River
Y CombinatorBacked by Y Combinator
FREE TEMPLATE

Form 990 Preparation Checklist

Gathering documents is the easy half of a 990. The two questions no document answers are what cost you three weeks.

Free download  ·  No account needed

Every Form 990 preparation checklist you can find is a list of documents to gather. Trial balance, bank statements, board roster, minutes, contribution records, W-9s, prior year return. Gathering those is the easy half of the job and it is the half every checklist covers, which is why they all read alike. The hard half is that two of the organiser's questions cannot be answered from any document the organisation already has, and those two are what turn a two-day job into three weeks of follow-up email.

The first is the functional expense split. Part IX divides every natural expense across programme services, management and general, and fundraising, and the instructions permit any reasonable method while requiring you to document the method in your records. Almost nobody does. So this pack scores each line on whether a record produces its split, then re-bases the ones that fail onto a basis that a record can produce, and reports what moved. An inherited basis counts as exposed, because payroll taxes are only as documented as the salaries they follow.

In the worked example 12.2% of expense dollars have a documented basis. A one-week time study and a measured floor plan take programme services from $1,395,723 to $1,225,126, so 70.3% down to 61.7%. That is 8.6 points of a public ratio, found in August for 36 hours of work rather than argued about in November. The second question is the interested-person threshold, and it is a computation nobody performs.

The two 990 answers that are arithmetic rather than filing

Every allocation basis scored and re-based, the interested-person join, and the documents that do not exist.

Functional Expense Allocation

Illustrative, for a fictional community health nonprofit called Cedar Line Community Health. Fiscal year ended 30 June, total functional expenses $1,984,800, total revenue $1,914,000. The two right-hand columns are the pass no checklist asks for.

LineNatural expenseTotalBasis behind the splitDocumentedWasNow
7Other salaries and wages892,000A percentage set in 2021no76%68%
5Officers and key employees214,000Direct for two roles, an estimate for the EDpartial42%34%
16Occupancy164,200Square footage, never measuredno80%61%
9Other employee benefits138,400Follows salariesinherits76%68%
10Payroll taxes79,100Follows salariesinherits76%68%
22Depreciation61,300Square footage, never measuredno80%61%
13Office expenses52,300Headcount, not recorded by functionno70%58%
11cAccounting44,800Direct, all management and generalyes0%0%
8Pension plan contributions41,200Follows salariesinherits76%68%
11gOther fees: IT support31,200A percentage set in 2021no60%47%
23Insurance29,800A percentage set in 2021no70%58%
17Travel22,700Direct from expense reportsyes88%88%
24aProgramme supplies96,500Direct, charged to the programmeyes100%100%
BasisDollarsShare of expenses
Documented242,40012.2%
Partial214,00010.8%
Inherits an undocumented basis258,70013.0%
Undocumented1,269,70064.0%
Exposed1,742,40087.8%
Programme services, as the system would answer1,395,72370.3%
Programme services, re-based1,225,12661.7%
Swing170,5978.6 points

The inherits rows are the ones people argue about and they should not be arguable. Pension, benefits and payroll taxes all follow salaries, salaries are split on a 2021 percentage with no memo behind it, so those dollars are exposed for exactly the same reason. Fix line 7 and 13.0% of expenses corrects itself for free. Neither re-basing is an accounting error either: the time study came out at 68% because the old percentage predates two administrative hires, and the floor plan measured 4,180 programme square feet of 6,850 because the clinic added administrative space in 2023. Both numbers were true once. The whole exercise is 26 hours for the study, 4 to measure the floor plan and 6 for the related-party join, so $1,512 at a blended rate.

Related Party Register

Three lists nobody joins: the board and officer roster, the vendor payment ledger, and the signed conflict of interest disclosures. The threshold is computed first, because one of the four tests depends on this organisation's own revenue.

TestReaches a transaction whenHere
(a)All payments in the year exceed$100,000
(b)A single transaction exceeds the greater of $10,000 or 1% of total revenue$19,140
(c)Compensation to a family member of a listed person exceeds$10,000
(d)A joint venture of $10,000 or more where both interests exceed 10%none
IDCounterpartyPaidInterested personOn the disclosure formReportable
RP-01Wren & Alcott IT Services31,200Director, seat 6, 60% owner"consulting relationship". No amount, no nameYes, Part IV. Test (b)
RP-02Halvorsen Facilitation8,900The ED's spousenot disclosedAsk the accountant. $1,100 under test (c)
RP-03Marchetti Print12,400Director, seat 2, an employeedisclosedAsk the accountant. Definitional
RP-04Participant assistance2,300Household of director, seat 7not disclosedYes, Part III
RP-05Former Finance Director27,600Former key employeenot applicableNot Part IV. It is compensation
RP-06Cedar Line Housing Partners LP0Board chair, 4% limited partnerdisclosedNo. Considered and excluded

RP-01 is the finding and it is the one that was almost caught. The director wrote "consulting relationship" on her form and named neither the entity nor the amount, so nothing connected that phrase to a line in the vendor ledger. She answered the question the form asked; the form asked the wrong question. It has a second consequence nobody expects: the same schedule determines whether a member of the governing body counts as independent, so the independent voting member count goes from 9 to 8. RP-06 is in the register on purpose, because a matter considered and excluded with the test written down is what stops the same question being asked again next year.

Document Request Tracker

The organiser sorted three ways rather than two. Found, findable, and does not exist. The third bucket is the one that decides the timeline and the one no checklist has.

IDWhat the organiser asks forStatusWhat it governs
D-04Written allocation methodologydoes not exist$1,742,400 of expense classification
D-05Time study or payroll allocation supportdoes not exist$1,350,700 of salaries and benefits. 26 hours
D-06Floor plan with measured square footagedoes not exist$225,500 of occupancy and depreciation. 4 hours
D-08Signed conflict of interest disclosurespartial8 of 9 returned. Seat 4 outstanding
D-10Board and committee minutes for the yearpartialThree committee actions have no minutes at all
D-13Contribution detail with restrictions flaggedpartial41 gifts, $86,400, missing a restriction flag
D-09Vendor payment detail over $5,000receivedThe list the related-party join runs against
D-03General ledger detail for six expense linesreceivedThe six lines with an undocumented basis
D-01Trial balance and audited statementsreceivedTies to the return
15 requests12 found or findable3 do not exist36 hours creates all three

Three of fifteen do not exist, and they govern 87.8% of the expense classification. That is the reason 990 season runs long: the organisation spends three weeks looking for a document that was never created, then answers from memory under deadline. Ordering the tracker by what blocks what rather than by the organiser's own sequence is the whole trick, because the organiser is written in the return's order and the time study governs eleven Part IX lines. One row will never be produced and the reason belongs in writing: the three undocumented committee actions were real decisions taken by people with authority, and a document created now and dated then is not a record. The governance answer is No, the practice gets explained on the supplemental schedule, and the board ratifies the substantive decisions going forward.

What is in the pack

01

Functional Expense Allocation

Every Part IX line with the record that produces its split named, or the absence named instead.

02

Four scores, applied strictly

Documented, partial, inherits or undocumented, where square footage nobody measured is undocumented rather than a method.

03

The re-based ratio

What a time study and a measured floor plan do to the programme expense percentage, in points and in dollars.

04

A computed Schedule L threshold

One percent of your own total revenue, worked out before any transaction is looked at rather than after.

05

Related Party Register

Roster joined to vendor ledger joined to disclosure forms, with exclusions kept and the deciding test written down.

06

Does not exist as a bucket

The organiser sorted three ways, with the hours and the dollars each missing document governs.

How it works

  1. 1

    Send the trial balance

    And the organiser if your accountant has sent it. Scoring the allocation bases is the answer with the longest lead time, so it goes first.

  2. 2

    Score, do not re-base

    Two separate passes on purpose. The moment you are looking for a defensible number you stop noticing that there is not one.

  3. 3

    Send three lists

    Board roster, vendor payments over $5,000, signed conflict of interest forms. The forms are the ones people forget, because they live with the secretary.

  4. 4

    Do the fieldwork once

    A one-week time study and a tape measure. Then the methodology memo, which is why none of it has to be repeated next year.

Frequently asked questions

Does the IRS actually require a documented allocation method?

The instructions say an organisation whose accounting system does not allocate expenses may use any reasonable method, and that it must report amounts accurately and document the method of allocation in its records. So an undocumented split is not necessarily wrong. It is unsupported, and that decides what work follows.

Why does an 8.6 point swing matter?

The programme expense ratio is public. Donors, funders and rating sites read it straight off the return, and the prior year was filed on the old basis, so the comparative moves too. Finding that in August with a memo behind it is a different conversation from finding it in November.

Is a time study really necessary?

One week across everyone is usually enough, and it was 26 hours here. What is not enough is a manager estimating other people's time, because that produces the same kind of number the 2021 percentage already is. The study also fixes pension, benefits and payroll taxes for free.

Why compute the Schedule L threshold?

Because one test is the greater of $10,000 or 1% of total revenue for a single transaction, so it differs by organisation and by year. At $1,914,000 of revenue it is $19,140, which is what makes a $31,200 IT contract reportable and no generic checklist can tell you.

What if someone disclosed a conflict but we still missed it?

That is the normal case. A form asking whether you have a conflict, without asking for entity names, cannot be reconciled against a vendor ledger. The fix is a form design change plus an annual reconciliation, not a reprimand, and it belongs on a board agenda with a date.

Can we write up minutes we never took?

No, and the pack will not draft them. The governance answer becomes No, the practice gets explained on the supplemental schedule with dates, and the substantive decisions get ratified going forward. A document created now and dated then is not a record, it is a different problem.

How does this connect to grant reporting?

The programme narrative uses the same counts your funders see, so the return and the award reports stop disagreeing. Where an outcome indicator has no data behind it, the narrative says so rather than approximating a percentage.

Find out what your split is standing on

Send the trial balance and the organiser. The first thing back is the share of your expense dollars with no documented basis behind them.

Score my allocation