Running Head: CHARITIES

Charities: The Untold Profit

Sarah Irvin
First Colonial High School
Legal Studies Academy

CHARITIES

Abstract

In todays society full of scandal and lies, it is difficult to know who to trust. Although nonprofits
are intended to help the less fortunate and to better our community as a whole, many are corrupt
and merely parade around so as to receive tax exemptions and public donations. The author
addresses several of the problems with such organizations and how the public can help the
community around them without worry of fraud. This paper discusses the legality of such frauds
and how to close the loopholes through stricter supervision and more detailed definitions within
the current laws. A comparison is also briefly discussed between the common occurrence of
nonprofit fraud in the United States and the uncommon occurrence in India.

CHARITIES

Charities: The Untold Profit

Scandal. Fraud. Embezzlement. Scheme. These words appear next to names of nonprofits
in headlines across the nation. The people cannot be expected to put faith into those who do good
for fear of validating the white collar criminals. Charities such as The American Cancer Fund,
Feed the Children, The Hale House, The United States Navy Veterans Associations, and more
have supported the executives while commercializing the causes in need. By using the less
fortunate as cash cows, they are able to influence the publics empathy, and therefore, their
wallets. Profits are used for publicizing the company as a nonprofit, sponsoring elected officials
to pass legislation or overlook the frauds, and for the benefit of employees and executives. None
of these reasons benefit the greater good they claim to stand for. The increase in nonprofit
consumer fraud dissuades the public from contributing to nonprofits by invalidating the benefits.

Types of Nonprofits
For as long as people have wanted to help others, nonprofits have existed. There are 29
types of nonprofits as defined in code 501(c) by the IRS (Dropkin & Halpin, 2005). They all
exist to better the community and/or world by providing goods and services and by raising public
awareness of the issue. The problem often faced is not that nonprofits are spending money, but
rather what they are spending money on. By that logic, it is acceptable for nonprofits to spend
money on supplies and advertisements. It is perfectly reasonable for religious groups to purchase
new candles for the church even though that money could have fed the homeless. It is perfectly
reasonable for the S.P.C.A to pay to print out flyers for an upcoming fundraiser even though that

CHARITIES

money could have been used for another kennel. It is never perfectly reasonable for a cancer
research nonprofit to purchase a yacht for the CEO when that money could be used saving lives.
It is never perfectly reasonable for a Veteran Association to go on vacation twice a year when
that money could have helped veterans find jobs after their service.

Types of Scandal
Tax evasion and consumer fraud are the two main types of nonprofit scandal; however,
the more prevalent of the two is consumer fraud. By law, charitable organizations are exempt
from taxation as the goods received are, theoretically, not used as profit. By law, organizations
must also inform the public what donations are used for and who is actually benefiting; typically
discussed in the mission statement and always shown through publication of Form 990. Multiple
for-profit organizations have been able to disguise themselves as nonprofits and cleverly word
the mission statement in order to receive tax exemptions and public support. They also are able
to confuse the public as most are not literate with Form 990 and taxation vernacular.

Tax Evasion

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) exempts nonprofits from taxation because,
technically speaking, they do not earn any personal income. Granted, employees and CEOs are
allowed to be paid as compensation for their time and effort so long as it is not deemed
excessive. This is one of the most profitable loopholes for corrupt nonprofits as the term
excessive is neither clearly defined nor standardized (Fishman, Interview with Prof. James
Fishman, 2015). What is meant by the term standardized is that compensation is entirely

CHARITIES

contextual. For example, a small, local nonprofit with 10 staff members receiving approximately
$1,000 annually in public contribution should not be paying each member $50 as this would total
out to using half of public contributions as paychecks whereas a nonprofit that operates
nationwide with approximately $1,000,000 of public contributions and 10 staff members
receiving $50 would be near under compensation as 1/2000th of contributions would go towards
paychecks.
Tax Reductions. Billions of people donate to nonprofits annually and one major benefit
of doing so is a tax reduction. Because an individual is giving income up to help others, the
government does not tax them for contributing. As an even larger incentive, money is not the
only contribution that can reduce how much is owed in taxes; clothing, cars, and gently-used
goods donated to organizations are also considered by the IRS (Charity Watch, 2015). Not only
can individual households receive tax reductions, but so can small businesses and even major
corporations. This is where another type of fraud comes into play. As an example, large
pharmaceutical corporations lose thousands when drugs on the shelves expire and cannot be sold.
As a means of recovery, some corporations will donate the expired goods to overseas
humanitarian charities and request a tax reduction for the donation of the ineffective medications
(Fishman, Interview with Prof. James Fishman, 2015). The consequences of these are not only
moral, but also legal. The IRS is only legally allowed to accept contributions that are in good or
perfect condition as a means of tax reduction (Charity Watch, 2015). Medications that are
expired are ineffective and, potentially, extremely dangerous. These medications are being
gratefully accepted by unknowing charities and distributed to the impoverished and homeless
under the false pretense that they are being helped. These large corporations are scamming
organizations and harming the community to recover comparatively minor losses. Who should be

CHARITIES

held responsible: The IRS, for not validating donations, the nonprofit, for not examining
products, or the corporations who are willing to scam?

Consumer Fraud
Although donators do not technically receive compensation for their donations, they are
still considered consumers of the organization. If a charity lies to a consumer about what their
money/donation is being used for, there are directly deceiving and therefore directly defrauding
said consumer (Crimes Against Charitable Americans Act, 2001). The Federal Trade
Commission is responsible for the maintenance of such laws but they can only fix issues they are
aware of. The real issue with consumer fraud in nonprofits is that the average consumer does not
expect to see any direct affect their contribution may make. How can a crime be reported if the
victim is not able to perceive it?

The Cases
Throughout the years, many organizations have tested the boundaries of nonprofit law.
The following examples are specific cases with their associated issue(s).

The United States Navy Veterans Association

A man named John Donald Cody went by the alias of Bobby Thompson for years as he
swindled millions from people in 41 different states who thought their contributions were
benefiting Navy veterans. He had set up his organization, The US Navy Veterans Association
(USNVA), in Tampa, Florida and it was verified nonprofit by the IRS and multiple charity watch
sites (Sweigart, 2013). In the state of Ohio alone, Thompson defrauded public donors over $2
million with an approximated total personal income of $100 million. He was able to do this by

CHARITIES

showing politicians his nonprofit status and, after manipulating emotions of donors with words
such as wounded veterans in the wars against terrorists, the statistical proof of contributions.
Reputable politicians such as Senators and Cabinet members were influenced into contributing
large sums of money and publicly supporting the cause (Sheeran, 2013).
Discussion. Thompson shows how organizations are able to influence the public but he
also influenced legislation before his sham was caught. He was able to convince a Virginia
Senator, through a lobbyist, to pass a law that would not require veteran groups to disclose
information about where contributions came from so as to protect the donors. Over $65,000 was
given to other Virginian politicians from Thompson to persuade them to support the new law
(American Institute of Philanthropy, 2015). This new law let him make false claims of
contributions and make himself seem more reputable than he really was. By appearing more
reputable, the public was more willing to donate.
Although he was eventually caught, this fraud lasted seven years unsuspectedly and was
considered rather reputable in the cause of helping veterans find jobs and offering career training
as they transition back to civilian life. By using phrases that trigger emotional support and an
immediate need to help, people are willing to give immediately without investigating or looking
at other options. In some cases, instant action is necessary so a nonprofit will also use phrases
that trigger emotional responses. For example, the S.P.C.A shelters are constantly over packed
and need more animals to be adopted so more can be saved; their commercials are known to
bring grown men to tears. The American Red Cross broadcasted videos of orphaned children in
Haiti after the earthquake to alert the public that Haiti needed help. Causes such as those truly do
require a worried public but is the public too easily worried? Is it possible for a nonprofit to
demonstrate the need for support without sounding like a commercial?

CHARITIES

Churches
In 1970, Mr. Walz argued that a state cannot exempt a religious organization from
taxation if the only use of profit is to better the church building itself rather than assist the needy
or participate in mission trips. He claimed that, seeing as all profits were used internally, it could
not be considered nonprofit under code 501(c) and that exempting them from taxation on the
mere principle of religion would violate the separation of Church and State as defined by the
Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court ruled against his favor stating that religious
organizations benefit the moral well-being of a community and therefore can be considered a
501(c) nonprofit and exempt from taxation (Walz v. The Tax Commission of the state of New
York, 1970).
Discussion. Although his case was invalidated, Walz brought up an interesting point:
Churches and Temples are exempt from taxation because, as places of worship, they are seen to
better the community. Is it possible for organizations to be set up under the pretense of being
religious and therefore exempt from taxation? Code 501(c) does not clearly define religious
organization.
Loopholes. The First Amendment to the Constitution states that a government cannot
restrict the establishment or expression of a religion. This means that the government is not
legally able to say a religion is invalid or deny people their rights because of how they worship
said religion. This creates an array of loopholes for behavior and business models (Krotoszynski,
2008).
Although controversial, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has recently spiked
in the number of followers after an open letter, released in 2005, was publicized about the

CHARITIES

religious group. For $25, any person can become an ordained Pastafarian minister and donations
are always welcome (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, 2015). As a religious organization,
they pay no annual tax on property or income. To those who doubt a government could possibly
accept Pastafarianism (believers in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) as a legitimate
religious organization, Lindsay Miller from Massachusetts who appealed after the Registry of
Motor Vehicles (RMV) denied to take her identification photo for the renewal of her drivers
license as she was wearing a colander on her head. Mrs. Miller stated she wore the strainer as a
sign of devotion for her religion and it would be unconstitutional to deny her to wear it in her
photo. The RMV reluctantly agreed (Annear, 2015). A similar case appeared a month earlier in
England for a man referred to only as Colin (Henderson, 2015).
Bill Levin, founder of The First Church of Cannabis, filed a lawsuit against the state of
Indiana and the city of Indianapolis for preventing the free expression of cannaterians, followers
of The First Church of Cannabis (The First Church of Cannabis, Inc., 2015). The IRS determined
the organization was, indeed, nonprofit under Code 501(c)(3) as a religious organization albeit
the first with a focus on marijuana. Levin stated he sued the city and state to test the newly
enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Tuohny, 2015). This new Act bars the government
from restricting religious groups or individuals from expressing their beliefs without,
compelling interest in imposing that burden or do so in the least restrictive way (Bowerman,
2015). What the state of Indiana and the city of Indianapolis will undoubtedly try to prove is that
the organization is operating under the pretense of being religious so as to bypass the laws
against marijuana use whether recreational, medical, or religious. If marijuana ever was legalized
in Indiana, members of this group would be able to regularly smoke and/or ingest the narcotic for
a tax reduced price. Naturally, membership requires a fee. $50.40 covers an annual membership

CHARITIES

10

but $1,420 will grant any individual lifetime membership (The First Church of Cannabis, Inc.,
2015). This means that, theoretically, any citizen of Indianapolis could pay this tax exempted
organization and smoke an otherwise illegal substance so long as they claim it is for religious
purposes; even if The First Church of Cannabis is based on a religious stance, they are still
profiting off of an easily abused substance.
An attempt like this is not unprecedented. In 1989, Carl Olsen claimed he needed to be
exempt from federal laws pertaining the use of marijuana due to his religion. He is a priest of the
Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church (Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 1989). Based in
Jamaica, native believers are freely able to worship with the substance however, the smaller
following in the United States is not legally permitted to do so. Members of the Ethiopian Zion
Coptic Church are still attempting to appeal the Supreme Court decision today (Carl-Olsen,
2015). The Supreme Court ruled against Olsen with the reasonable certainty that he was
requesting the exemption to legally import large quantities of marijuana, receive a tax exemption
for it, and then sell illegally within the United States. Olsen had a previous charge for importing
two tons of marijuana from overseas (Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 1989).
The difficulty faced with investigations into the validity of religious organizations is that
similar groups feel as if they are under attack. The same applies with any nonprofit dealing with
minorities such as gay alliances, womens homes, and poverty programs. It becomes too much of
a hassle to investigate organizations for fear of backlash and lack of public support which could
cause an official to not be reelected.

The Hale House Center

Established 1969, the Hale House Center boasts they are:

CHARITIES

11
A nationally-recognized organization dedicated to building better futures
for children and families in need. With a rich legacy of service
established by our founder Clara McBride Hale, Hale House delivers
child-centered, family-focused programs that are responsive to the
unique circumstances of each family we serve and the evolving social
needs within our community and beyond. Our current initiatives include
a state of the art learning center for children ages six weeks to five years
and a supportive transitional housing program for single parent families
(Charity Navigator, 2015).

Just by reading the mission statement, donators would assume that The Hale House Center was
regularly supported by the public and successful in attempts to provide and care for
underprivileged families. In 2002, their public image would quickly turn for the worst. Lorraine
Hale, co-founder of Hale House (HH), took over after her mother, Clara Hale, passed away in
1992. In those ten years, her and her husband, Jesse DeVore, the public relations director of HH,
spent excessive amounts of contributions on frivolities. Approximately $440,000 was used on art
pieces to decorate the center with, but primarily to garnish Hales office. Eventually the Attorney
General convicted them of falsifying records and for using the nonprofit money for personal uses
(American Institute of Philanthropy, 2015).
Discussion. Even charities that have at one point genuinely benefited the community can
change especially after a change in commands. The original founder believed in her cause and
her public supporters continued to donate after her death, unknowingly benefiting the daughter
instead of the poor families. This shows how the people in charge of an organization can alter the
whole operation without public knowledge.

CHARITIES

12

Solutions

Seeing the consequences of those who misuse the title of nonprofit shows the desperate
need for reform and regulation of these organizations. The goal here is not to punish or restrict
nonprofits but rather to ensure that those who genuinely contribute to society and others will be
able to have full support from a public that wants to help but may have otherwise been
dissuaded. False nonprofits have been able to pass screenings in previous years which alarmed
many contributors (American Institute of Philanthropy, 2006). Additional supervisory
administrations will provide verification of nonprofits, heftier punishments will discourage fraud,
and an upkeep on organizations will reduce the likelihood of miscommunications. Additionally,
it would be beneficial for the public if Form 990 could be translated into visual graphs and charts
that clearly portray what is being accomplished by said nonprofit.

Mission Statement Upkeep

Each nonprofit has a mission statement that details the objectives of the organizations.
When a member of the public wishes to contribute to a nonprofit, they look at the mission
statement to decide if they should or not. Much like billboards and advertisements, nonprofits
have taken advantage of this by placing big statistics and generalized, positive statements into
the mission as a means of drawing them in. Corrupt nonprofits do their best to sound factual,
helpful, and selfless.
Through amendments to the mission statements, nonprofits are able to grow and adapt to
new issues in the world. As an example, this would allow an organization with the original

CHARITIES

13

purpose of providing less fortunate students with full-ride scholarships to change goals and now
raise money for partial scholarships so that more students would benefit. The correct solution
would, therefore, not be to require concrete mission statements, but rather to have an official, or
even a bureau or administration, review the organization in such a way so as to ensure that the
current mission statement is being carried out rather than just a superficial quote bannered on the
website.

Supervisory and Regulatory Positions

Due to an overwhelming, yet reassuring, number of nonprofit organizations that do

charitable deeds, it is difficult to weed out those who soil the name of charity and dissuade public
contribution. In the state of New York alone, there are over 65,000 nonprofit organizations and in
California there are over 110,000 nonprofit organizations (Fishman, Interview with Prof. James
Fishman, 2015). Each state has an Attorney General whos purpose it to advocate for the people
of the state in all legal and moral matters. One of their responsibilities is to, represent the
public's interests in charitable trust and solicitations (National Association for Attorney
Generals, 2015). Each state and territory has a single Attorney General. There is only one official
who is in charge of several other official duties to directly influence legislation to better protect
the people. What each state and territory needs is a committee or even a bureau under the
Attorney General to investigate all of the organizations and report back. Due to the sheer number
of nonprofits in each state, the group would have to employ hundreds of officials to personally
review each organization. The man-hours necessary to accomplish this would be remarkably
excessive and expensive. A more effective method of supervision would be for each nonprofit to

CHARITIES

14

have a legal or political representative who overlooks the data, records, and general business of
said organization. To ensure loyalty to the government and therefore prevent any bribery on the
part of the organization, each representative would be a government employee who receives a
paycheck from the government and not the nonprofit. This would promote honesty for all parties
involved.

An Informed Public
The biggest step toward preventing widespread fraud and misuse of the laws is an
informed public who can report misconduct and decide for themselves how and who to donate
to. The legal documents used by nonprofits and the IRS are difficult to interpret for the public
and the only visuals provided are made by the organization itself and not verified by the IRS.
The IRS should convert all data input by any nonprofit into visuals so there is little to no room
for interpretation of a record. This way, any member of the public can see how much their
donation will actually help a cause. There are several free, online sources to view documentation
of nonprofits such as guidestar.com, charitynavigator.org, and the Federal Trade Commission
website (Charity Navigator, 2015).

Nonprofits in India
Nonprofits dont just exist in the United States, however nonprofit scandal is centralized
there. This is partially due to the money-oriented goals the public has. In India, the culture is
vastly different, focusing on virtue, generosity, and other Hindu and Buddhist beliefs. Much of
India lives in slums, or impoverish communities comprised mainly of homeless. Almost
ironically, India has very few reports of and schemes or frauds in their nonprofit sectors and

CHARITIES

15

nonprofits seem to flourish (Siddhartha, 1993). This may have to do with a deeper connection of
the true meaning of nonprofit and charity.
The laws surrounding nonprofits differ as well. This is because they primarily follow
codes set by the United Nations to define them. Instead of using the term nonprofit, a more
general term is used: Non-governmental Organization (NGO). It is defined as, any non-profit,
voluntary citizens' group which is organized on a local, national or international level [that is]
task-oriented and driven by people with a common interest (NGO Special Interests, n.d.).
Additionally, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has reported that there are two million
organizations or one NGO for every 600 people in India (Johari, 2014).

Conclusion
The laws that protect the consumers from fraud and scandal in nonprofit sectors are
vague. The vagueness of laws gives corporations opportunities to create loopholes for themselves
and their wallets. The only way to fix this epidemic is to redefine laws and have stricter
supervisory positions.
The way that India differs from the United States is not entirely based on a different set of
laws, but rather on a different set of values that are common throughout all social and economic
classes. The United States is commonly referred to as a melting pot of culture which contributes
to variety of values throughout social and economic classes.

CHARITIES

16

References
American Institute of Philanthropy. (2006, August 1). Inefficient, Tax-Delinquent, and Even Fake
Charities Pass CFC Screens. Retrieved from Charity Watch:
https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-articles/inefficient-tax-delinquent-and-evenfake-charities-pass-cfc-screens/7
American Institute of Philanthropy. (2014, June 20). Bookkeeper of Veterans Charity Faces
Felony Larceny Charge. Retrieved from Charity Watch:
https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-articles/bookkeeper-of-veterans-charity-facesfelony-larceny-charge/141

CHARITIES

17

American Institute of Philanthropy. (2015, June 3). CharityWatch Hall of Shame. Retrieved from
Charity Watch: https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-articles/charitywatch-hall-ofshame/63
Annear, S. (2015, November 13). Woman allowed to wear spaghetti strainer in Mass. license
photo. Retrieved from Boston Globe:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/11/13/woman-allowed-wear-spaghetti-strainerher-head-mass-license-photo/m8ADuh2oS2zk2jrc85o3FM/story.html
Attorney General of Virginia. (2015). Attorney General Mark Herring. Retrieved from Virginia
Office of Attorney General: http://www.oag.state.va.us/
Bowerman, M. (2015, March 30). What you need to know about Indiana's 'religious freedom'
law. Retrieved from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nationnow/2015/03/30/religious-freedom-law-indiana/70659788/
Carl-Olsen. (2015). Olsen v DEA. Retrieved from Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church:
http://www.ethiopianzioncopticchurch.org/Cases/olsen.aspx
Charity Navigator. (2015). 10 Charities in Deep Financial Trouble. Retrieved from Charity
Navigator: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?
bay=topten.detail&listid=12#.Vn4EOeL-C6Y
Charity Navigator. (2015). Hale House Center. Retrieved from Charity Navigator:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4963#.Vn4Ei-LC6Y
Charity Navigator. (2015). Top 10 Practices of a Savvy Donor. Retrieved from Charity Navigator:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=419#.Vn6rN1mQwkg
Charity Navigator. (2015). Types of Nonprofits. Retrieved from Charity Navigator:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=1559#.Vn24X-LC6Y
Charity Watch. (2015). Tax Benefits of Giving. Retrieved from Charity Watch:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=31#.Vn26BOL-C6Y
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (2015). About and FAQ. Retrieved from venganza:
http://www.venganza.org/about/#note1
Crimes Against Charitable Americans Act. (2001). Retrieved from Federal Trade Commission:
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/statutes/crimes-against-charitable-americans-act-2001
Dropkin, M., & Halpin, J. (2005). Bookkeeeping for nonprofits: A step-by-step guide to nonprofit
accounting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Federal Law. (1996, January 12). Federal Law of NonProfit Organisations. United States of
America.
Fishman, J. (2015, November 23). Interview with Prof. James Fishman. (S. Irvin, Interviewer)
Fishman, J. (2016, February 5th). What Do We Mean By "Nonprofit"? New York City, New York.
Fishman, J., & Shwarz, S. (2010). Nonprofit Organizations, Cases and Materials (4 ed.).
Foundation Press.
Fishman, J., Schwarz, S., & Mayer, L. (2015). Nonprofit Organizations, Cases and Materials (5
ed.). Foundation Press.
Fishman, J., Shwarz, S., & Mayer, L. (2015). Taxation of Nonprofit Organizations, Cases and
Materials (4 ed.). Foundation Press.

CHARITIES

18

Henderson, B. (2015, October 25). Pastafarian headgear is allowed in UK licenses. Retrieved

from Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: http://www.venganza.org/2015/10/uklicense-headgear/
Johari, A. (2014, February 27). Why India has one NGO for every 600 people and the number
is rising. Retrieved from Scroll.in: http://scroll.in/article/657281/why-india-has-one-ngofor-every-600-people-and-the-number-is-rising
Krotoszynski, R. (2008). If Judges Were Angels: Religious Equality, Free Exercise, and the
(Underappreciated) Merits of Smith . 102(3). Northwestern University School of Law.
Retrieved from Hein Online: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?
handle=hein.journals/illlr102&div=53&id=&page=
Mother Hale Learning Center. (2015). Sheltering Arms. Retrieved from Hale House:
http://www.halehouse.org/
National Association for Attorney Generals. (2015). National Association for Attorney Generals.
Retrieved from What does an Attorney General do?:
http://www.naag.org/naag/about_naag/faq/what_does_an_attorney_general_do.php
NGO Special Interests. (n.d.). Definition of NGOs. Retrieved from NGO.org:
http://www.ngo.org/ngoinfo/define.html
Nonprofit Legal Center. (2014). Home. Retrieved from Nonprofit Legal Center:
http://www.nonprofitlegalcenter.com/
Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 86-1442, 86-5455 (United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit June 20, 1989).
Scroll.in. (2014, March 3). India has one NGO for 600 people, but France, US have even more.
Retrieved from Scroll.in: http://scroll.in/article/657512/india-has-one-ngo-for-600-peoplebut-france-us-have-even-more
Sheeran, T. (2013, November 30). John Donald Cody Raked In $100 Million In Navy Charity
Scam: Ohio Police. Retrieved from Huffington Post :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/john-donald-cody-navyscam_n_4015842.html
Siddhartha, S. (1993). Defining the Nonprofit Sector: India. (L. M. Salamon, & H. K. Anheier,
Eds.) Baltimore, Maryland. Retrieved from http://ccss.jhu.edu/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2011/09/India_CNP_WP12_1993.pdf
Stephens, M. (2015). 250 questions for starting a nonprofit. Avon: F+W Media, Inc.
Sweigart, J. (2013, May 13). Millions meant for veterans pocketed by suspect 'charities'.
Retrieved from Stars and Stripes: http://www.stripes.com/news/us/millions-meant-forveterans-pocketed-by-suspect-charities-1.220766
The First Church of Cannabis, Inc. (2015). Retrieved from The First Church of Cannabis:
http://www.cannaterian.org/
The First Church of Cannabis, Inc. (2015). Indianas Marijuana Church Sues State, Claims Pot
Prohibition Infringes On Its Religious Beliefs. Retrieved from The First Church of
Cannabis: http://www.cannaterian.org/headlines/indianas-marijuana-church-sues-stateclaims-pot-prohibition-infringes-on-its-religious-beliefs/
Tuohny, J. (2015, June 6). IRS dubs First Church of Cannabis a nonprofit. Retrieved from USA
Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/02/first-church-ofcannabis/28364521/

CHARITIES
Walz v. The Tax Commission of the state of New York, 135 (Supreme Court May 4, 1970).

19