4 ms·
I thinks this is amateur hour for NY Times. “We don’t know much about the terms of this gift, but it seems like it clearly falls into a gray area that has been
by savramescu 15y ago
I thinks this is amateur hour for NY Times.
“We don’t know much about the terms of this gift, but it seems like it clearly falls into a gray area that has been of concern to Congress,”
“If the shares truly can’t be sold so that there is some restriction on the university’s ability to transfer stock, then it would suggest it is a contribution of partial interest only, which would not be deductible as a charitable contribution,”
They don't know the actual terms of the deal. It's only speculation and they're trying to paint Dr. Bose as a law-breaker without hard proof.
- rprasad 15y agoActually, the article specifically refers to the gift buy-back tax shelter which was prevalent before the 1986 tax code. In the most common form of the gift buy-back, a donor would gift restricted stock or ownership interests to a charity. Eventually, the donor would buy back those shares/interest from the charity for the same amount as the shares were worth when donated, or less, depending on how the restrictions affected the market value of those shares. The tax benefit to the donor was usually getting a charitable write-off on the donation without actually giving up their interest in the company. The 1986 tax code basically killed this tax shelter, though its descendants live on in a form roughly similar to the Bose gift.