> Why does the article refer to this as a tax loophole? A "charitable donation" that mostly goes directly to lining the pockets of a for-profit entity shouldn'

> Why does the article refer to this as a tax loophole? A "charitable donation" that mostly goes directly to lining the pockets of a for-profit entity shouldn't be tax deductible, but in this case it is deductible -- hence, a tax loophole. In other words, charities getting into the side business of large-scale car sales to generate revenue bends the law in a direction its authors never intended [1]. In particular, the charities' for-profit partners in this side business end up with most of the revenue from an immediate liquidation of these tax-deductible donations -- and that outcome seems to go against the fundamental concept of tax-deductible charitable giving. This practice is apparently legal and lightly regulated, according to the article -- it's within the letter of the law. But it goes against the spirit of the law, which is that only donations to charities should be tax deductible. [1] This is according to the article's idea of the law's authors' intent: That charities would use the donated cars for their own operations, or give them to the poor people they serve. Is this picture of the law's authors' intentions correct? That's another discussion entirely.