Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He can't use it to buy a car. He can't use it to buy anything that benefits him. He controls... what money the charity gives away and what the charities fund (that don't benefit him).
He absolutely can. He can buy a car and claim that car is for the foundation use.
They didn't give it away. It's in their charitable trust. Which they control.
So Bill Gates can buy a Maserati with money in the trust? Or buy himself a giant house with money in the trust? Or.... in what sense of control are you talking about?
When you make a large donation to Red Cross, you can also "control" the money by asking them to fund a specific project. What's the difference?
He can't use it to buy a car. He can't use it to buy anything that benefits him. He controls... what money the charity gives away and what the charities fund (that don't benefit him).
no he cant use foundation money to buy a personal car, but the foundation CAN buy a car and let him use it as he sees fit. the foundation can buy him a house, of what ever size they choose, and let him be the caretaker of the house in question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn
I used to work with high net worth people to create foundations or set up funds at community foundations.... I understand foundations. It's a terrible way to save taxes - a much better way is a trust, strategic annual gifts, etc.
I don't even know where this argument fits in with the thread. People are against charity now??? Or what's the evil that people are seeing here? That money would be better sent to the gov't?
is it really a terrible way to save on taxes? remember that a properly set up foundation is a tax free instrument. i may be wrong, but as i recall foundations dont pay property taxes, which means if you set up a foundation for yourself, and included in the assets of the foundation, and then as the person running the foundation, you could assign yourself as caretaker of the foundations property, including living in the house, and driving the car, as long as you keep up the maintenance, on foundation money, you can live rent free.
and if your paycheck is donated to the foundation, you dont pay taxes. you do have to give away a certain percentage of the foundations net worth each year though, and that is why the average person does not set up a foundation.
trust funds, annual gifts, and other instruments are also good ways to save on taxes. but even those must be set up properly.
I used to work with high net worth people to create foundations or set up funds at community foundations.... I understand foundations. It's a terrible way to save taxes - a much better way is a trust, strategic annual gifts, etc.
I don't even know where this argument fits in with the thread. People are against charity now??? Or what's the evil that people are seeing here? That money would be better sent to the gov't?
It's to save estate tax, not regular income tax.
Some people claim Bill is generous but Trump is an a hole. I just disagree.
He absolutely can. He can buy a car and claim that car is for the foundation use.
That would be illegal (if not actually for foundation use). Foundations get audited to prevent this abuse. There are many ways to break the rules in any system... doesn't mean the system is inherently bad.
no he cant use foundation money to buy a personal car, but the foundation CAN buy a car and let him use it as he sees fit. the foundation can buy him a house, of what ever size they choose, and let him be the caretaker of the house in question.
is it really a terrible way to save on taxes? remember that a properly set up foundation is a tax free instrument. i may be wrong, but as i recall foundations dont pay property taxes, which means if you set up a foundation for yourself, and included in the assets of the foundation, and then as the person running the foundation, you could assign yourself as caretaker of the foundations property, including living in the house, and driving the car, as long as you keep up the maintenance, on foundation money, you can live rent free.
and if your paycheck is donated to the foundation, you dont pay taxes. you do have to give away a certain percentage of the foundations net worth each year though, and that is why the average person does not set up a foundation.
trust funds, annual gifts, and other instruments are also good ways to save on taxes. but even those must be set up properly.
Actually you can't have any foundation grants directly benefit the donor... foundations are audited for that kind of stuff. So you could in theory do all of those things, but that would be an abuse of the system that would put you in a lot of legal and regulatory hot water. Do you have any evidence that Bill Gates does or are you just trying to find a way to cheat the system, in which case ANY system can be cheated.
The average person does not set up a foundation because it is a huge administrative deal, just like setting up a business. It has to be registered, audited, do filings, etc. It's not worth it to do that if you're just trying to evade taxes... there are better ways of doing it.
And, yes, they do need to be set up properly (that's what I was doing).
That would be illegal (if not actually for foundation use). Foundations get audited to prevent this abuse. There are many ways to break the rules in any system... doesn't mean the system is inherently bad.
it pretty simple in this case. the foundation buys the car, then because the person running the foundation has no other transportation, the foundation lets that person use the car for as long as that person works for the foundation. this means the person running the foundation can use that car for day to day things whether they are foundation business or not.
where the problem would come in is if the person running the foundation were to try and sell that car without going through the foundation. its like when a company buys a car for an employee to use. they can use it for what ever they want as long as it is remembered that the company owns the car and not the employee.
Some people claim Bill is generous but Trump is an a hole. I just disagree.
Once again I ask, you think that in order to save a 40% future ESTATE tax, a person is going to give away 50% of their future ESTATE? It doesn't make any sense. It'd be better just to create a trust fund for all your relatives with the "understanding" that they only spend the money on XYZ (which ultimately benefits you).
it pretty simple in this case. the foundation buys the car, then because the person running the foundation has no other transportation, the foundation lets that person use the car for as long as that person works for the foundation. this means the person running the foundation can use that car for day to day things whether they are foundation business or not.
where the problem would come in is if the person running the foundation were to try and sell that car without going through the foundation. its like when a company buys a car for an employee to use. they can use it for what ever they want as long as it is remembered that the company owns the car and not the employee.
I can guarantee you if the above happens, the Gates Foundation would have a whistleblower alerting the authorities. That situation is not allowed. It's no different than a CEO ordering purchase of a car for a company and he alone uses it.... it's not kosher even though people MAY attempt it (except in this case it's the shareholders, not the gov't, who could do something about it).
Charities do get their nonprofit status revoked for these situations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.