$4.57 Million to Charity for Lunch With Warren Buffett—Deductible?
Estate Planning and Philanthropy columnist Conrad Teitell asks the question "What's the difference in the cost of a buffet lunch for eight people and a Buffett lunch for eight?" in the context of a cryptocurrency proponent who paid $4.57 million for a lunch with Warren Buffet.
June 21, 2019 at 12:45 PM
5 minute read
What's the difference in the cost of a buffet lunch for eight people and a Buffett lunch for eight?
That extra “t” in Buffett is going to cost you.
Cryptocurrency gazillionaire Justin Sun just paid $4.57 million in an online auction
by Glide, a San Francisco charity that aids the city's poor and homeless, for lunch with Warren Buffett in New York. Mr. Sun can invite seven guests to the lunch,
We all know that a donor has to reduce the charitable deduction by the value of any goods or services received.
The value of food and drink for eight in a New York restaurant: that's easy—$8,000 tops, including private room, taxes, tips, coat checking and valet parking.
But what about the value of “services”—lunch with the Oracle of Omaha? Over the years, the IRS hasn't claimed that paying to rub shoulders with a celebrity has a tangible value. But suppose that while the shoulders touch, you pick Mr. Buffett's brain for investment advice? That isn't on the menu for the Buffett lunch. But if advice is received, the charitable deduction would have to be reduced by the advice's fair market value.
Point. Mr. Buffett has been a strong critic of cryptocurrencies.
Counterpoint. Mr. Sun plans to invite other cryptocurrency entrepreneurs to the lunch. He says they'll try to convince Mr. Buffett that cryptocurrencies are good investments.
Query. Will Mr. Sun have to reduce a $4.57 million charitable deduction not just by the cost of the lunch, but also by the value of the opportunity of convincing Mr. Buffett to say good things about cryptocurrencies?
Not to worry about Mr. Sun. Any amount not deductible as a charitable gift, could be deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense.
Donors can rely on a charity's good faith estimate of value in determining how much of a payment to charity is deductible. The charity's estimate of value of goods and services is either: (1) a charity's contemporaneous written acknowledgment of a gift of $250 or more; or (2) a charity's written disclosure of a quid pro quo gift over $75. But a donor who knows, or has reason to know, that the charity's estimate of fair market value is unreasonable may not use the charity's valuation. Reg. §1.170A-1(h)(4).
Example—a good faith estimate of an auctioned item. Donor attends an auction held by Charity. Before the auction, Donor receives a catalog of items that will be available for bidding and Charity's good faith estimate of their value. The catalog qualifies as a written disclosure statement under IRC §6115. Donor successfully bids and pays $500 for a vase that Charity valued at $100. Donor has no reason to doubt the accuracy of that value. Donor's payment qualifies as a contribution. Before making the payment, she knew that the estimated value of the vase was less than her payment, and her payment exceeded the estimate. In determining the amount of her deduction, Donor may treat the vase's estimated $100 value as its FMV. Thus Donor is deemed to have contributed $400. Reg. §1.170A-1(h)(5), Ex. 2.
Ignorance is tax bliss. The following example is not from Treasury regulations, but is mine. It contrasts how much a knowledgeable donor and an unknowing donor are deemed to have contributed.
Example. Donor A bids and pays $2,000 for a lithograph valued at $500 in good faith by the charity in its auction catalog. Donor A, however, knows the lithograph is worth $1,600. He has seen that some lithograph selling in a number of downtown art galleries for $1,600. So, according to the regulations (above), he can only deduct $400. His twin brother, Donor B, bids on an identical lithograph at the same auction and gets the lithograph for $2,000. Donor B hasn't been to any of the art galleries and hasn't spoken to his twin in seven years. Further, Donor B doesn't know anything about art—only what he likes. Presumably, Donor B can deduct $1,500 ($2,000 paid minus $500 good faith estimate of value by the charity).
End note. Warren Buffett and I spoke for about 30 minutes before testifying at the Nov. 15, 2007 Senate Finance Committee hearing on Estate Tax Reform. It didn't cost Mr. Buffett a thin dime. The first thing he said to me was, “How do you pronounce your last name?” He then used my first name so often that it was noticeable. In an excellent biography of Mr. Buffett, “Snowball,” I learned that a certificate from the Dale Carnegie Institute hangs on the wall of his Omaha office.
Conrad Teitell is a principal at Cummings & Lockwood in Stamford, Conn.
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
© 2024 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 AllAs 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1A&O Shearman Corporate Partner Heads to Jones Day
- 2Funding Rebound: The Top 2024 Legal Tech Investments
- 3Presidential Pardons: A Tool That Can be Used to Move Forward
- 4Some of 2024's Most Notable GC Moves Were Drenched in Drama
- 5Will 2025 Bring a Change to Lawyers' Mandatory Pro Bono Duties Under 'Madden'?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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