Quote:
Originally Posted by lovespink88
It's MM, so yes to both  |
Ahhh I see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senusret I
You know Vito, I really personally can't remember this. I work for a nonprofit, and I know we do a good job at keeping administrative costs down, but I don't know if that's because of tax law or because of the rules of our grants. (Many of our grants have that rule, but the number varies from grant to grant)
(Both federal grants and some private grants)
|
I'm not aware of any federal tax law that limits the amount of money you put toward administrative costs as long as private inurement has not occurred. As Senusret I said, certain grants do have overhead limitations that you account for when submitting the grant budget.
I'm still very curious about bignasty's 10% stat. The only specific number that even comes close is the 5% rule for
private foundations. They're required to spend a minimum amount equal to 5% of their assets each year.
Back to laws regarding restricted (earmarked) funds. Federal laws regarding public charities are surprisingly vague. State laws, however, do vary. Most charities have a policy regarding restricted funds, including how to deal with those funds if they are no longer needed.
However, I'm not aware of any federal or state laws regulating what percentage of restricted or unrestricted funds have to go toward program expenses vs. administrative expenses. That's pretty much left up to the charity.
Threaded Mode
