Small tax-exempt organizations have a new filing requirement. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 made some big changes to the tax law as it affects charities, particularly the operation of tax-exempt charitable organizations. It included new rules for charitable giving, new reporting, unrelated business income and sanction rules, tougher rules for private foundations, tougher rules for supporting organizations and new rules for donor-advised funds.

One measure is a particularly nasty trap for small non-profits.

Small tax-exempt organizations, whose gross receipts are normally $25,000 or less, are not required to file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, or Form 990-EZ, Short Form Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax.

Now these organizations that have not had to file a 990 or 990-EZ must file electronically a Form 990-N, also known as the e-Postcard, with the IRS annually. The 990-N will include the organization's name, address, Internet address, employer identification number (EIN), name and address of the principal officer and evidence of the continued basis for its exemption from filing Form 990. This filing requirement applies to all types of exempt organizations (for example, trade associations and social clubs), not just Section 501(c)(3) organizations.

The following organizations are exempt and do not have to file the 990-N: organizations that are included in a group return, private foundations required to file Form 990-PF, section 509(a)(3) supporting organizations required to file Form 990 or Form 990-EZ, churches, their integrated auxiliaries and conventions or associations of churches.

An organization that is required to file the 990-N and fails to file for three consecutive years will have its tax-exempt status revoked as of the filing due date of the third year. If the organization's tax-exempt status is revoked, the organization must apply (or reapply) and pay the appropriate user fee to have its tax-exempt status reinstated.

The IRS is developing an electronic filing system (there will be no paper form) for the e-Postcard and will publicize filing procedures when the system is completed and ready for use. You must be able to access the Internet, but no software or download is required. If your non-profit does not have a computer, you will be able to fill out Form 990-N using a computer at a public library.

Form 990-N must be filed every year; however there is no one due date for filing the e-postcard. Instead, you must file "by the 15th day of the 5th month after" your nonprofit's fiscal year ends. For instance, if your fiscal year is the same as the calendar year (i.e., ending on Dec. 31), your organization does not need to file the e-postcard until May 15. This filing requirement applies to tax years beginning after 2006. If your organization is on a calendar year, the first 990-N for 2007 and is due on May 15, 2008.

The IRS has been mailing educational letters to more than 650,000 small tax-exempt organizations that are affected. Because these organizations have had no annual filing requirements before, the IRS may not have current addresses. If you believe the IRS may have an incorrect address for your organization, you can file Form 8822, Change of Address, with the IRS.

IRS forms can be downloaded at www.irs.gov. With frequent turnover of volunteer board members, and an executive who may also be a volunteer, many organizations may easily be unaware of the new requirement.

According to the IRS, this new filing requirement was added to improve transparency within the nonprofit sector. The information will ensure that donors, who may want to contribute to your organization, and the IRS have current information about your organization.

The Orlando law firm of Moran & Shams P.A. announced that two of its shareholders are leaving and the firm's name will change.

Maurice "Mo" Shams and Sidney Shams are departing amicably, the firm says.

The 14-attorney commercial law firm, renamed Moran Kidd Lyons Johnson & Berkson P. A., will remain at 111 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1200.

Meanwhile, the Shams have set up a new law firm in Maitland, to be called the Shams Law Firm, at 1015 Maitland Center Commons Blvd., Suite 110.

A joint statement by the Orlando firm and the Shams says the two attorneys are leaving to focus on their business, tax, estate and real estate practice.

"In light of the longstanding personal friendships and mutual respect of all of the firm's shareholders, the transition has been amicable and cooperative," says the statement.

The New York-based company told the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it believes the lawsuit related to its previously announced offering of convertible preferred shares was without merit.

Enron's demise wiped out thousands of jobs, more than $60 billion in market value and more than $2 billion in pension plans.

Tuesday's turndown for the Enron investors came without comment in a routine Supreme Court list of cases the justices had decided not to hear.

The chances that Enron shareholders can recover some money dimmed a week ago with the Supreme Court's decision against investors in a separate suit. It alleged that two suppliers doing business with a cable TV company engaged in securities fraud.

That suit was politically sensitive for the Bush administration because of its potential to affect the Enron case. The administration sided with the business community against investors, despite the recommendation of the Securities and Exchange Commission to side with the investors. It was left to attorneys general from 30 states to support shareholders in the case against the cable TV suppliers.

The justices ruled that the investors in Charter Communications Inc. did not have the right to sue because they did not rely on the deceptive acts of the suppliers.

The same principle could apply to the Enron case, where investors relied on Enron's glowing description of its business, but were arguably unaware of any deceptive conduct by the investment banks.

Lawyers for Enron investors say the circumstances in the two cases are not comparable.

In the Enron suit, stockholders are accusing Wall Street investment banks of colluding with the energy company to hide its losses.

To date, Enron plaintiffs have settled for $7.3 billion from several financial institutions including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

Enron stockholders are seeking more than $30 billion from Merrill Lynch & Co., Credit Suisse First Boston and Barclays Bank PLC.

The investment banks, say Enron investors, schemed with the energy company, scheming with Enron by entering into partnerships and transactions that enabled the energy company to take liabilities off its books, recording revenue from the deals when it was actually incurring debt.

Now that the Supreme Court has rejected the case, "I think that the chances of succeeding on a scheme liability theory are nearly zero; the resolution of this Enron case was made clear by the decision" last week against investors in the cable TV suppliers suit, said attorney Greg Markel, who represents corporate clients in securities fraud lawsuits.

Last March, the appeals court in New Orleans reversed a decision by U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon in Houston, who had said Enron shareholders could sue as a class.

The issue of certifying a class is a critical one. Once the courts allow huge numbers of investors to pursue a securities fraud lawsuit, the defendants almost always settle rather than exposing their corporations to potentially catastrophic liability.

The appeals court decision in the Enron case meant that shareholders and investors could not pool their resources to sue as a group. Lawyers for Enron investors estimate the class size at over 1 million shareholders.

Enron Corp., once the nation's seventh-largest company, crumbled into bankruptcy in December 2001. The failure became a symbol of the corporate scandals that rocked Wall Street early this decade.

The Federal Reserve cut its key interest rate by three-quarters of a percentage point to 3.5 percent, its biggest in more than 23 years. But markets paused only momentarily before the selling wave renewed as investors seem fixated on the idea that the U.S. will drag the world economy down.

"Incoming information indicates a deepening of the housing contraction as well as some softening in labor markets," the Fed said. Canada's central bank cut too.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said he was confident in the resilience of the U.S. and global economies and welcomed the Fed cut as a helpful move.

"This is very constructive and I think it shows this country and the rest of the world that our central bank is nimble and can move quickly in response to market conditions," Paulson said.

The White House, rushing to put together a $150 billion stimulus package to prop up an economy ravaged by a housing slump and a mortgage defaults crisis, declined immediate comment on the Fed cut.

President George W. Bush was set to meet members of Congress later in the day to discuss the economic rescue package.

Outside North America, politicians and central bankers said the market selloff looked excessive. But they had their work cut out to convince as people like billionaire investor George Soros, who said the world faced a financial crisis worse than any since World War Two.

Sprint Nextel Corp. and T-Mobile USA Inc., which is owned by Deutsche Telecom, asked the justices to overturn the ruling. They said in court papers that state and local governments try to "hide" taxes and fees by barring carriers from listing them as separate items, requiring the companies instead to fold them in with the rest of their charges.

Consumer advocates, who support the lower court's ruling, responded that wireless companies frequently add a confusing array of charges that are not always the result of government taxes. Such complaints led the Federal Communications Commission to extend "truth in billing" rules to cell phones in 2005.

The legal question in dispute is whether the FCC was correct when it ruled in 2005 that federal law prohibits the states from barring separate line items. Federal communications law bars state regulation of rates but allows states to regulate "other terms and conditions" of service.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the FCC in 2006, ruling that line items on bills were "other terms and conditions" that states could prohibit. The justices' decision Tuesday allows that ruling to stand.

The issue is not completely settled, however. The Justice Department's Solicitor General, the Bush administration's lawyer, urged the court to turn down the case, even though the Solicitor General disagreed with the appeals court's ruling.

That's because the appeals court sent the case back to the FCC, and the agency is considering additional grounds for preempting state regulation of the wireless industry, the Solicitor General said. As a result, the issue is not yet ripe for Supreme Court review, the Solictor General said.