhaps calculated as a percentage of gross T-shirt sales), that income would constitute tax-free royalty income. Sierra Club, Inc. v. Comm’r I.R.S., 86 F.3d 1526 (9th Cir. 1996).
In an example provided by the IRS in a Revenue Ruling, payments for the use of a professional athlete’s name, photograph, likeness, and/or facsimile signature (provided by and through a tax-exempt organization) are generally considered royalties. However, payments for personal appearances and interviews by the athlete (similarly provided by and through a tax-exempt organization) are not excluded as royalties and must be included as income from an unrelated trade or business. Rev. Rul. 81-178, 1981-2 C.B. 135.
Endorsements. When a nonprofit endorses a vendor’s product or service (often referred to as a nonprofit “affinity” program) but does nothing to market the product or service to its members (leaving this task to the vendor), this can be viewed as, in essence, nothing more than an exclusive license of the nonprofit’s name, logo and (sometimes) membership list to the vendor (in connection with the vendor’s promotion and sale of that product or service to the nonprofit’s members, and possibly to others in the industry or profession as well). As stated above, if the nonprofit gets paid for this exclusive license—even if such payments are calculated as a percentage of gross sales of the endorsed product or service to the nonprofit’s members—then the payments will constitute royalties and will be tax-free to the nonprofit. If, however, the nonprofit does market the product or service to its members, then the tax issues become more complex, as described below.
Endorsements can be a useful means for nonprofits to generate non-dues revenue from both members and non-members, promote the nonprofit’s name and brand, and, by extension, the industry or profession in general, and provide a service (e.g., “tailored” products and services, discounted rates/fees, etc.) to nonprofit members.
Options for Structuring Endorsement Arrangements.
- Royalties-Only. The endorsement or licensing contract that carries the lowest risk of UBIT liability is one in which the nonprofit licenses its name, logo and/or membership list, exercises quality control over the use of its intangible property by the vendor, and not much more. However, even under this scheme, the IRS and the courts have indicated that the nonprofit may engage in certain limited activities without jeopardizing the tax-free royalty treatment of its income.
- Royalties to Nonprofit; Services Income to Third-Party or Taxable Subsidiary. If administrative and/or marketing services are required, from a tax perspective, it is generally preferable to outsource such services to an unrelated third-party, or to the nonprofit’s taxable subsidiary (with the nonprofit and subsidiary entering into separate, independent contracts with the vendor). In a 1999 Private Letter Ruling issued to AARP (Ltr. Rul. 200149043), the IRS validated the use of an AARP-wholly owned taxable subsidiary to provide such administrative and/or marketing services, provided it is done on an arm’s length basis (e.g., fair market valuation of the payments to each entity, financial separation, employee time records, etc.).
- Royalties to Nonprofit; Services Income to Nonprofit. If such services must be provided by the nonprofit directly, then nonprofit contracts with the vendor should provide for separate, distinct provisions of the contract—one for the name, logo and/or membership list licensing on the one hand, and one for the administrative and/or marketing services. The fees earned by the nonprofit should be divided between the two sections pursuant to a fair market valuation. The former should be treated as tax-exempt royalty income; the latter as taxable unrelated business income.
Convention and Trade Show Income
Background. Since 1976, one of the Code’s exceptions to unrelated business taxable is for income received from “qualified convention and trade show activities.” In order to qualify for the safe harbor exception, the nonprofit must “regularly conduct as one of its substantial exempt purposes a show which stimulates interest in, and demand for, the products of a particular industry or segment of an industry or which educates persons in attendance regarding new developments or products and services related to the exempt activities of the organization.” The exception applies to 501(c)(6) tax-exempt entities, as well as to 501(c)(3), (c)(4) and (c)(5) organizations. Prior to 1976, the IRS had started to treat nonprofits’ trade show exhibit fees as subject to UBIT, arguing that such fees were akin to taxable advertising income. Note that these UBIT issues generally do not apply to most of the non-trade show-related convention activities of nonprofits—such as the provision of educational content—as such activities are usually substantially related to the tax-exempt purposes of the nonprofit.
2004 IRS Revenue Ruling. In 2004, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2004-112 on the subject of virtual trade shows. With the then-increasing prevalence of the Internet and the ability to offer virtual trade shows, questions began to arise as to whether the offering of a web-based trade show is the type of activity that is “of a kind traditionally conducted at … trade shows” (quoting from Section 513(d) of the Code). The guidance describes two hypothetical scenarios—one involving a Section 501(c)(6) nonprofit that offers a semi-annual virtual trade show in connection with each in-person trade show; the other involving a Section 501(c)(6) nonprofit that offers a virtual trade show not in relation to any in-person trade show.
The Revenue Ruling made clear that the key factor in the analysis of whether virtual trade show activity will be considered subject to the Code’s safe harbor is whether or not the virtual show is conducted ancillary to a live show.
In the first hypothetical scenario, a nonprofit conducts two trade shows a year. In conjunction with such shows, the nonprofit has a separate virtual trade show section of its website available for viewing at all times during such shows as well as for three days preceding and three days following such shows. The in-person shows in this first scenario are similar to most trade or professional nonprofit shows—they include members of the nonprofit and suppliers to the industry and exhibitors are charged a fee by the nonprofit in order to participate. The website contains “information and visual displays…and links to the websites of exhibitors represented at the [in-person] trade show.” The website also contains order forms and a function that allows on-line purchases from exhibitors. The nonprofit charges a fee to exhibitors that desire to have information listed on this web page.
According to the IRS, the virtual activities described above fit within the safe harbor for qualified convention and trade show activities because:
- The web activities are “ancillary” to the in-person trade shows;
- The content of the web section serves to “augment and enhance” the in-person trade shows by making available “in an alternative medium the same information available at the show”; and
- The web page is available “during essentially the same limited time period that each trade show is in operation.”
Thus, income generated by the web page will not be subject to UBIT in this scenario.
The second hypothetical scenario provided by the IRS is very similar to the first, except that the organization in the second scenario offers two-week-long virtual trade shows without any connected in-person events. According to the IRS, such activity will not qualify for the safe harbor. The IRS reasoned that the website in this example is “not itself a convention, annual meeting or trade show” within the meaning of the Code, due to the lack of an in-person, face-to-face component.
Current-Day Virtual Trade Shows. Fast forward to 2021. The virtual trade shows of 2021—compared to 2004—are much more interactive. As those nonprofits who have had to transition in 2020 and 2021 from in-person conferences and trade shows to virtual (or hybrid) ones due to the COVID-19 pandemic know, the educational and networking aspects of these virtual trade shows were notable and done in a way not possible in 2004. Today’s virtual conferences and trade shows resemble in many respects their in-person counterparts for which the safe harbor was written. But with no guidance from the IRS since 2004, it is very difficult to say how the IRS would interpret the safe harbor today and apply it to the 2021 virtual (or hybrid) trade show.
Hybrid Trade Shows. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is likely that at least for 2021, and perhaps into 2022, nonprofits will plan to hold many hybrid in-person and virtual conferences and trade shows. The virtual trade show in the first example of the Revenue Ruling featured only “the same information that is available at the [in-person] show” and a function that allows purchases from “members and suppliers represented at the trade show.” But if a nonprofit offered a virtual show in connection with a live show and allowed companies that are not exhibiting at the live show to participate in the virtual show, would this cause the IRS to determine that the virtual show is no longer “ancillary” to the live show and thus not able to qualify as part of the safe harbor? It is simply unclear—as is the application of the 2004 Revenue Ruling to the modern-day virtual-only or hybrid trade show.
No Safe Harbor Does Not Necessarily Mean UBIT. It should be noted that a failure to qualify for the safe harbor does not necessarily mean that the income generated from a virtual trade show will be subject to UBIT. While, in most instances, the IRS likely would take the position that the net income is generated by the sale of advertising-type services and thus subject to UBIT, there may be instances when a nonprofit is able to demonstrate that its activity is substantially related to its tax-exempt purposes even without the help of the safe harbor. Further, if the arrangements with otherwise-exhibiting companies are restructured accordingly, other Code exceptions from UBIT—such as exceptions for corporate sponsorship payments and royalties—may apply to some or all of the income in question.
Conclusion. While the analysis of whether and how the safe harbor applies to current-day virtual or hybrid trade shows is as clear as mud, the ongoing fallout from the pandemic will continue to force nonprofits to consider alternatives to in-person-only conferences and trade shows. The existence of the 2004 Revenue Ruling—unless and until modified by the IRS, which is not likely anytime soon—will continue to pose UBIT risks to nonprofits in the virtual or hybrid trade show environment.
That being said, the 2004 Revenue Ruling, although on the books, does not supersede the clear intent of the Code to provide a safe harbor exception to unrelated business income where a nonprofit conducts an event to educate persons or stimulate interest and demand for products or services of the membership. Therefore, it is arguable that it may not matter whether the activities traditionally conducted at trade shows are done in person or virtually. It would certainly be helpful if the IRS provides guidance in a new and updated Revenue Ruling. Until then, it would be advisable to document how the activities of the trade show meet the Code definitions of the safe harbor.
* * * * *
While paying UBIT is certainly not a bad thing—and nonprofits generally should not let the federal tax laws be the tail that wags the dog—having a thorough understanding of the rules in this area can help nonprofits to plan strategically and attempt to mitigate UBIT to the greatest extent possible.