4 ms·

Sergei Brin sold Tesla stock near its peak for new giving vehicle

43 points by max_ 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
max_ 4y ago
Archive Link https://archive.is/sAc6L https://archive.is/sAc6L
yieldcrv 4y ago
> a 501(c)(4), which allows Brin to exploit a powerful new philanthropic strategy new? a cursory reading of the 500 section of the tax code has that listed in plain English, and it wasn't invented or modified at all in any recent tax code. I read the article hoping there was something mentioned about why it was "new". Its just new to that guy, or new to a broader collective conscious with a few high profile entrants. I think the public put way too much emphasis on 501(c)3's non profits on their own, people just rattle off words they hear without thinking about what they mean. There are c3's c4's, c5's, c6's and more. I don't really think its wrong for people to not have realized that "501 c" was a reference to a section of the tax code, surrounded by other variants, I mostly expect Bloomberg to have mentioned it that way. For example, When I listen to a lot of the employee sentiment in the for profit world, especially the people that want corporations to "use their platform" for things unrelated to corporate revenue, I always thought those employees would be better off working for a 501(c)4 or 501(c)5 because those are purpose built for using their platform on political and labor matters. Read the tax code. ChatGPT is aware of it and can get you a more digestible overview long before you point your licensed professionals into that general direction to corroborate what you understand.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  501(c)4's get a lot of attention,too, as the vehicle for PACs. The "novelty" here is that this is basically a private PAC.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    yeah, I've seen a lot of constructive uses for 501(c)4's. I agree that "novelty" is not novel at all, all of them would fly further under the radar as merely private entities if they do not have a need to register with the FEC in supporting campaigns.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Amorymeltzer 4y ago
  I presume "new" is an oblique reference to the Citizens United v FEC Supreme Court case[1], which, to quote a portion of the enWikipedia article: >In addition to indirectly providing support for the creation of super PACs, Citizens United allowed incorporated 501(c)(4) public advocacy groups (such as the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club, and the group Citizens United itself) and trade associations to make expenditures in political races. Such groups may not, under the tax code, have a primary purpose of engaging in electoral advocacy. These organizations must disclose their expenditures, but unlike super PACs they do not have to include the names of their donors in their FEC filings. Or, quoting OpenSecrets[2]: >Essentially, Citizens United allowed 501(c)(4) groups to participate in political activities just like other groups already had been doing. But, unlike most of the other groups, which are under the oversight of the Federal Election Commission and must disclose their contributors and expenditures, 501(c)(4)s fall are overseen by the IRS. They must make filings with the FEC when they spend money explicitly advocating for or against a candidate, as well as when they buy issue ads that run in the weeks close to an election, but they aren't required to provide detail about where they're getting their money or how they're spending much of it. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC 2: https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/faq https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/faq
- eternalban 4y ago
  501(c)(8) is a hoot. Check out one of the legal requirements to be covered by it.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    the fraternal and guild one, which legal requirement stands out to you?
    - eternalban 4y ago
      The one that says they must have an initiation ceremony. That must have elicited a chuckle in the chambers .. [p.s. also "guild" is incorrect. There is no mention of "guilds" in the code. There are however, 104 instances of "lodge".] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicf04.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicf04.pdf
- lastofthemojito 4y ago
  The article doesn't mean that 501(c)(4) organizations are new, but that the specific organization mentioned, Catalyst4, was a new 501(c)(4). Just like one might say they started a new LLC - not that the concept of an LLC is new. From the article: > While 501(c)(4)s have been a part of the tax code for decades, often exploited by “dark money” political funds, prominent billionaires are beginning to use them for broader purposes.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    that's an interpretation I hadn't considered, I would say the only new thing is that prominent billionaires have large percentages of a public stock, and the movements of those stocks have to be disclosed. This is probably the only reason that Catalyst4 is known about at all, because it is the organization that sold shares ultimately controlled by Brin. edit: no. its saying the strategy was new, not that Catalyst4 was new.
humblepie 4y ago
Sergiy Brin sold his Tesla stock to fund a new nonprofit group.
- batch12 4y ago
  Thank you. I had a hard time parsing the title.
  - Aardwolf 4y ago
    The title in question is (in case HN changes it): "Billionaire Brin Sold Tesla Near Its Peak for New Giving Vehicle" The only meaning I managed to parse for vehicle was an electric car, such confusing title indeed
    - azinman2 4y ago
      I assumed insider information was going on, but instead it seems like a coincidence once you read it. It is very tabloid-y.
- tiedieconderoga 4y ago
  Seems a bit tabloid-y for Bloomberg. It's got all the hallmarks of a daily mail front page, except for a rhyme. * Alliterative "billionaire brin" * Grammatically inexact reference to a polarizing company/product. * Pun on "giving vehicle" to refer to a nonprofit organization.
  - krustyburger 4y ago
    Geek Chic: Billionaire Brin Sold Tesla Near Peak for New Giving Vehicle
- adrianmonk 4y ago
  It sounded like he was developing a new, more magnanimous electric car. I wasn't sure how cars can be magnanimous or selfless, but I was prepared for the article to explain. Maybe it reads you Shel Silverstein books while you drive.
photochemsyn 4y ago
The Venn diagram overlap between philanthropic foundation, tax shelter and influence operation seems to be rather large these days.
- pc86 4y ago
  It's a circle.
- nostrademons 4y ago
  They're pretty much synonyms, but I'd strike the "these days" part. That's what they've been for a century or more. How else do you think someone could go from shooting his workers dead to a benevolent patron of arts & education in a generation?
- snapplebobapple 3y ago
  That's because charity is an awesome tax shelter. You avoid tax putting your assets in there but the charity is founded and controlled by you so you have full control still in return for agreeing to give away some portion of the money every year that usually works out to a lower cost than paying tax and holding the assets yourself anyway. In addition, instead of giving that portion to the government in the form of tax you get to pick and choose where you put it up to and including buying political influence. On top of that you can pay yourself and/or your kids and/or whoever you want to work at the charity so it ends up also being great estate planning because instead of having a lump sum for your useless trust fund kids to blow on drugs in a generation you can doll it out to them in the form of salaries at your charity over many generations protecting the assets.
bmmayer1 4y ago
> Sergey Brin’s latest nonprofit, Catalyst4, offers the Google co-founder tax breaks, as well as increased levels of flexibility, secrecy and political influence What an awful, cynical way to describe someone donating billions of dollars into philanthropic causes. Bloomberg can do better.
- backtoyoujim 4y ago
  [flagged]
- rasz 4y ago
  you misspelled factual
- sfpotter 4y ago
  You're so right! By the way, I have a bridge I've been trying to sell, let me tell you about it...
- pinewurst 3y ago
  Doing it in a way that evades scrutiny brings deserved suspicion
p1esk 4y ago
He sold his Tesla shares shortly after his wife slept with Musk. I’m not making this up: https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-affair-sergey-brin-wife-divorce-11658674840 https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-affair-sergey-brin-wi...
- marcusverus 4y ago
  Last I checked, this story was based entirely on anonymous sources and was actively denied by all parties.
  - imranq 3y ago
    I remember Musk even posting a picture of him and Brin partying after this story came out. Seems like another WSJ hit piece to discredit Musk for no good reason (other than to appease short sellers)
    - notmypenguin 3y ago
      Musk was filmed with Brins ex wife, we all saw it. Musk unfortunately takes after his father.
      - try_the_bass 3y ago
        Did we? I didn't see it. Do you have a source?
xrd 4y ago
I'm really curious if this conversation happened: Musk: "hey Sergei, want in on this Twitter deal, say $2B? Ellison wants all of it, but I can hold $2b for you." Brin (to Musk): "No." Brin (to financial advisor): "Let's game plan out the impact on Tesla stock if Musk buys Twitter..."
- klyrs 4y ago
  I just reviewed the Signal chat disclosure; it doesn't look like Brin was invited.
jaclaz 4y ago
I don't understand, I am clearly missing something. >The Tesla shares were sold by Catalyst4 for $366 million over four days starting Dec. 14, 2021, the filings show. So, if Catalyst4 sold the shares in December 2021, it cannot have been created with them. On the other hand if the new organization is being setup now, where was the money stored since then?
- fatfingerd 3y ago
  I don't understand what is confusing. It was founded with assets (Tesla and Google shares) of which it must sell 5% a year but could sell a lot more.
  - jaclaz 3y ago
    The article says that Catalist4 sold the Tesla stock in December 2021. Maybe Brin (or one of his companies/holding/whatever) sold them and later (when, in these days, 1 and a half year later?) this Catalist4 organization has been founded?
    - fatfingerd 3y ago
      > Another perk of 501(c)(4)s is secrecy. Catalyst4 had tax filings worth quoting in 2021 according to the article.. It's his newest ~nonprofit as far as we know, not a brand new nonprofit. It looks like it was was founded 10/22/2021 according to a CA DOJ search.
      - jaclaz 3y ago
        The article says that he is "setting up" a new one: >Google co-founder Sergey Brin is setting up a new half-billion-dollar nonprofit focused on health and climate change, and filings show the majority of funding so far comes from Tesla Inc. shares. > Catalyst4, the new organization, is a 501(c)(4), which allows Brin ... but it seems like that should have been more like (in plainer English): In 2021 Brin created a 501(c)(4) organization, named Catalyst4, to which (somehow) he conferred his Tesla stock that were later sold in December 2021, Bloomberg has learned only now by examining its past filings.

43 points by max_ 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

max_ 4y ago

Archive Link https://archive.is/sAc6L https://archive.is/sAc6L

yieldcrv 4y ago

> a 501(c)(4), which allows Brin to exploit a powerful new philanthropic strategy new? a cursory reading of the 500 section of the tax code has that listed in plain English, and it wasn't invented or modified at all in any recent tax code. I read the article hoping there was something mentioned about why it was "new". Its just new to that guy, or new to a broader collective conscious with a few high profile entrants. I think the public put way too much emphasis on 501(c)3's non profits on their own, people just rattle off words they hear without thinking about what they mean. There are c3's c4's, c5's, c6's and more. I don't really think its wrong for people to not have realized that "501 c" was a reference to a section of the tax code, surrounded by other variants, I mostly expect Bloomberg to have mentioned it that way. For example, When I listen to a lot of the employee sentiment in the for profit world, especially the people that want corporations to "use their platform" for things unrelated to corporate revenue, I always thought those employees would be better off working for a 501(c)4 or 501(c)5 because those are purpose built for using their platform on political and labor matters. Read the tax code. ChatGPT is aware of it and can get you a more digestible overview long before you point your licensed professionals into that general direction to corroborate what you understand.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
501(c)4's get a lot of attention,too, as the vehicle for PACs. The "novelty" here is that this is basically a private PAC.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  yeah, I've seen a lot of constructive uses for 501(c)4's. I agree that "novelty" is not novel at all, all of them would fly further under the radar as merely private entities if they do not have a need to register with the FEC in supporting campaigns.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Amorymeltzer 4y ago
I presume "new" is an oblique reference to the Citizens United v FEC Supreme Court case[1], which, to quote a portion of the enWikipedia article: >In addition to indirectly providing support for the creation of super PACs, Citizens United allowed incorporated 501(c)(4) public advocacy groups (such as the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club, and the group Citizens United itself) and trade associations to make expenditures in political races. Such groups may not, under the tax code, have a primary purpose of engaging in electoral advocacy. These organizations must disclose their expenditures, but unlike super PACs they do not have to include the names of their donors in their FEC filings. Or, quoting OpenSecrets[2]: >Essentially, Citizens United allowed 501(c)(4) groups to participate in political activities just like other groups already had been doing. But, unlike most of the other groups, which are under the oversight of the Federal Election Commission and must disclose their contributors and expenditures, 501(c)(4)s fall are overseen by the IRS. They must make filings with the FEC when they spend money explicitly advocating for or against a candidate, as well as when they buy issue ads that run in the weeks close to an election, but they aren't required to provide detail about where they're getting their money or how they're spending much of it. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC 2: https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/faq https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/faq
eternalban 4y ago
501(c)(8) is a hoot. Check out one of the legal requirements to be covered by it.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  the fraternal and guild one, which legal requirement stands out to you?
  - eternalban 4y ago
    The one that says they must have an initiation ceremony. That must have elicited a chuckle in the chambers .. [p.s. also "guild" is incorrect. There is no mention of "guilds" in the code. There are however, 104 instances of "lodge".] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicf04.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicf04.pdf
lastofthemojito 4y ago
The article doesn't mean that 501(c)(4) organizations are new, but that the specific organization mentioned, Catalyst4, was a new 501(c)(4). Just like one might say they started a new LLC - not that the concept of an LLC is new. From the article: > While 501(c)(4)s have been a part of the tax code for decades, often exploited by “dark money” political funds, prominent billionaires are beginning to use them for broader purposes.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  that's an interpretation I hadn't considered, I would say the only new thing is that prominent billionaires have large percentages of a public stock, and the movements of those stocks have to be disclosed. This is probably the only reason that Catalyst4 is known about at all, because it is the organization that sold shares ultimately controlled by Brin. edit: no. its saying the strategy was new, not that Catalyst4 was new.

humblepie 4y ago

Sergiy Brin sold his Tesla stock to fund a new nonprofit group.

batch12 4y ago
Thank you. I had a hard time parsing the title.
- Aardwolf 4y ago
  The title in question is (in case HN changes it): "Billionaire Brin Sold Tesla Near Its Peak for New Giving Vehicle" The only meaning I managed to parse for vehicle was an electric car, such confusing title indeed
  - azinman2 4y ago
    I assumed insider information was going on, but instead it seems like a coincidence once you read it. It is very tabloid-y.
tiedieconderoga 4y ago
Seems a bit tabloid-y for Bloomberg. It's got all the hallmarks of a daily mail front page, except for a rhyme. * Alliterative "billionaire brin" * Grammatically inexact reference to a polarizing company/product. * Pun on "giving vehicle" to refer to a nonprofit organization.
- krustyburger 4y ago
  Geek Chic: Billionaire Brin Sold Tesla Near Peak for New Giving Vehicle
adrianmonk 4y ago
It sounded like he was developing a new, more magnanimous electric car. I wasn't sure how cars can be magnanimous or selfless, but I was prepared for the article to explain. Maybe it reads you Shel Silverstein books while you drive.

photochemsyn 4y ago

The Venn diagram overlap between philanthropic foundation, tax shelter and influence operation seems to be rather large these days.

pc86 4y ago
It's a circle.
nostrademons 4y ago
They're pretty much synonyms, but I'd strike the "these days" part. That's what they've been for a century or more. How else do you think someone could go from shooting his workers dead to a benevolent patron of arts & education in a generation?
snapplebobapple 3y ago
That's because charity is an awesome tax shelter. You avoid tax putting your assets in there but the charity is founded and controlled by you so you have full control still in return for agreeing to give away some portion of the money every year that usually works out to a lower cost than paying tax and holding the assets yourself anyway. In addition, instead of giving that portion to the government in the form of tax you get to pick and choose where you put it up to and including buying political influence. On top of that you can pay yourself and/or your kids and/or whoever you want to work at the charity so it ends up also being great estate planning because instead of having a lump sum for your useless trust fund kids to blow on drugs in a generation you can doll it out to them in the form of salaries at your charity over many generations protecting the assets.

bmmayer1 4y ago

> Sergey Brin’s latest nonprofit, Catalyst4, offers the Google co-founder tax breaks, as well as increased levels of flexibility, secrecy and political influence What an awful, cynical way to describe someone donating billions of dollars into philanthropic causes. Bloomberg can do better.

backtoyoujim 4y ago
[flagged]
rasz 4y ago
you misspelled factual
sfpotter 4y ago
You're so right! By the way, I have a bridge I've been trying to sell, let me tell you about it...
pinewurst 3y ago
Doing it in a way that evades scrutiny brings deserved suspicion

p1esk 4y ago

He sold his Tesla shares shortly after his wife slept with Musk. I’m not making this up: https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-affair-sergey-brin-wife-divorce-11658674840 https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-affair-sergey-brin-wi...

marcusverus 4y ago
Last I checked, this story was based entirely on anonymous sources and was actively denied by all parties.
- imranq 3y ago
  I remember Musk even posting a picture of him and Brin partying after this story came out. Seems like another WSJ hit piece to discredit Musk for no good reason (other than to appease short sellers)
  - notmypenguin 3y ago
    Musk was filmed with Brins ex wife, we all saw it. Musk unfortunately takes after his father.
    - try_the_bass 3y ago
      Did we? I didn't see it. Do you have a source?

xrd 4y ago

I'm really curious if this conversation happened: Musk: "hey Sergei, want in on this Twitter deal, say $2B? Ellison wants all of it, but I can hold $2b for you." Brin (to Musk): "No." Brin (to financial advisor): "Let's game plan out the impact on Tesla stock if Musk buys Twitter..."

klyrs 4y ago
I just reviewed the Signal chat disclosure; it doesn't look like Brin was invited.

jaclaz 4y ago

I don't understand, I am clearly missing something. >The Tesla shares were sold by Catalyst4 for $366 million over four days starting Dec. 14, 2021, the filings show. So, if Catalyst4 sold the shares in December 2021, it cannot have been created with them. On the other hand if the new organization is being setup now, where was the money stored since then?

fatfingerd 3y ago
I don't understand what is confusing. It was founded with assets (Tesla and Google shares) of which it must sell 5% a year but could sell a lot more.
- jaclaz 3y ago
  The article says that Catalist4 sold the Tesla stock in December 2021. Maybe Brin (or one of his companies/holding/whatever) sold them and later (when, in these days, 1 and a half year later?) this Catalist4 organization has been founded?
  - fatfingerd 3y ago
    > Another perk of 501(c)(4)s is secrecy. Catalyst4 had tax filings worth quoting in 2021 according to the article.. It's his newest ~nonprofit as far as we know, not a brand new nonprofit. It looks like it was was founded 10/22/2021 according to a CA DOJ search.
    - jaclaz 3y ago
      The article says that he is "setting up" a new one: >Google co-founder Sergey Brin is setting up a new half-billion-dollar nonprofit focused on health and climate change, and filings show the majority of funding so far comes from Tesla Inc. shares. > Catalyst4, the new organization, is a 501(c)(4), which allows Brin ... but it seems like that should have been more like (in plainer English): In 2021 Brin created a 501(c)(4) organization, named Catalyst4, to which (somehow) he conferred his Tesla stock that were later sold in December 2021, Bloomberg has learned only now by examining its past filings.