DarkRange55
We are now gods but for the wisdom
- Oct 15, 2023
- 2,053
Hmm… nonprofit… tax-free…
I have worked at the largest NGO in the world (Gates Foundation, my uncle golfs with their CFO and an ex's aunt was head of their nutrition department). I have also been involved both *with other family foundations on a personal level with my family and also in my line of work with other families. My friend is also an CPA for non-profits.
When you have ownership: taxes follow you, liability follows you and also sometimes fame follows you. And those three things can be problematic.
Many of the wealthiest people in the world, we don't even know their names because they have a ton of control but their names are not personally on the assets and wealth. Because of entities and structures and other things that they control that they're not given credit for intentionally.
When you have literally too much money to spend, you have a family foundation. You can put some of your money in there and not get taxed on it but still have control over it. They give strategically. Another wrapper to look charitable but ultimately just control money. So a lot of families have a foundation at the bottom of their structure (the web of corporations, trusts, family office, life insurance, etc.), because at the end of the day, all the money will eventually flow down to the foundation and the foundation is another example of control entities and when setup properly is amazing legacy tool to pass on money to the next generation. The money is either donated or flows from a trust. So by default foundations don't necessarily create a ton of income.
A private family foundation is a tax-exempt nonprofit, usually organized as a 501(c)(3), that wealthy families set up to manage philanthropy while maintaining long-term control. Once assets are contributed they legally belong to the foundation, not the donor, but in practice the family typically controls the board and therefore sets investment policy, chooses grantees, and directs operations. The tax treatment is favorable: contributions are deductible immediately, though subject to stricter caps than public charities—cash gifts are generally limited to 30% of AGI, and long-term appreciated property is capped at 20%. Donors avoid realizing capital gains on contributions of appreciated assets, but the deduction is usually limited to cost basis, except for "qualified appreciated stock" (publicly traded stock), which is deductible at fair market value. Assets inside the foundation compound with minimal drag, facing only a 1.39% excise tax on net investment income (interest, dividends, realized capital gains, net of related expenses).
The core compliance rule is the annual payout requirement: at least 5% of the average fair market value of non-charitable-use assets must be distributed each year. This is often simplified to "5% of net investment assets," but technically the IRS base is broader. Qualifying distributions include grants to public charities as well as reasonable expenses tied to charitable operations—program staff, compliance, and grant administration. Investment management costs don't count toward the 5%, though they do reduce net investment income for excise tax purposes. Family members can work for the foundation and receive compensation, but only for necessary personal services and at reasonable levels. That's a narrow carve-out from the otherwise strict self-dealing rules, which generally bar financial transactions between the foundation and disqualified persons (the founder, family members, and entities under their control). Other regimes also apply: excess business holdings rules prevent control of operating companies; jeopardizing investment rules prohibit high-risk strategies that could endanger charitable capital; and taxable expenditure rules limit or forbid certain spending such as political contributions and most lobbying unless handled through special procedures.
From a strategic perspective, foundations let families front-load tax deductions while retaining flexibility on when and where to grant. They can align giving with family values, support highly visible projects like named buildings, and build long-term philanthropic legacies. Structurally, a foundation usually sits alongside trusts, holding companies, insurance vehicles, and the family office in the broader estate and wealth-management framework. Excess distributions can be carried forward to offset future years' payout requirements, and first-year calculations are prorated.
At scale, foundations operate as instruments of influence. The Rockefeller Foundation reshaped education and public health; the Gates Foundation became synonymous with global vaccine programs; Zuckerberg's philanthropic efforts, through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, use an LLC structure paired with charities to allow both advocacy and for-profit impact investing—activities a pure private foundation cannot do. These cases illustrate that while the legal separation of assets is real, the practical control families retain is substantial.
All in all, a private family foundation isn't a loophole to claw back donated wealth—but it is a powerful vehicle for control. It delivers meaningful tax benefits, requires only a modest 5% annual payout on non-charitable-use assets, and gives families the ability to employ relatives, maintain governance, and deploy charitable capital in ways consistent with their long-term vision, all within a defined regulatory framework.
Nonprofit is a lot of things: Disaster cleanup, refugee humanitarian aide there's a shit ton of these non profits they all do different things but they all operate the same way…
NGO's - $7 million for a trans-awareness Facebook page. I created a low-quality Facebook page with 50 views, pay me $7 million... what I mean is, I knew a girl at the Gate's Foundation making good money (by most standards) and her job was designing Facebook pages about how milk was destroying Africa.
I don't even know what nonprofit means anymore after what I've seen. Just because it's a nonprofit doesn't mean they don't have money they still get government grants and funding. The people that work there aren't getting rich but they make really good money and the people on the board make way more it's ridiculous.
Check out Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT)
www.irs.gov
I have worked at the largest NGO in the world (Gates Foundation, my uncle golfs with their CFO and an ex's aunt was head of their nutrition department). I have also been involved both *with other family foundations on a personal level with my family and also in my line of work with other families. My friend is also an CPA for non-profits.
When you have ownership: taxes follow you, liability follows you and also sometimes fame follows you. And those three things can be problematic.
Many of the wealthiest people in the world, we don't even know their names because they have a ton of control but their names are not personally on the assets and wealth. Because of entities and structures and other things that they control that they're not given credit for intentionally.
When you have literally too much money to spend, you have a family foundation. You can put some of your money in there and not get taxed on it but still have control over it. They give strategically. Another wrapper to look charitable but ultimately just control money. So a lot of families have a foundation at the bottom of their structure (the web of corporations, trusts, family office, life insurance, etc.), because at the end of the day, all the money will eventually flow down to the foundation and the foundation is another example of control entities and when setup properly is amazing legacy tool to pass on money to the next generation. The money is either donated or flows from a trust. So by default foundations don't necessarily create a ton of income.
A private family foundation is a tax-exempt nonprofit, usually organized as a 501(c)(3), that wealthy families set up to manage philanthropy while maintaining long-term control. Once assets are contributed they legally belong to the foundation, not the donor, but in practice the family typically controls the board and therefore sets investment policy, chooses grantees, and directs operations. The tax treatment is favorable: contributions are deductible immediately, though subject to stricter caps than public charities—cash gifts are generally limited to 30% of AGI, and long-term appreciated property is capped at 20%. Donors avoid realizing capital gains on contributions of appreciated assets, but the deduction is usually limited to cost basis, except for "qualified appreciated stock" (publicly traded stock), which is deductible at fair market value. Assets inside the foundation compound with minimal drag, facing only a 1.39% excise tax on net investment income (interest, dividends, realized capital gains, net of related expenses).
The core compliance rule is the annual payout requirement: at least 5% of the average fair market value of non-charitable-use assets must be distributed each year. This is often simplified to "5% of net investment assets," but technically the IRS base is broader. Qualifying distributions include grants to public charities as well as reasonable expenses tied to charitable operations—program staff, compliance, and grant administration. Investment management costs don't count toward the 5%, though they do reduce net investment income for excise tax purposes. Family members can work for the foundation and receive compensation, but only for necessary personal services and at reasonable levels. That's a narrow carve-out from the otherwise strict self-dealing rules, which generally bar financial transactions between the foundation and disqualified persons (the founder, family members, and entities under their control). Other regimes also apply: excess business holdings rules prevent control of operating companies; jeopardizing investment rules prohibit high-risk strategies that could endanger charitable capital; and taxable expenditure rules limit or forbid certain spending such as political contributions and most lobbying unless handled through special procedures.
From a strategic perspective, foundations let families front-load tax deductions while retaining flexibility on when and where to grant. They can align giving with family values, support highly visible projects like named buildings, and build long-term philanthropic legacies. Structurally, a foundation usually sits alongside trusts, holding companies, insurance vehicles, and the family office in the broader estate and wealth-management framework. Excess distributions can be carried forward to offset future years' payout requirements, and first-year calculations are prorated.
At scale, foundations operate as instruments of influence. The Rockefeller Foundation reshaped education and public health; the Gates Foundation became synonymous with global vaccine programs; Zuckerberg's philanthropic efforts, through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, use an LLC structure paired with charities to allow both advocacy and for-profit impact investing—activities a pure private foundation cannot do. These cases illustrate that while the legal separation of assets is real, the practical control families retain is substantial.
All in all, a private family foundation isn't a loophole to claw back donated wealth—but it is a powerful vehicle for control. It delivers meaningful tax benefits, requires only a modest 5% annual payout on non-charitable-use assets, and gives families the ability to employ relatives, maintain governance, and deploy charitable capital in ways consistent with their long-term vision, all within a defined regulatory framework.
Nonprofit is a lot of things: Disaster cleanup, refugee humanitarian aide there's a shit ton of these non profits they all do different things but they all operate the same way…
NGO's - $7 million for a trans-awareness Facebook page. I created a low-quality Facebook page with 50 views, pay me $7 million... what I mean is, I knew a girl at the Gate's Foundation making good money (by most standards) and her job was designing Facebook pages about how milk was destroying Africa.
I don't even know what nonprofit means anymore after what I've seen. Just because it's a nonprofit doesn't mean they don't have money they still get government grants and funding. The people that work there aren't getting rich but they make really good money and the people on the board make way more it's ridiculous.
Check out Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT)
Charitable remainder trusts | Internal Revenue Service
Charitable remainder trusts are irrevocable trusts that allow people to donate assets to charity and draw income from the trust for life or for a specific time period.
Last edited:
