How did the 2018 IRS revenue procedure change public access to donor information on Form 990s and what groups pushed for or against it?
Executive summary
The 2018 Treasury/IRS Revenue Procedure 2018-38 eliminated the requirement that most tax‑exempt organizations outside of 501(c) charities and 527 political groups report donor names and addresses on Schedule B of Form 990, shifting that information from routine IRS filings to internal records the IRS may request during examinations . The change was championed by the Treasury and defended as privacy and administrative relief, welcomed by many nonprofits and trade groups, and immediately met with state‑level opposition and litigation that temporarily set the rule aside until the IRS later codified similar protections in final regulations .
1. What the 2018 revenue procedure actually changed
Revenue Procedure 2018‑38 announced on July 16, 2018 removed the longstanding reporting requirement that most tax‑exempt organizations report personally identifiable donor names and addresses on Schedule B of Form 990 for tax years ending on or after December 31, 2018, while leaving in place the statutory Schedule B obligations for 501(c) charities and 527 political organizations . Affected groups still must collect and maintain donor information in their books and records and provide it to the IRS on request, but they no longer had to transmit contributor names and addresses annually with publicly filed Form 990s for many 501(c) categories .
2. The IRS and Treasury justification: privacy and paperwork relief
The Administration framed the change as an efficiency and privacy measure: the IRS said it did not need personally identifiable information of donors from many exempt organizations to administer the internal revenue laws, and the move would reduce risks of inadvertent public disclosure and lower compliance burdens on organizations having to enter and the IRS having to redact donor data . The revenue procedure and later rulemaking cited the agency’s discretion under IRC §6033 to tailor reporting where not necessary for enforcement .
3. Who pushed for the change — beneficiaries and sympathizers
The policy was advanced by Treasury and the IRS themselves and was welcomed in practical terms by trade associations, social welfare groups, and other non‑charitable nonprofits that had long complained about the administrative cost and privacy risk of submitting donor lists that were then redacted for public release . Legal advisories and nonprofit law firms that counsel such organizations described the change as relieving burdens and aligning reporting practice with the agency’s stated enforcement needs .
4. Who opposed the change — states, regulators, and transparency advocates
State revenue departments and some state attorneys general immediately objected because many states relied on unredacted Schedule B information for charitable registration and enforcement; Montana and New Jersey brought suit arguing the IRS had bypassed procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and that states would be harmed by loss of access to donor data . Those challengers won a district‑court ruling in which the court set aside Revenue Procedure 2018‑38 on APA grounds, finding the IRS had effectively changed substantive obligations without notice‑and‑comment rulemaking .
5. The legal aftermath and eventual codification
After the district court vacated the revenue procedure, the IRS proposed and later issued final Treasury regulations that largely cemented the same substantive outcome: except for 501(c) charities, 4947 nonexempt charitable trusts, and 6033(d) private foundations (and 527s), many exempt organizations are not required to include donor names and addresses on Schedule B, though they must retain the information for IRS review . The agency maintained its rationale about reducing inadvertent disclosure and administrative inefficiency while complying with notice‑and‑comment procedures for the final rule .
6. Practical implications and lingering disputes
The rule reduced routine public and state‑level visibility into donors to certain political and advocacy groups while preserving IRS access for audits and enforcement, a compromise that supporters call protection of donor privacy and opponents call a diminution of transparency in political and issue advocacy financing; states retain some tools where state law demands unredacted disclosure, and litigation and legislative debates over the balance between privacy, enforcement efficiency, and public transparency have continued to surface since 2018 . Reporting and compliance guidance remains nuanced: organizations exempted from Schedule B public disclosure still must keep detailed contributor records and should monitor state requirements and any ongoing legal developments .