Lesley,  Your scenario is  an excellent example of why research administration is  an art, a science and a necessary evil. I will explore your text in illustration. I will use caps for emphasis but  I am not  "shouting".

>>> "Cephas, Lesley" <xxxxxx@SRNET.UCLA.EDU> 11/02 1:25 pm >>>
Scenario
We have an internal research funding program whereby a PI submits a
proposal to the "program" while also getting a commitment of support
from an extramural sponsor (usually a commercial entity) who will, if
the proposal is funded, share the costs of the research.

 >| THIS IS THE POINT AT WHICH  THE RESEARCH OFFICE NEEDS TO PROVIDE THE DRAFT AGREEMENT SO THAT FROM THE START THE PI AND THE PRIVATE COMMERCIAL SPONSOR DON'T MAKE UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE  COST TO THE UNIVERSITY TO RECEIVE  A PARTIALLY FUNDED RESEARCH GRANT AND THE STATUS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PARTICULARLY IF THERE ARE NSF OR NIH FUNDED COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECTS.  A GIFT GOES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, IT DOESN'T COME BACK AND IT DOESN'T PROTECT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE DONOR. |<

 So, for
example, Prof. Smith submitted a proposal to this program with a budget
of $300K.  The University awards $200K to Smith for this research and
the private sponsor kicks in the other $100K.
>| DOES THIS $200K INCLUDE THE INDIRECT  COSTS, IF NOT , THEN YOU MAY REALLY BE ADDING THE INDIRECT COST FOR THE $200K AND THE $100K  TO THE PROJECT IF YOU HAVEN'T  CLARIFIED THIS.  THE PI WILL WANT THE 300K TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT, NOT BE "HIGH-JACKED TO COVER INSTITUTIONAL COSTS FOR LABS AND SUPPORT PERSONNEL|<

The University receives the $100K via a research agreement as opposed to
a gift.  This research agreement, among other things, includes a
standard termination clause (any advanced funds not expended at the time
of termination after considering all commitments and uncancelable
obligations shall be returned to the sponsor) and intellectual property
clauses that only grant the sponsor limited rights to use copyrightable
works and which obligate us (to the extent we are legally able to do so)
to enter into licensing negotiations with the sponsor should any
patentable  inventions result from the work.  >|NOT AS A GIFT, HOLD THIS THOUGHT FOR USE  BELOW|<

After we executed the research agreement and received the check for
$100K, the sponsor sent us a "receipt of a charitable contribution" form
which we're supposed to sign and return.  The form asks us to indicate
how much we received and what, if any, goods or services were provided
in return.  >|SEE HOW NICE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO HAVE DISCUSSED THIS FIRST, NOT AFTER THE CHECK HAS CLEARED, THE  RESEARCH AGREEMENT  COME INTO FORCE AND THE TEMPERS RISING?|<

Question

Should we sign/is there any harm in signing this form and sending it
back to the Sponsor? >|DO NOT SIGN WHAT IS NOT SO,  GRASSHOPPER!|<

Since we are a 501(C)3 organization, and since the $100K was for
scientific research, and since the sponsor wasn't getting anything of
real value from the "donation", I'm thinking>|  IS THIS WISHFULL THINKING OR JUST NOT THINKING?|<  that the IRS may in fact
consider this a charitable contribution, even though INTERNALLY, >|HERE  YOUR RHETORICAL STRESS IS ALREADY SHOWING|,  we did
not treat it as a gift.  However, my gut feeling is that we can/should
sign and return the form, because in any event the burden is on the
Sponsor to prove that this payment meets the IRS's requirements for a
"charitable contribution", and all we're doing is providing formal
information.  >|ALTHOUGH WE ARE ASSURED THAT A NEW, FRIENDLY IRS IS WANTING TO ESCAPE FROM THE PAST  OLD, UNFRIENDLY IRS, THE EXPERIMENTAL  QUESTION IS NOT DIRECTED TO DEMONSTRATING THAT OUTCOME. DO YOU HAVE THE POSSIBLE PENALTIES SET ASIDE IN THE INDIRECT COSTS FOR THE $300K VERSION OF THE BUDGET? DID YOU HAVE OTHER  PLANS?|<

Any insight would be greatly appreciated and may be sent to the list or
privately at xxxxxx@srnet.ucla.edu.

Thanks,

Lesley
Lesley K. Cephas, Industry Contract Officer
UCLA Sponsored Research
Los Angeles, CA  90095-1406
Voice: (310) 825-1431
Fax:    (310) 206-3619
E-Mail: xxxxxx@srnet.ucla.edu
http://www.research.ucla.edu/sr.htm

So, Lesley, I advise you not to sign, to inform your counsel  of the  research agreement terms and offer to have the next $100,000 gift receipted by the development office and then directed to your internal use unencumbered by intellectual property rights, professional conflict of interest in research ethics or other nasty stuff like conspiricy to deflect state owned resources to private commerical interest in aid of one company and not its open market, level playing field competitor.

Jerry McCulloh aka xxxxxx@LUC.EDU