It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
And...again this leaves more of a tax burden for us working schlubs to bear.
originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
Knew there had to be something to it because giving away 99% is way too much... even for him and his Family.
I reckon whoever is in charge of that Charity will be rolling in it for many years and rubbing their hands in glory!
I understood that to set up a Chairty (in the UK) you and especially family members could not have any 'benefits' otherwise it contravened the issue of what a charity actually is. Surely this applies to this particular tax dodge?
Donating appreciated stock is a much better tax move than selling it and donating the sales proceeds. After all, by donating the stock, the gain he would have experienced on selling it is never taxed. The donee organization can either hold or sell the stock. But since it is a tax-qualified charity, if it sells the stock it pays no tax regardless of how big the gain. And since Mr. Zuckerberg will get credit on his tax return for the market value of what he donates, he can use that to shelter billions of other income.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
Well blame Citiziens United for making this legal.
originally posted by: Crakeur
a reply to: tonycodes
In his defense, the foundation is required to donate the earnings and a minimum of 5% of its adjusted market value, annually. So, if the stock is valued at 45 billion, that's 2.25 billion in donations in one year. the tax advantages are huge but, honestly, there aren't too many people who are putting that much into charitable endeavors each year.