Quantcast
Connect with us

How the Trump Foundation illustrates the limits of charity regulations

Published

on

Since 2008, nearly every donation Donald Trump’s foundation has made near his Mar-a-Lago mansion and club in Florida funded charities that hosted events there, according to recent investigative reporting.

This pattern, first reported by The Palm Beach Post, follows an accusation New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood made when she filed a lawsuit against the foundation, Trump and three of his adult children for an alleged “pattern of persistent illegal conduct.”

ADVERTISEMENT

I am a scholar of nonprofits who has researched their regulation since I served in the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Policy in the late 1980s. I find these reports about the Trump Foundation disturbing because they give the impression that the foundation was benefiting Trump’s business interests. And that is at odds with the purpose of philanthropy.

At the same time, based on the evidence currently available, I do not believe that the Trump family will have to pay penalties, much less face criminal charges, even if the reports of self-serving charity are true.

A suspicious pattern

The newspaper found that eight charities received donations, typically of US$25,000, from the Trump Foundation after they changed plans to hold their galas and other events at Mar-a-Lago instead of at other venues.

The most notable on the list was the Red Cross Ball, although that organization did cancel its 2018 soiree altogether and it will hold its next ball at the Norton Museum of Art.

These gifts from the Trump Foundation to the nonprofits that doubled as Mar-a-Lago’s clients make it seem as if the donations were a quid pro quo for doing business with Trump. Even if the charities managed to use that glitzy venue at a bargain rate, any explicit arrangement would still violate relevant tax laws that prohibit transactions that benefit foundation insiders.

ADVERTISEMENT

The nonprofits, however, deny that there were any strings attached to their gifts from the Trump Foundation. Instead, they say, the donations came as a “surprise.”

One reason why this venue moving stood out is that it clashed with a regional trend. More than two dozen charities that had held events at Mar-a-Lago stopped doing that in the 2017-2018 gala season.

Mar-a-Lago.
(AP Photo/Lynne Sladky

Self-dealing rules

Since 1969, the Internal Revenue Code has included a set of onerous excise taxes – a kind of fine designed to prevent self-dealing by private foundations, such as when they make business transactions that involve insiders, like their board members or executives.

ADVERTISEMENT

These penalties apply in many different situations. They can be a way to punish private foundations for lavishing donations on people and charities closely related to their leaders. More typically, foundations pay off the debts insiders owe or manipulate prices.

Although the tax code provisions that spell out what constitutes using philanthropic money for non-charitable purposes are broadly defined, I do not believe that they would apply with the Trump Foundation’s alleged behavior involving Mar-a-Lago fundraising events.

ADVERTISEMENT

Nonetheless, this alleged pattern does reinforce widespread concerns about how that foundation operated.

Philanthropy requires more than following the letter of the law.
Shutterstock.com/Ribah

Not technically illegal

While it might seem that using assets of the Donald J. Trump Foundation to benefit Mar-a-Lago clients who rent the venue for their fundraising events could have broken tax rules, no evidence of an agreement between the foundation and the charities that held Mar-a-Lago events has come to light.

But in my view, private foundations have a responsibility to do more than merely comply with tax laws in a technical sense. They have a duty to serve public, not private, interests.

ADVERTISEMENT


The Conversation

Giving the impression that the foundation’s charitable gifts were somehow tied to driving business to Mar-a-Lago, like New York Attorney General Underwood’s accusations, I believe, demonstrate the Trump Foundation’s failure to see its purpose as pursuing a charitable mission.

Ellen P. Aprill, Professor of Law; John E. Anderson Chair in Tax Law, Loyola Law School Los Angeles

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

AG Bill Barr will ‘try to interfere’ in the 2020 election to re-elect Trump: MSNBC national affairs analyst

Published

on

Attorney General William Barr will use the Department of Justice to "try to interfere" in the 2020 presidential election to re-elect Donald Trump, MSNBC's national affairs analyst predicted on Tuesday.

John Heilemann was interviewed by Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC's "The Last Word."

"The attorney general, from the moment he walked into this job, has behaved in a -- as a ruthless, relentless political hack and a thug and who has behaved not as attorney general of the United States," Heilemann said.

"He made a travesty of the Mueller report and continues to lie on Donald Trump's behalf at every opportunity," he added.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump welcomed Russia’s Sergey Lavrov to the White House — to humiliate us all

Published

on

Despite the fact that President Donald Trump still refuses to have Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to Washington for an officials meeting — a topic at the center of the scandal driving Trump’s impeachment — the White House hosted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Monday.

And while Lavrov was honored with his second private Oval Office meeting (the first one was a cataclysmic disaster) and a press conference with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the foreign minister took his opportunity here to repeatedly humiliate the United States.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

United States, Mexico, Canada finalize Donald Trump’s USMCA trade deal

Published

on

The United States, Mexico and Canada signed a deal Tuesday to finalize their new trade agreement, paving the way to ratification after more than two years of arduous negotiations.

However, the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in the US Senate would likely delay Congressional ratification of the agreement until next year, said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

In reality, it is the second time the three countries have triumphantly announced the conclusion of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the deal meant to replace the 25-year-old NAFTA, which President Donald Trump complains has been "a disaster" for the US.

Continue Reading