August 30, 2010

Alternative Fuels in Kentucky: Coal’s Place in the Push for Energy Independence

When we think of alternative fuels we usually assume they will come from untraditional sources.  In Kentucky, this fact can give some pause considering the primary source of the inexpensive electricity we all consume is coal.  However, in April Gov. Beshear signed into law House Bill 552, which relates to alternative fuels.  Upon review of the Bill, it’s clear that Kentucky’s push to become a leader in the development of alternative fuels is not exclusive of the resources already in use.

After amendment of KRS 154.27-010, the definition of an energy-efficient alternative fuel is one that is “produced from processes designed to densify feedstock coal, waste coal, or biomass resources.”  The Bill also amends KRS 154.27-020 to state its purpose of pushing Kentucky to “the forefront of national efforts to achieve energy independence by reducing the Commonwealth’s reliance on imported energy sources.”  This push is coming through the establishment of incentives for companies that produce alternative fuels as defined above.  This process is not exclusionary of coal, but rather incorporates it into the attempt to make the Commonwealth a leader in the development of alternative energy sources. 

A company has to meet certain minimum capital investments to qualify:  a “facility that uses oil shale, tar sands, or coal as the primary feedstock” has a required minimum of $100 million, and an energy-efficient alternative fuel facility minimum is $25 million.  A snapshot of the incentives provided by the Incentives for Energy Independence Act relate to advances of funds to assist with construction of facilities, sales and use, severance and income tax incentives, and assessments on a predetermined percentage of wages of employees subject to Kentucky income tax.  The maximum recovery is capped at 50% of the company’s capital investment.  

Information above from Chapter 60 of Acts of the General Assembly, 2010 Regular Session, pp. 1389-1394 (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statrev/tables/10rs/actsmas.pdf)

Morgan Daulton and Amanda Hall
mdaulton@ddfky.com and ahall@ddfky.com

 

August 17, 2010

The Price is Right? New IRS Rules Lead to Inconsistent Interpretation on Fair Market Value Measurements

The new Form 990 now requires private colleges and universities to report nontaxable perks as part of total compensation packages.  For many college presidents, one of the biggest nontaxable perks to be included is the fair market rental value of presidential housing.  This has become a focus area of discussion due to inconsistent interpretation of the requirement by different institutions. 

The IRS rules do not specify what portion of presidential housing should be considered compensation.  In a review of 10 private institutions, The Boston Globe discovered a wide range of valuation approaches.  Some schools conservatively valued the entire home as compensation, while others argued only the personal quarters of the school’s president considered to be private residence would be included as compensation, since many schools use areas of the president’s home for public functions.  This has sparked discussion not only in the higher education arena, but the real estate market as well, with many real estate specialists claiming the fair rental value of presidential homes would be worth much more on the open market than what is being reported by the schools.

Other hot button areas of disclosure under the new requirements include maid services, health and social club dues, and first class travel.     

The aim of the IRS in requiring these disclosures is to more accurately depict the nature of compensation of top administrators at colleges and universities in an effort to make the school operations more transparent to the public. 

Link to Boston Globe article:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/06/13/light_shed_on_housing_for_college_presidents/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed4F

For more information please contact,
Rachel Brown
rbrown@ddfky.com

July 30, 2010

Disbursement Risk in the 21st Century

Over the past ten years we have seen significant changes in the way we pay our bills.  Not too long ago, no one would have ever dreamed that we could pay all of our bills without using a mail box or those old fashioned stamps.  I now find it a pain when someone gives me a check and I have to go to a bank to put it in to my account.  These changing times have also provided all of us with a little extra time in our day because it is easier and faster to pay our bills and review our accounts.  However, all of these efficiencies that we have gained have brought significant risks with it.  These risks have resulted in significant losses for some companies.  I hope to give you some insight in to some of the risks that come along with all of the efficiencies we now take for granted.

The main risk that occurs when employees have access to spend money electronically is obviously theft.  Theft of money electronically is much harder to detect than when someone steals cash.  We have had significant controls over cash for a long time.  We have authorized signers on our checks and some companies even require dual signatures.  We have all of these controls over checks and cash but what controls do we have over someone transferring money to their own account.  Most executives would say that it would be detected during the reconciliation procedures every month.  What if the person stealing the money electronically is also the person in charge of reconciling that account?  What if this person transferred small amounts each week or month over several years?  It could add up to a significant sum.

Companies need to have more controls/checks and balances over electronic wire transfers and automated clearing house (ACH) payments.  The best control I have seen is where an account is set up to only allow electronic transfers to certain payees.  There is a specific process with multiple signatures required in order to get a vendor added to this list.  If this same company wants to make a single electronic payment to a vendor, then it would require multiple authorizations.  Another way to control electronic payments is to employ proper segregation of duties.  Even the smallest of companies can segregate duties.  Let’s take an example of the company that only has one person in accounting and that person reconciles all accounts and performs all accounting functions.  In this case, I would recommend that the president/executive director or maybe the treasurer for the board or even someone from another department should be set up to perform electronic disbursements.  Under no circumstances should that accountant be the person in charge of wire transfers.

Another area of concern for electronic payments would be credit cards.  Having too many credit cards or a lack of control over credit cards can lead to theft.  Credit cards are an easy way to make purchases (business or personal).  There are various ways to use a company credit card to personal gain.  The easiest is to go to an office store to purchase supplies and then pick up a few personal items.  This can be almost impossible to detect.  Another way is to buy things online from companies that seem to have a business purpose but are actually for them personally.  Another horror story we have all heard about is using a company credit card while on a business trip for excessive expenses (i.e. expensive wine, Broadway shows, etc…). 

The key to safeguarding against theft of cash via the use of credit cards is to first limit the number of credit cards your organization has open.  The more credit cards that have monthly statements coming in increases the susceptibility for something to slip through the cracks.  The next key is to actually review the credit card statements every month.  Review each and every transaction and determine their specific business purpose.  Transactions should be questioned and receipts should be reviewed.  Even if the expense was charged by the chairman of the board – it should be questioned if the business purpose is not evident.  I have a client where the treasurer for the board gets a copy of all credit card statements each month and reviews the transactions for reasonableness.  This may not be feasible for some companies but is something to be considered.  I normally recommend that companies start by limiting the number of credit cards to one or two mainly to be used for office purchases.  I recommend that all travel and entertainment expenses go through an expense report process and have all receipts provided with that expense report.  Then all you have to do is review these few credit card statements every month.

I hope the information above has provided you with some insight into some of the risks related to electronic payments and ways to mitigate those risks.  If you have any questions or would like additional information, please feel free to contact me at lmann@ddfky.com.

Lance R Mann
Manager of Assurance Services

 Mann Lance

July 22, 2010

Scheduled Breaks and Their Effect in the Calculation of the Return of Title IV Funds

In our experience with College and University A-133 audits of Student Financial Aid, the second step in the Return of Title IV calculation could lead to many compliance issues for schools.  The calculation is very important because it determines how much money must be returned to the government; as well as who must return the funds. If calculated incorrectly, the school can return too much or not enough federal dollars. If too little is returned, then the school runs the risk of missing the 45 day deadline to return the funds.  The calculation of completed calendar days as a percentage of total calendar days in a term is seemingly simple; however, scheduled breaks and their exclusion from the calculation and/or the use of the mid-point cause some confusion.  Below is a refresher on how to handle scheduled breaks and the use of mid-point:

A scheduled break is a break of five or more consecutive calendar days that are excluded from the Return calculation.  For example, a school has an official break on the calendar that is Monday the 10th – Friday 15th and does not hold weekend classes. The break starts the first day after the last class is held (prior to the break) or in our example Saturday the 8th.  The last day of the break would be the Sunday before classes resume or in our example Sunday the 17th.  This causes for nine days to be excluded from the calculation (Saturday 8th to Sunday 17th).    Scheduled breaks for five or more days are excluded from both the earned days and days in the term.

If a school cannot determine a student’s official date of withdrawal, then they can utilize the mid-point method of returning funds.  The mid-point should not be confused with mid-term.  For mid-point, you calculate the total number of calendar days in the semester and find the mid-point or the number of days earned to make the calculation equal 50%.  For example, a school has 108 days in the term excluding scheduled breaks, when mid-point is used the numerator (number of days earned) would be 54 days or 50%. 

For more information, visit http://ifap.ed.gov or contact Megan Herde, MHerde@ddfky.com

Herde Megan

July 20, 2010

Surviving Today while Planning for Tomorrow

Most contractors that I work with have already cut costs to get through the past couple of years, but many are struggling with what to do to get through the next couple of years.  We continue to hear from national economic experts that the recession is over and the economy has begun to grow.  However, those same experts also warn us that the recovery will be slow.  Contractors are expected to continue to feel the impact of reduced work through 2012.  The 2009 CFMA Construction Industry Annual Financial Survey reported that 92% of the respondents to the survey identified “Sources of Future Work” as their top challenge in the next five years.  Leaders of successful construction companies realize that they must identify and exploit new opportunities to be successful in the future.   Some of the more common strategies that I see:

  • Joint ventures – working with another company can yield significant benefits for all involved.
  • Expand geographic regions – analyze new geographic regions that could provide opportunities for new work.
  • New market niches ­- investigate new and emerging markets for opportunities to diversify.
  • Merge with or acquire another contractor.

 

Each of these strategies provides both opportunity and risk.  Contractors must first identify the strengths of their own company/workforce and match that with the changing needs of the marketplace.  This type of strategic planning will allow companies to adjust to be successful not only today, but also in the future.  Questions you should be asking:  Do we need to hire/create expertise in emerging industries, such as green building?  Do we have the industry expertise but need to market to a broader geographic region with more opportunities?  By partnering with another company will we have the financial strength and experience to perform on a project that we could not do alone?

Continuing to do what you have always done and waiting for the market to come back is not an option in today’s economic environment.  Engaging your leadership in the very important work of planning for today, as well as tomorrow will position your company to thrive in the future. 

For more information please contact:

Crissy Fiscus, cfiscus@ddfky.com

Fiscus Crissy professional

July 6, 2010

Form 990 – Schedule H

During the re-design process of the new Form 990, the IRS placed more emphasis on tax exempt hospitals’ reporting requirements through Schedule H of the new form.  For 2008, Schedule H was optional except for information in Part V regarding the hospital’s facility information.  However, for 2009, the form is required to be completed in its entirety for all applicable activities pertaining to each hospital.  Substantially more documentation will be required by the filing organization.

Part I of the new schedule is designed to provide information regarding charity care and community benefit activities. Information is requested on whether the hospital has a charity care policy and the criteria surrounding the policy.  Hospitals are required to show a detailed analysis of their charity care and community benefit amounts at cost.

Part II is designed to detail any community building activities that the hospital completed during the year that helped to protect or improve the community’s health or safety.  Examples of community health and safety activities could be improvements to housing buildings for vulnerable populations, creating new employment opportunities for community residents, mentoring programs, support groups and disaster readiness programs.

Part III is designed to report the hospital’s bad debt, medicare and collection practices.  The hospital will be asked to report on costing methodologies and rationale for bad debt and medicare policies.  The hospital will also have to describe the collection policies utilized for patients who qualify for charity care and financial assistance.

Part IV is designed to describe activities associated with management companies and joint ventures in which the hospital is a partner or shareholder.

Part V was the only section that was required to be completed with the 2008 return. Within this section, the hospital describes the types of services the hospital provides, such as whether it is a licensed hospital, a critical access facility, a research facility, etc.

Part VI of the schedule, Supplemental Information, allows the hospital more room to describe information listed in other parts of the schedule.  The hospital will also be asked to provide information on how the hospital assesses the health care needs of the community, how the hospital educates and informs patients and persons about their eligibility for financial assistance, information about the community it serves, and how the hospital furthers its exempt purpose.

While the new Schedule H appears cumbersome, it allows the hospital an opportunity to describe the good things it is doing for the community it serves. 

With state governments considering whether to implement minimum amounts of charity care and the federal government considering whether hospitals should lose their tax exempt status, it is becoming increasingly important for tax-exempt hospitals to place a greater emphasis on their community benefit activities.

Please see the following link for Schedule H:   http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f990sh.pdf

Allison Carter
alcarter@ddfky.com

Carter Allison

June 9, 2010

IRS is Seeking Input from Exempt Hospitals on New Requirements

IRS has issued Notice 2010-39 in which it seeks comments from the exempt hospital community on the requirements of new section 501(r), enacted as part of this year’s healthcare legislation.  The new statute specifically requires exempt hospital organizations to:

  • conduct community health needs assessment every 3 years,
  • establish financial assistance policy,
  • limit amounts charged for emergency or other medically necessary care, and
  • agree to forego extraordinary collection actions before determining whether individual is eligible for assistance under organization’s financial assistance policy.

IRS is specifically requesting comments regarding the need, if any, for guidance relating to the new requirements, what constitutes “reasonable efforts” to determine eligibility for assistance under a financial assistance policy for purposes of the billing and collection requirements, and the provisions of section 501(r)(2)(B)(ii), which provides that an organization that operates more than one hospital facility “shall not be treated as described in [section 501(c)(3)] with respect to any such facility for which such requirements are not separately met,” including the tax consequences of a failure with respect to some, but not all, facilities and the proper tax treatment in future periods in such a case.

Click here to see  notice for additional information and let us know if there’s anything you want to discuss.  Comments must be submitted by 7/22/2010.

For more information please contact Leigh McKee at lmckee@ddfky.com

McKee Leigh

May 24, 2010

Subcontract Clauses

Contractors have been using many different ways to shift risk in contracts with owners for as long as the industry has existed.  Contractors have also shifted risk when it comes to subcontractors.  One of the ways to shift risk is the use of “paid-when-paid” and “paid-if-paid” clauses in contracts.  Often these terms are used interchangeably, but in actuality, the two terms are slightly different.  Pay-if-paid clauses state that the party responsible for making the payment will not make the payment unless and until they are paid for the work.  Pay-when-paid clauses usually state that the party responsible for making the payment must pay within a set amount of days from which they receive their payment for the work.  Pay-when-paid usually does not excuse responsibility of the payment, but establishes a reasonable time to make payment.

Courts have been looking at pay-if-paid clauses for some time now to analyze their values, legality, and fairness.  The issue is whether it is fair to shift the risk of nonpayment to the subcontractor that does not have control over the insolvency of the owner.  The issue is being addressed at the state level in three different ways.  The first approach simply states that the clause is illegal and therefore unenforceable.  In this case the courts interpret the payment obligation to mean payment is required within a reasonable time from the completion of the work invoiced.  The second approach states that the provision violates public policy.  The reasoning of the clause violating public policy is that it eliminates the subcontractor’s lien right.  A mechanics’ lien is a statutory right to preserve the contractor’s security for payment of sums due.  This approach is then interpreted the same as the first in that the payment obligation is required to be made within a reasonable time rather than a condition to be paid.  The third approach is that some states will enforce the clause as it is written.  This approach usually requires precise language that clearly indicates the parties intend for the subcontractor to assume the risk.  If the court decides the language states a pay-when-paid rather than pay-if-paid, the clause is deemed to establish a reasonable time for payment.

State courts are also taking positions on the responsibility of the surety.  Some states are of the position that is the pay-if-paid clause is enforceable as to the claim of the subcontractor against the general contractor, then the surety is not responsible to pay the subcontractor.  Other states view the payment bond as the insurance for when the owner or general contractor does not make payment and allows the subcontractor to make claims against the surety.

It is important to remember when preparing subcontractor agreements to use language that clearly states that the risk of insolvency of the owner passes to the subcontractor.  Also, it is important to know which state will have jurisdiction over the contract and consult your attorney as to that state’s position on enforcing pay-if paid clauses.

If you would like more information please contact Hunter Stout at hstout@ddfky.com

Stout Hunter

October 19, 2009

Crit Luallen

On Monday, August 10, I attended a luncheon in Georgetown sponsored by the Scott County Chamber of Commerce.  The speaker was Auditor of Public Accounts Crit Luallen.  Of course, during her remarks, she touched on the recent credit card/travel and entertainment expenses issues covered in several spring and summer Herald-Leader articles.  Our collective hindsight can see that times have changed and I think most of us realize that most organizations would benefit from increased transparency, internal controls and appropriate supervision and review.  Ms. Luallen reminded the luncheon crowd of her document, “Recommendations for Public and Nonprofit Boards, Lessons learned from the Lexington Blue Grass Airport Investigation”.  A copy of it can be obtained at http://www.auditor.ky.gov/Public/Audit_Reports/Archive/2009AuditorsAlert-BoardRecommendations.pdf .  The document has 28 recommendations.  In my opinion, even smaller not-for-profit entities would benefit from implementing most of the recommendations.  Yes, the cost/benefit of adding internal controls or even more accounting personnel should be evaluated; but, most of the recommendations can be implemented at minimal cost.

Dean Dorton Ford, PSC has a substantial not-for-profit practice offering services in several functions including:  audit and assurance, tax compliance and consulting, technology and employee benefits consulting.  We’d be very pleased to work with you toward a goal of strengthening your organization’s internal control culture.

David Richard
Director of Assurance Services
drichard@ddfky.com

Richard David