Major Lawsuit Against Fidelity's Charitable Gift Fund: Latest Development
In his Estate Planning and Philanthropy column, Conrad Teitell discusses a pending case in which donors claim Fidelity failed to follow their investment advice on a $100 million gift to Fidelity's Donor Advised Fund, resulting in damages for diminution of their charitable deduction and funds available to benefit charity.
April 24, 2020 at 12:30 PM
4 minute read
Quick background. Donors (husband and wife) claimed Fidelity failed to follow their investment advice on a $100 million gift to Fidelity's Donor Advised Fund (DAF) resulting in damages for diminution of their charitable deduction and funds available to benefit charity. Donors made their gifts to their DAF on Dec. 28 and 29, 2018 and allege they instructed Fidelity how and when to sell their large blocks of stock in the following year. Fidelity denied all donors' claims.
Last year, Fidelity's motion in a U.S. district court to dismiss donors' complaint was denied and a jury trial in California was expected this spring. Now the trial is subject to postponement due to the coronavirus crisis.
Now the latest development. Last month, a U.S. district court denied Fidelity's motion for summary judgment on its affirmative defenses of estoppel, waiver and unclean hands. So the case will go forward. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California: Emily Fairbairn v. Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, Order re: motions for summary judgment, RE: Dkt. Nos. 134, 136 (March 2, 2020). The summary judgment motions were denied by U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.)
What's at stake? For donors: damages for claimed reduction of their charitable deductions and the reduced amount placed in their DAF. For Fidelity, having to pay damages and a possible blot on its lily-white escutcheon.
How the donors will fare with the IRS isn't discussed by the court (other than to recite donors' claims that Fidelity's actions resulted in decreased charitable deductions for them).
My Speculations How the IRS Will View the Donors' Gifts:
- Assuming Fidelity received 700,000 Energous shares on Dec. 28, 2018 and had ownership on that date, that's the delivery date for determining the value of donors' gift (no matter how or when Fidelity sold those shares).
- Assuming Fidelity received 1.2 million Energous shares on Dec. 29, 2018 and had ownership on that date, that's the delivery date for determining the value of donors' gift (no matter how or when Fidelity sold those shares.
IRS will, I believe, follow these valuation rules:
- When there's a market for securities on a stock exchange, in an over-the-counter market or otherwise, fair market value is the mean between the highest and lowest quoted selling prices on the date the gift is delivered. Reg. §§20.2031-2(b), 25.2512-2 (b).
- Exception—adjustments for "blockage" may affect fair market value. A large block of stock may depress the market, driving prices downward. Reg. §§20.2031-2(e), 25.2512-2(e).
Suppose the facts alleged by d are found to be true. Although they made their gifts to the DAF on Dec. 28 and 29, 2018 they directed that their shares not be sold until 2019, the following year.
Query. When a transfer is made to charity but the charity is directed not to sell the assets until a later date, can this be construed as some type of split-interest gift not meeting any of the split interests that qualify for income and gift tax charitable deductions? Just asking.
And another thing. Suppose donors' succeed in collecting damages for the additional taxes they paid based on their claim of diminished tax savings resulting from smaller charitable deductions. Won't the money received as damages be subject to federal and California income taxes? So could donors claim additional damages "to make them whole" for the additional income taxes? Some kind of circular computation?
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 AllAttorney Sanctioned for Not Exercising Ordinary Care: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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