The federal District Court in the District of Columbia has affirmed the retroactive revocation of charitable exemption of a scholarship foundation that operated for the private benefit of a single family.

The Internal Revenue Service has proposed a new tax form to provide an alternative means for donors to substantiate gifts of $250 or more to charities.  (See Ready Reference Page:  IRS Requires Substantiation of Contributions”)  It has proposed to allow charities to file a new form listing the name and address of the donor, the donor’s taxpayer identification number, the amount of cash or a description of other property donated, whether any goods or services were give

The Internal Revenue Service has given new approval to mission related investments by private foundations and spelled out specific requirements for making “good faith determinations” that grants to foreign organizations are qualifying distributions that don’t require expenditure responsibility.

A divided New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest appellate court, has ruled that economic development is not a charitable activity and that a parking garage operated by a 501(c)(3) economic development organization is not eligible for real estate tax exemption.

A 501(c)(3) organization that operates soup kitchens, emergency shelters, and housing programs has not been shown to be subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act when two maintenance workers in its housing program failed to allege facts sufficient to show the organization was an enterprise involved in commerce or that they engaged in commerce themselves.

A mortgage granted by a failing hospital to secure a loan from a healthcare system with which it wanted to affiliate is not illegal because it was not specifically approved by the hospital’s members, a bankruptcy court in Maine has held.  The Court has refused to allow the hospital to use the proceeds of the loan in face of the healthcare system’s objection.

A federal District Court in Michigan has refused to consider a claim that current and former board chairs of a Catholic healthcare system had negligently adopted healthcare policies that caused a woman to receive improper treatment and information regarding her miscarriage prior to childbirth.  The Court said it would not question the Catholic Ethical and Religious Directives because to do so would involve an impermissible intrusion on ecclesiastical matters.  (Means v.