Did the Humane Society Fail to Account for Political/Lobbying Activity of Personnel on IRS Tax Filings?
By ESaunders AR-HR.com
As many readers know, the issue of how the Humane Society of the
United States continues to maintain its 501(c8 3 tax-exempt status is
one I have found continually perplexing. After further review of the
HSUS tax filings, I have a new question.
“Did the Humane the United States fail
to account for Political and/or Lobbying activity of Paid Personnel and
Volunteers on their 2005, 2006 & 2007 IRS Tax Filings?”
According to the IRS website, “Whether
an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying,
constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined
on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case.
The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by
both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by
the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying
activity is substantial.”
Yet, when looking at the 2007 IRS 990 forms filed by the HSUS, I
noticed the following information in the statement of Lobbying Activity
by Non-Electing Charities:

The question for this section reads: During the year, did the
organization attempt to influence national, state or local legislation,
including any attempt to influence public opinion on a legislative
matter or referendum, through the use of (a) Volunteers (b) Paid staff
or management. The response to both sections was No. This was the
response in 2007 as well as in 2006 & 2005 despite the following
examples:
- May 8 2007 HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle, testified before Congress to
“urge the Congress to pass legislation” as stated in his HSUS blog
Humane Nation, introducing himself as representing the Humane Society
of the United State and submitting a 52 page report including his testimony and supporting documentation
- November 8, 2005 HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle testified before Congress on the issue of the Pet Animal Welfare Statute
- On the Ballot Initiative section of the HSUS website, one may access a list of Ballot Initiatives where HSUS claims central involvement extending from 1990 through 2008
- On the Enacted and Vetoed State Legislation
section of the HSUS website, the following statement is found, “The
Government Affairs section of the Humane Society of the United States
tracks, reviews, drafts, comments, lobbies and testifies on legislation
that impacts animals in almost every state. We also keep a record of
certain priority legislation on this website so citizens can take
action.” This page includes the lists of Enacted and Vetoed
Legislation from 2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008.
All of the above cited items could not have occurred without the
involvement of paid and/or volunteer personnel. All were claimed
under the auspices of the Humane Society of the United States, not the
Humane Society Legislative fund or one of the other HSUS sub-entities.
It appears that these activities continue, as was observed by the
investigative team who attended a Georgia state HSUS meeting and found
it to be primarily involved in activist plans and lobbying, an
assessment agreed with by HSUS Georgia State director Cheryl McAuliffe
who also acknowledged that this forms the majority of her work-related
activity and that all budgeting is controlled from the HSUS Washington
headquarters. It is reasonable to believe significantly greater
volunteer involvement, especially when one considers emails such as
this one being sent on the behalf of the HSUS:
From: Jordan Matyas [mailto: jmatyas@hsus.org]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:51 PM
To: Jordan Matyas
Subject: Legislative Update from Springfield
It
has been a very busy few months at Illinois’ state capitol. Because of
your help, we are having a great year in Springfield. The summaries
below provide a blurb about each bill – for more information on any
particular legislation, feel free to contact me. Thanks so much to all
of you for your phone calls and emails to legislators – but remember
the fight is not over! (See here for remainder)
If the HSUS has not accounted for the activities of paid employees and
volunteers, and this lack of accounting causes the HSUS to fail the
“Substantial Part of Activities” standard set by the IRS, the HSUS
could be subject to back-taxes on the $152 million in gross receipts
for 2007 alone. Considering the increase in lobbying activities in
2008 and 2009, will the HSUS continue to claim that there is no
activity by either volunteers or paid personnel that is occurs under
the auspices of the HSUS? Will the HSUS executive explicitly reference
the sub-entity that they are representing, as Patricia Forkan did in 2006, without invoking the authority of the HSUS?
Will the HSUS pay taxes on its 2008 filing or 2009?
Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved