You must log in or register to comment.

Ground2ChairMissile t1_j8obq2q wrote

"The filing did not name the recipient, or recipients, of the donation."

All you need to know.


Notorious_Junk t1_j8pw52u wrote

How is this legal? Don't you have to prove the money went to an actual charity?


Badtrainwreck t1_j8q3ftd wrote

Based on how the legal system works (and how billionaires like Bill Gates and others use them) he likely setup a 501c3 that he fully controls, donated money to himself to avoid taxes, and since the charity is in control of Tesla stocks, it can use those stocks to take loans in which it pays the lowest interest rates, then that charity will create programs that appear to help underprivileged communities, but in reality the focus will be in driving up the value of the Tesla stock within its possession. This can of course have benefits for others but not even close to the valuation of the stock it holds.


voyageur77 t1_j8sjer1 wrote

This is actually completely illegal, is there a link with info about anyone ever doing this? All 501(c)(3)s are a public record on the IRS website so this should be really easy to prove. He may have donated shares to his own foundation but the rest of this isn't real.


Badtrainwreck t1_j8srvgm wrote

This is the info just off the website of the foundation, you can follow the trail of you want, but it’s all just linked to nonprofits being used to increase stock value, and while packaged to look like they are just helping small businesses grow and make more money from selling to a particular corporation.


voyageur77 t1_j8sseyo wrote

This doesn't say anything at all about anyone donating stock or a non-profit taking out loans against donated stock.


Badtrainwreck t1_j8szbao wrote

That’s specifically why I said you can follow the trail if you want, there are several articles you can find about billionaires and how they use charities.

This is an example of a billionaire who honestly has done something as close to good as a billionaire can, but the truth is in the way he donated his business, he still has ultimate control over it because he controls the charity, so if it is used for good (as he has used it for good in the past, there’s no reason to question him in my opinion) is up to him, but the reality is if he wanted then he can just do what he wants.

You’ll see this also in how billionaires setup trusts and nonprofits for their children to control which contain within them all their finances and businesses. It’s just piecing together the 1000 loopholes in the system.

I can’t send you one article because there is no one article that says all this that I know of, but just google how billionaires used charity’s and you’ll find many reputable sources who speak about this.

Taking out loans for example is just how billionaires operate, purchasing a yacht by using stock as collateral and then using the yacht as an asset for future loans in which gives them access to an eternal loan of almost no interest. When they give stock to a charity, the charity can act in the same way, because of loopholes within the system

Edit: if you don’t think this is possible, and you’re just trying to argue with me because you disagree then please feel free to not respond any further, but if you’re genuinely interested and willing to take some time to look into shit also then I could find more things later on after work, but I don’t want to waste my time on someone who is just going to say “naw” no matter what.


voyageur77 t1_j8t4su9 wrote

It is quite simply extremely illegal for a charity to buy a yacht for the founder to use. These loopholes don't exist. They're reddit "rich people bad" conspiracy theories, like the grocery store getting a tax deduction when you round up the change for charity.


Badtrainwreck t1_j8towtc wrote

It’s not rich people bad, it’s not about buying a yacht for wealthy person to use, you’re using my thrown out example to explain to you the basics of something as literal.

People and organizations with a lot of stocks, use that stocks to buy an asset, they then take loans against that asset. Nothing stops a nonprofit from buying property, nothing says they can only own specific assets.

investing in property is a normal way to protect wealth. It’s not rich people bad, it’s this is what’s normal. You might not like it but the difference between a nonprofit and a profit driven organization is that a for profit institutions goals is to increase profit for its shareholders. A nonprofit can do the exact same but instead be used to drive wages for the workers.

I’ve remodeled a nursing home which no longer existed but their paperwork was still there, that’s how I learned the not for profit was being used to fund the director because the director purchased the property the nursing home operated on, the nursing home took care of all maintenance and costs, and the director just took a large amount in rent. Very legal, very normal, very much a for profit hidden as a nonprofit


voyageur77 t1_j8tuh1e wrote

How does that avoid any taxes? The director has to pay taxes on the rent received from the non-profit, while the non-profit has no use for deducting rent expenses.

Non profits are not allowed to own whatever investments they want and do whatever they want with the money, look up Unrelated Business Taxable Income for example. A charity that is controlled by some rich guy will only qualify as a private foundation instead of a public charity. It is then not allowed to own a large amount of stock, and not allowed to pay high salaries or rent to the family members. It must operate exclusively for charitable purposes, it cannot act to favor the family's business. All the income and spending goes on Form 990 for the IRS to see.

The IRS isn't dumb. The scams you're describing are tax fraud and they will get you audited. There are hundreds of pages of IRS rules against this kind of stuff.


turtlejelly1 t1_j8tyll1 wrote

The IRS is not dumb but they have to work within the legal system. The system has flaws. Wealth can navigate flaws and unfortunately take advantage of it while the IRS watches.


Badtrainwreck t1_j8u4fo2 wrote

Some of what I’m saying is the expression of parts of the system, not that every part of it “avoids taxes” we are talking about 501c3s as a whole. The avoiding taxes is from a part of the discussion where instead of my dying and leaving you a company which is at risk of the estate tax, I can create an entity which I give you control over and it avoids the tax, because it’s not longer inheritance it’s just transferring control of the create entity.

The IRS says you can be reasonably compensated, but again this isn’t the point or the issue, because what billionaire is “reasonably compensated” because Jeff Bezos is paid 88,840 but is that the limits of his worth? If salary is the end all be all then I’m absolutely wrong, but if you’re a major shareholder of a company, and you donate money as a write off to a company that then spends that money on increasing the value of your asset, raising the value of the charitable work they do on the books and they transfer that into stronger lobbying ties then you’re still using a nonprofit in a legal way that is still in your own interest.

That’s the problem, not billionaire bad, not system broken I now cry, but nonprofits have almost no real oversight and there are plenty which operate as if they are for profit organizations.

This is just about the fact that there is a real system in which nonprofits can be useful for enriching yourself


turtlejelly1 t1_j8ty7eu wrote

I don’t think you understand the legal system… They are utilizing loop holes that are in the system which appear illegal and the system knows there is a loop hole that is being utilized. They won’t do anything about it because it helps the .01%.


voyageur77 t1_j8u0lul wrote

As a lawyer who actually works on these issues, I think I have a pretty good idea of how the system works.


turtlejelly1 t1_j8u1ktq wrote

Oh, I’ll find my own way out! I hope you take advantage of your skills and loopholes that the .01% know since you studied and worked hard to attain! And then you can teach us!


Pussy_handz t1_j8uwj61 wrote

LuL My reddit and personal googling says this bullshit...Yeah well Im a fucking lawyer that specializes in it. Actually perfect.


Badtrainwreck t1_j8ukdfe wrote

If you’re a lawyer, then you know the ways in which people abuse nonprofits, but you haven’t stated anything in how they abuse them, you’ve just essentially said “rich people not bad, they aren’t doing anything illegal.” Then you’ve asked me to explain to you all the basics, which are simple things which you should already know, especially you shouldn’t have been confused by anything since your expertise would inform you even if I’m piss poor at explaining it.

It’s more likely you’re not a lawyer or you’re a lawyer who helps people take advantage of the loopholes that exist and on your spare time you defend what you do on the internet.


voyageur77 t1_j8un919 wrote

You aren't explaining the "basics", all of your info is completely wrong. That's why I stopped responding to you, but I guess I can do one more.

You say that putting a business into an entity avoids estate tax: wrong, the value of the entity is still subject to estate tax. You say transferring "control" of the entity instead of giving the business at death doesn't count as inheritance and avoids tax: wrong, you would just owe gift tax instead of estate tax at the exact same tax rate, AND lose the step-up in tax basis from inheritance. (By the way, inheritance tax is not the same thing as estate tax, you seem to be mixing them up). You think Musk gets to write off donating $2 billion of stock to his foundation: wrong, the deduction for giving stock to your foundation is limited to 30% of AGI, and his AGI is not that much. You say the foundation can spend its money to increase the value of Tesla: wrong, it is illegal for a foundation to promote a for-profit business instead of charitable purposes. You say the foundation then spends its money on lobbying: wrong, it is illegal for a foundation to do a significant amount of lobbying, and any lobbying expenses have such a high penalty that basically nobody does it.

These are all actual IRS rules that exist. You have no sources for what you're saying because it doesn't exist in the real world. Where did you hear this stuff anyway, it has to be either Reddit comments or TikTok?


Badtrainwreck t1_j8upqrl wrote

If you create the nonprofit, and within its bylaws you’re an employee who just runs the nonprofit, then your child can take control just by being the next employee in line to takeover. It’s not a gift it’s a job.

Let’s not overcomplicate this, whomever is in control of the board is in control. How you gain control does not need to be a gift or an inheritance.

You said it’s illegal to promote a for profit business as a nonprofit, but what does promote mean? It’s about not letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Coca-Cola works with the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to increase the number of farmers producing the ingredients they need for their products. The charity is just doing charitable work and the Coca-Cola company is just donating money to a charity.

You say a nonprofit can’t lobby, not all lobbying is lobby the way we see it, it can simply be the bill and Melinda gates foundation holding a fundraiser to help with increasing access to vaccines and a few politicians attend to increase their healthcare credentials and rub shoulders with rich and powerful donors.

It’s not about everything being illegal, but it’s about creating environments in which the parties involved benefit.


voyageur77 t1_j8v1aae wrote

A private foundation cannot own more than 20% of a company, so no, you can't pass control over the board of a business to your kids this way. And there is no tax advantage to Coca Cola paying farmers through a charity. They could pay directly and deduct it as a business expense anyway. What tax do you think this is cheating on?


Badtrainwreck t1_j8v21cb wrote

Cheating on taxes? Again remember you and me have spoken about several ways in which nonprofits are used to increase someone’s financial position, not all ways involve taxes. One way was using a nonprofit to create rental income on property the nonprofit utilizes. That’s not avoiding taxes that’s benefiting financially in a legal method by utilizing a nonprofit in a way to enrich oneself.

Because Coca-Cola wants to do business with bill gates, he is one of the primary shareholders of Coca-Cola, plus Coca-Cola wants to be able to pay farmers less money for their products but there aren’t enough farmers producing what they want, so they are increasing the number of farmers to increase competitiveness to drive cocacolas costs further into the ground


voyageur77 t1_j8v2mta wrote

Bill Gates does not own any Coca Cola stock. Zero. Google says their foundation sold all of it 8 years ago. Your information is comically bad.


Badtrainwreck t1_j8v42eg wrote

I’m an idiot, I can’t believe I wasn’t able to do a simple google search, egg on my face. Had I googled it I’d have seen that they disinvested in 2014, and I’d have also seen they did the charity work to increase the number of farmers in 2010! 4 years before selling and as we all know that time travel isn’t possible, but idk I’m not a lawyer


Badtrainwreck t1_j8uz3da wrote

I just want to add you’ve seen the link of the Bill Gates Foundation offering grants to help farmers produce ingredients Coca-Cola needs, but it’s also important to know that Bill Gates stock ownership is public and he owns 1.599 billion in Coca-Cola stocks, so if you’re a lawyer and all of this sounds illegal, then we should have someone investigate. The government clearly isn’t


Taxing t1_j8q4yw8 wrote

Proven to the IRS, not to the public. Form 990 PF’s are publicly available, so if you’re patient you can review his private foundation’s return for 2023 in 2024 and reconcile the donation amounts to confirm it is the recipient.


Ground2ChairMissile t1_j8pww9b wrote

It depends. It's customary to supply a receipt with a charitable donation of any decent size for which you're claiming a tax rebate, but as far as I know, it's not actually legally required.

If you get audited and you don't have that receipt, you're up shit creek. But as we've seen the last few years, the IRS doesn't have the balls to go up against rich people's accountants and lawyers to get the tax revenue they're dodging — they'd rather raid some little mom-and-pop donut shop to demand receipts for bulk toilet paper.


genericrich t1_j8sprct wrote

It's his charity? It's him? He donated to himself? lol


herewego199209 t1_j8o8ge4 wrote

Is it his own charity like last time?


GRZMNKY t1_j8o95ta wrote

Most likely


herewego199209 t1_j8oax6p wrote

I'm sure the IRS will diligently look into how those funds are taken out of the charity as well. /s


Honest_Palpitation91 t1_j8oilw8 wrote

Yes. Looking for the tax break.


AdRelevant3167 t1_j8p2l7n wrote

That’s not how tax breaks work.


[deleted] t1_j8p5n0c wrote



voyageur77 t1_j8sjzfy wrote

No, it's not. There are IRS rules that limit deducting donations to your own charity.


AdRelevant3167 t1_j8p67gy wrote

What happens to the money in his own charity? You can’t just spend it on anything.


mumpie t1_j8p7ene wrote

You can use it for normal business purposes like hiring yourself as the CEO of the charity and paying market rates as salary.

That's what the founder of the Susan G Koman Foundation (the pink "for the cure" breast cancer charity) did. According to the following article she made $684K in salary in 2012:


mazlix t1_j8s49qs wrote

You’d have to pay ordinary income on that salary though.

Donating stock has a different advantage though. Normally you pay cap gains but if you donate the shares themselves you don’t pay cap gains. This way you can sort of profit from a rise in share price without actually dumping all that extra liquidity into the market. For an ordinary person selling a stock doesn’t move the market but for Elon it can


chevalier716 t1_j8p4kz7 wrote

>The filing did not name the recipient, or recipients, of the donation.

Or using it to launder bribes


pressedbread t1_j8r2lht wrote

Very likely its a "non-profit" that only engages in right-wing political contributions.


turtlejelly1 t1_j8tys4r wrote

He donated to himself. This is not to benefit the charity, it’s to benefit the next step in the grand scheme. I have no idea what that is but I bet you it’s not to help those in need as being a priority.


illneverstopCBS t1_j8obgy1 wrote

In other words Elon Musk moved money from his right pocket to his left.


thorpeedo22 t1_j8o8083 wrote

I’ll just donate all of this money to MY charity here, and alls good.


aught-o-mat t1_j8oad67 wrote

This. Billionaires should not be the arbiters of public good.


Jaded_Prompt_15 t1_j8od1bk wrote

>The filing did not name the recipient, or recipients, of the donation.

In the past he's "donated" to his own foundation...

Same strategy trump did, then the foundation can be used as a slush fund


EvaUnit_03 t1_j8o92wu wrote

Its called a tax write-off, not an act of compassion.


AdRelevant3167 t1_j8p366r wrote

There’s no outcome where you end up with more money by donating $2 billion of shares instead of simply selling those shares and paying taxes on the gains.


ArchaicTravail t1_j8p45dp wrote

Except when you donate it to a non-profit that you run yourself and steal the money from there. See also: the previous US president.


EvaUnit_03 t1_j8p4snk wrote

Most tax donations writeoffs are worth 50% towards your taxed income. If you also 'lose' money in that fiscal year you also can write that off. Combine those two together and its a recipe to dodge taxation.


Not-another-rando t1_j8p3i2p wrote

Unless the act and optics of selling 2bn of your shares would make the rest worth far less


Soupdeloup t1_j8o867f wrote

>The donation of 11.6 million shares was described in a filing with US regulators as "a bona fide gift".

>The filing did not name the recipient, or recipients, of the donation.



Throwaway08080909070 t1_j8o7vr3 wrote

Ah, the Bill Gates maneuver, it can work given how ridiculously short the collective memory is.


steepleton t1_j8ofglw wrote

And as if to prove it, it was originally the Alfred Nobel manoeuvre


Tonyhillzone t1_j8oazka wrote

Trying to make people forget that he's an idiot and asshole.


tinypolski t1_j8px43s wrote

By being an idiot and an arsehole?


Tonyhillzone t1_j8q3uf6 wrote

I'm actually not sure which is grammatically correct. Perhaps it's both.


vomitHatSteve t1_j8o91kn wrote

I too often find myself donating less than 1% of my net worth to charity. My DM's are open for media inquiries, BBC.


VendorBuyBankGuards t1_j8p84nr wrote

Elon Musk is working with fascists. See the photos of him sitting with Rupert Murdoch (Fox News owner and responsible for Hannity and Tucker Carlson and really Trump/MAGA) and then at the World Cup with fascist and Trump family (Jared Kushner).

Anyone buying the illusion that this guy isn't supporting fascists, isn't paying attention. It's not a coincidence he shut off Ukraine's use of his Starlink on the eve a bigger uptick in Russian military activity.


sodiumbigolli t1_j8sphbl wrote

Why is it hard for anyone to imagine that the literal richest guy on the planet ever is a fascist?


splurb t1_j8o8v83 wrote

Still blocking Starlink for Ukraine? Not very charitable really.


mdog73 t1_j8om7js wrote

Nice, good to give a portion of your abundance to worthy causes.


Ok_Ninja_1602 t1_j8q6e43 wrote

"So Elon, I hear you donated 2 billion dollars for all of us to the Human Fund? Right...."


caged_jon t1_j8smw4u wrote

The Human Fund: Money for People


Ok_Ninja_1602 t1_j8stchq wrote

Conceptually it's a great idea 💡 coming from Costanza it could be morally bankrupt Elon is audacious enough to discard the moral aspects and go for broke


CandyFromABaby91 t1_j8rnnal wrote

I was outraged at first. But looks like Elon was not promoting this, people found it in an SEC filing. As long as it’s legal, I guess it’s his money.

If we don’t like this, maybe as the people we should change the law(or elect someone that will).


discgman t1_j8shfgi wrote

No name of charity, just the write off for tax purposes.


Acceptable-Milk-314 t1_j8skj0d wrote

This just in: local billionaire launders money without covering tracks at all.


Vourinen22 t1_j8slh9y wrote

Anything except paying taxes, huh?


bostonjames6 t1_j8sn9h1 wrote

He paid well over $10B in taxes recently. Not enough for you? Largest tax bill in history I believe.


Vote_nihilist t1_j8tjaca wrote

So? Doesn't change the fact that he's just doing this to lower his tax payments. Not a single iota of altruism driving this.


Qu33nKal t1_j8oirmr wrote

Can we stop making a big deal about celebrities donating to charities? Call me when they all decide to properly pay their taxes and help out the economy.


jsonh88 t1_j8oracn wrote

You do realise that according to CNBC Elon has paid 15 billion on taxes in 2021?

The ignorance in some people.


somaliaveteran t1_j8rtjae wrote

No matter how much reason or logic you try to give the Anti-Musk Reddit Hive mind, they will just be more angered. We will accept our downvotes and continue to be called “Elon Pecker Suckers.”


MonsieurKnife t1_j8ovkfl wrote

"The filing did not name the recipient, or recipients, of the donation."

Own charity I bet:

- cronies/family members on the board/employed at outrageous salaries

- tax write-off

- attempt to repair image


Hsensei t1_j8q5do5 wrote

He could setup a 503.c that names himself as the charity.


MrSheevPalpatine t1_j8rxmzs wrote

Billionaire philanthropy isn't the solution to the world's problems, never has been and never will be.


deadcrusade t1_j8se6qo wrote

btw why is this in tech? besides him being a tech bro, it is either a scam, tax write off or some other convoluted way for him to make money, fuck him


tavesque t1_j8skns8 wrote

Elon Musk shifts funds around to avoid taxes. There, thats more realistic


cyberdeath666 t1_j8ss3kg wrote

Here’s some theoretical money, I’m good guy!


Vote_nihilist t1_j8tj5ao wrote

All about taxes, he doesn't give a damn about poor people.


venti_cocaine_latte t1_j8x89p8 wrote

Which charities? I don’t think proud boys and patriot front count as charities


jh937hfiu3hrhv9 t1_j8ofmy1 wrote

Pretending to be magnanimous when it does not cost anything.


VdomanFla t1_j8p0ukz wrote

Charitable contribution to the Cheeto-god.


WinningRemote t1_j8p4z3k wrote

He gets to get the tax write-off at current inflated value and also use the money to fund anything he wants through his private foundation.


Apprehensive_Cow911 t1_j8p52ic wrote

TIL Narcissistic Billionaire Morons Without Filters is a charity organization.


thegurba t1_j8r75dg wrote

This is not the tax evasion you’re looking for


markskull t1_j8rsoc8 wrote

Up-vote for visibility and relevance, but man, he is a scumbag! "Charity." Sure. No one knows who's getting the cash, so sure.

I wouldn't be shocked if it went to the Elon Musk Human Fund.


kfractal t1_j8p7e6o wrote

elon stans self identifying by posting unrelated dreck?


Adorable-Ad-3223 t1_j8piwl1 wrote

I don't believe it. Like literally I don't believe this is true in any way. It is more untraceable money going to some "charity" but for whatever reason the name of the charity and what it does will go unnamed.


Head-Advantage2461 t1_j8rojm3 wrote

Couldn’t possibly b a grift with this, “The filing did not name the recipient, or recipients, of the donation.”


2222ol t1_j8piutl wrote

This really fixes him being bffs with rupert murdoch and earning his billions off the back of stolen wages. He's a brave hero and he will make us a space faring society. thank u elon


marcololol t1_j8pukc1 wrote

"The filing did not name the recipient, or recipients, of the donation."

All you need to know.


daniel_bran t1_j8q0v8a wrote

I don’t believe anything Elon does anymore. He probably owns the charity he donated to. That’s how sneaky this guy is


geockabez t1_j8od1j8 wrote

The shares are worthless.


jsonh88 t1_j8ohtsv wrote

Never seen a larger bunch of such hateful people. How do you twist this to all be negative when someone donates to charity? How?


mredofcourse t1_j8oskma wrote

It's less than 1% of his net worth.

It's a tax write off.

It's essentially him saying, "Instead of paying my ridiculously low relative share of taxes, I'm going to take as much of that money as I can and allocate it to causes I want to further in my own personal interests".

Since it's not transparent, we don't know how much is being given to things like AI research or other things where he may be directly benefiting from those donations.

All of this combined makes the headline not quite what it appears to be.


Lanfear_Eshonai t1_j8qssvm wrote

> It's less than 1% of his net worth. It's a tax write off.

If the money donated is actually used for charitable causes, does it matter?

> Instead of paying my ridiculously low relative share of taxes

What? $11 billion personal tax in 2021 not good enough?

> Since it's not transparent,

That can be a valid concern.


mredofcourse t1_j8r1fil wrote

>[less than 1% of net worth and it's a tax write-off] If the money donated is actually used for charitable causes, does it matter?

Yes in two ways.

First there's the issue of this being newsworthy and the context of judging him as a person. The reality is a larger number of Americans donate a far greater percentage. His percentage is nothing special other than it's incredibly low considering how much he has not only as disposable income, but billions upon billions that could never be reasonably personally consumed. This compares to taking away 1% from some people and they're missing meals.

The second way it matters is that we have a society where we have elections and vote on issues. We the people have a government that collects taxes and we decide what we're going to spend that money on. We can collectively say how much we want to spend on education, the military, healthcare, infrastructure, etc...

But when we allow someone to take their share of taxes and spend it only on what they want to prioritize, then it's taking away from the democratic process. Again, it's even worse when the diversion of money ends up directly or indirectly benefiting him.

>What? $11 billion personal tax in 2021 not good enough?

Just looking at his wiki page as I don't want to spend too much time on this... he had a net worth of $27 billion at the start of 2020 and that ballooned to $300 billion in November 2021. So no, I don't think $11 billion was enough.

It's hard to find exactly what his tax rate is for a variety of reasons (including a likely deduction on that $11 billion), but a lot of sources are showing between 2013 and 2018 he paid 27 percent. Yes, that's way too low.