Revisiting Popular Year-End Deferred Charitable Giving Options
We thought it would be worthwhile to remind our readers about popular approaches for significant year-end charitable giving. In particular,…
September 28, 2017 at 05:17 PM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
We thought it would be worthwhile to remind our readers about popular approaches for significant year-end charitable giving. In particular, this article will review various charitable planning techniques whereby valuable income tax deductions can be generated currently, but the distributions to charitable recipients, and the decision making about which charitable recipients will benefit, may be postponed to later years.
Although charitable gifts can be made throughout the year, the end of the year is a popular time for donors to make final charitable giving decisions. This is mainly because it's the last opportunity to generate an income tax deduction for the year through a charitable gift. Also, as the holiday season gets underway, business affairs tend to slow down thereby providing some donors with the greatest giving capability extra time to reflect on more personal matters which include fulfilling charitable objectives. Of course, in many cases, another factor is that it's the only time of the year for many taxpayers to have a handle on the amount of surplus funds they have available for charitable giving after assessing their net income and expenditures for the year.
For folks who have had a particularly high income year (such as may be the case when a donor's business has had a particularly successful year, or, perhaps, due to a scheduled ROTH IRA conversion), it may be an ideal time to frontload gifts for future years. Such foresight allows a taxpayer to benefit in the current year from an income tax deduction attributable to the charitable contributions to be deployed further down the road. This can be accomplished in a number of ways—such as through a contribution to a donor advised fund, a private foundation, a charitable remainder trust, a charitable lead trust or even a gift of a remainder interest in a house. In considering such potential gifts, donors should check with their tax advisers (or run the numbers themselves) to understand how the potential phase out of their itemized deductions, based on a donor's income tax bracket, as well as general AGI limitations for charitable contributions, might impact the charitable deduction available for 2017. To the extent a deduction for charitable contributions might be limited in any particular year, generally the nondeductible amount will be available for use over the next 5 years as a “carry forward” item.
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 AllUnderstanding the One-Stop-Shop Rule: Navigating S Corporation Terminations and Revocations
6 minute readPa. Law Firm Sues IRS, Seeking Nearly $800K in Pandemic-Era Tax Credits
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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