Crypto-Enabled Charity Donations Raise As Many Questions as Dollar Signs
Charities that incorporate blockchain into their organizations could allow for donations that are more transparent and secure, but the regulatory risks could outweigh the monetary rewards.
July 15, 2019 at 11:00 AM
3 minute read
Major charities such as the Red Cross have already taken advantage of the transparency benefits offered by cryptocurrency donations, which use blockchain's distributive ledger technology to allow for secure payments without the involvement of a bank or intermediary.
Still, there are some serious regulatory question marks related to tax and privacy laws that might—at least for the time being—make the whole endeavor more trouble than it's worth.
“You can assume and imagine that there are a lot of charities out there that don't really understand what [is] cryptocurrency… You have to make sure that they are totally set up to intake and process this, and I think that most of them are very, very much behind the curve,” said Katya Fisher, a partner and leader of the blockchain, digital assets and technology transactions practice group at Greenspoon Marder.
One of the more prevalent complications is that the valuation of cyrptocurrency, such as Bitcoin or Ethereum, can vary wildly depending on the fluctuating state of the market. Fisher indicated that organizations receiving payment in cryptocurrency should convert to fiat—government-established paper money—almost immediately in order to maintain the value as it stood at the time of submission.
Such an objective is difficult for a charitable organization to accomplish without the proper infrastructure in place, but failure to do so could have serious repercussions come tax season for non-profits and donors alike. In the U.S., for example, donors who contribute to charity using a cryptocurrency have to determine the fair market value of the donation as it stood on the date of payment.
“An open question currently is whether a qualified appraisal is necessary for a crypto donation above $5,000—and if it is necessary, it will certainly be difficult to identify a qualified appraiser in this field,” Fisher said.
Putting aside the IRS for second, there are also a multitude of privacy regulators operating in different jurisdictions across the globe who might also have something to say about the way a charitable organization conducts its crypto-donations.
One of the major selling points of blockchain is the immutability of its ledger, meaning that the data contained therein can't be changed. But this could actually prove to be an inadvertent liability for a charity operating under the prerogative of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), where citizens have the right to opt out or be forgotten.
“How you have an immutable piece of data about an EU citizen making a charitable contribution then gets very complicated,” said Peter Vogel, of counsel at Foley & Lardner.
Further complicating matters is the corresponding newness of both blockchain technology and many of the international laws surrounding privacy. There's not yet a great deal of case law involving distributive ledger technology for charities to fall back upon for guidance when drafting their terms of service or click agreements. Vogel said these agreements are typically tailored to reflect to expectations of whatever jurisdiction the charitable organization expects to either collect donations from or use to store data.
A few countries such as Malaysia have already put regulations into place regarding cryptocurrency, but Vogel doesn't expect to see all of the moving parts around blockchain synchronized any time soon.
“I don't think it's happening tomorrow,” he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Pogo Stick Maker Wants Financing Company to Pay $20M After Bailing Out Client
- 2Goldman Sachs Secures Dismissal of Celebrity Manager's Lawsuit Over Failed Deal
- 3Trump Moves to Withdraw Applications to Halt Now-Completed Sentencing
- 4Trump's RTO Mandate May Have Some Gov't Lawyers Polishing Their Resumes
- 5A Judge Is Raising Questions About Docket Rotation
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250