The mega corporation did not receive any tax benefit from collecting donations. They are able to write off the amount of donations from their income, so that they aren’t paying tax on the money they collected specifically to be donated.
Company collects $1 donation from customer
Company has $1 extra income
Company donates $1 to charity
Company writes that dollar off of their income.
Company reports the exact same profit/loss as if they had not collected donations.
I hate how charities are run by rich assholes who pay themselves or their family and friends 6 to 7 figures while doing very little to actually help people
If they match donations, they are entitled to a tax break on their own donations.
The only issue with matching is that you don’t have a say in the charity. Do your homework. If it’s a legitimate charity, then it’s better to donate through a company that matches donations.
The kickback is also in saying that they donated the money to charity … which was collected from other people
It’s like I asked you to donate money to a charity and I said I had to be the one to collect it … then I take your money and donate it in my name … basically, I took your generosity and claimed it as my own.
In many cases company’s also understand that they can’t openly do this because it would be too obvious … instead they just ride the generosity gravy train … they encourage people to donate to charities through their store/company/business … then the company may or may not give their own contributions but they get to attach their name to the donated amounts.
It’s like a billionaire selling you a can a beans and then asking you to donate a penny to a charity … I always say no because the idiot billionaire could spare 1% of their wealth and give millions of dollars to charities everywhere, why the hell are you asking me?
I never give to charities through a store/company or business … I give directly to charities on my own.
It’s a marketing thing. Stuff like this creates the illusion that they’re good corporate citizens.
Of course, they could donate a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of their own profits and make a much bigger impact, but that would set a bad precedent! Giving away your money is only for the working class!
The non-profit can hire the company executive and pay them, which if I understand correctly is exempt from income tax.
I think this can be a way for executives to avoid income tax: basically donate to a foundation through obscured means (crypto, purchase from third party, etc), then get non-profit money with exemption. They probably need to jump through many hoops and it is very likely still illegal, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this is common.
But anyway the couple dime people are donating probably is neglegible for tax purposes (I am guessing, I don’t have data). Yet I see no reason not to just donate to a charity you trust online…
Also the political/social influence is real. Why bribe the government when you can outsource it to you and say it’s for a good cause. But the reality of the situation is they are giving a politician what they want and if the politician do something they don’t like they can move that “donation” to someone else.
Couldn’t the CEO of the nonprofit be the spouse of the CEO and make a huge percentage of what they donate?
Not saying donating through a mega corporation is always bad, but I’d prefer to look into who I’m donating to rather than a split second thought at the end of a transaction.
this! the megacorporation receives 500k donations, which they transfer to CEO’s son’s “charity” that spends 99% of it on the said son’s salary. he buys another ferrari and the charity sends some flowers to a children cancer hospital.
Yeah obviously they have employees who get paid, but if a large portion of new donations just paid a CEO pay, that’s not exactly discreet fraud when the IRS comes around looking.
They do get a whole lot of advertising, social capital, and influnce over which causes get proped up, on the back of donating customers, while you’re out a few bucks that you could have pooled for a single charity and gotten a tax receipt of your own for.
They do get a whole lot of advertising, social capital, and influnce over which causes get proped up, on the back of donating customers
Sure, but that’s not a tax write-off as originally said. Stick to the things that are actually things.
while you’re out a few bucks that you could have pooled for a single charity and gotten a tax receipt of your own for
If your donations for the year exceed the standard deduction (hint: the standard deduction is about $15k. Most people take that instead of itemizing). Doesn’t have to be one single donation, and if your receipt shows the donation (it should) and it’s for a legitimate charity I don’t see why you couldn’t use that to deduct that donation if you itemize.
That leaves out when the company prompting you charges an administration fee to collect part of that sum donated for their own profits.
It leaves out when they, like CVS did with the diabetes association charity collecting at checkouts, take the money as an IOU to the charity while making money out to offset loans in the near term.
It leaves out structuring of collected funds to allow a 503C arm of the corporation to have tax advantaged status while also specifically being chartered to help the for profit company that you are shopping at.
There are a variety of scummy practices employed by organizations collecting those funds and it absolutely can benefit them to do so.
Ah, this again.
The mega corporation did not receive any tax benefit from collecting donations. They are able to write off the amount of donations from their income, so that they aren’t paying tax on the money they collected specifically to be donated.
I hate how charities are run by rich assholes who pay themselves or their family and friends 6 to 7 figures while doing very little to actually help people
Company launches marketing campaign about how much they raised for charity …. Company matches donations and get relief on that……
NEVER give to charity through a corporation.
If they match donations, they are entitled to a tax break on their own donations.
The only issue with matching is that you don’t have a say in the charity. Do your homework. If it’s a legitimate charity, then it’s better to donate through a company that matches donations.
They don’t even report it as income, because it’s not income. It’s your donation, not the company’s donation.
I assumed this was true also, but I also believe the company is receiving some sort of kick back from this otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it.
The kickback is also in saying that they donated the money to charity … which was collected from other people
It’s like I asked you to donate money to a charity and I said I had to be the one to collect it … then I take your money and donate it in my name … basically, I took your generosity and claimed it as my own.
In many cases company’s also understand that they can’t openly do this because it would be too obvious … instead they just ride the generosity gravy train … they encourage people to donate to charities through their store/company/business … then the company may or may not give their own contributions but they get to attach their name to the donated amounts.
It’s like a billionaire selling you a can a beans and then asking you to donate a penny to a charity … I always say no because the idiot billionaire could spare 1% of their wealth and give millions of dollars to charities everywhere, why the hell are you asking me?
I never give to charities through a store/company or business … I give directly to charities on my own.
The “kick back” is good PR.
And, if it’s a big enough portion of the charity’s funding, influence over the charity. But not tax breaks.
And decision-makers at that company feeling good about themselves at no cost whatsoever for the company or themselves.
exactly
its not really charity if you don’t give something up
They really should match all donations.
The C-level executive should match all donations. Otherwise that’s money that should be going to improving conditions for the workers.
It’s true but it’s not the full story .
Who gets to go the charity dinner and presents the check to the orphanage?
Who gets in Time magazine for “taking a stand” for corporate responsibility?
A corporation is not capable of benevolence. Give directly to the charity yourself, you’ll get a sticker and sometime a free pen.
Lol. I can confirm, it’s true!
Joking aside, some of my most cherished possessions are hand-written thank-you notes from worthwhile causes that I support.
(Especially ones from children! “Donors Choose” is great when I need some crayon drawn notes in exchange for buying some school supplies.)
(And given the context, I should clarify, from my own money, not someone else’s.)
It’s a marketing thing. Stuff like this creates the illusion that they’re good corporate citizens.
Of course, they could donate a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of their own profits and make a much bigger impact, but that would set a bad precedent! Giving away your money is only for the working class!
The non-profit can hire the company executive and pay them, which if I understand correctly is exempt from income tax.
I think this can be a way for executives to avoid income tax: basically donate to a foundation through obscured means (crypto, purchase from third party, etc), then get non-profit money with exemption. They probably need to jump through many hoops and it is very likely still illegal, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this is common.
But anyway the couple dime people are donating probably is neglegible for tax purposes (I am guessing, I don’t have data). Yet I see no reason not to just donate to a charity you trust online…
Source about income tax: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/nonprofit-tax.asp
Also the political/social influence is real. Why bribe the government when you can outsource it to you and say it’s for a good cause. But the reality of the situation is they are giving a politician what they want and if the politician do something they don’t like they can move that “donation” to someone else.
Yeah, because corporate charity is super regulated and never ever misused.
Couldn’t the CEO of the nonprofit be the spouse of the CEO and make a huge percentage of what they donate?
Not saying donating through a mega corporation is always bad, but I’d prefer to look into who I’m donating to rather than a split second thought at the end of a transaction.
this! the megacorporation receives 500k donations, which they transfer to CEO’s son’s “charity” that spends 99% of it on the said son’s salary. he buys another ferrari and the charity sends some flowers to a children cancer hospital.
Reminds me of something a criminal would pull.
Then it’s not a non-profit now is it?
Non profits can still have employees that get paid, they are just required to report who gets paid and how much (at least in my state).
Yeah obviously they have employees who get paid, but if a large portion of new donations just paid a CEO pay, that’s not exactly discreet fraud when the IRS comes around looking.
They do get a whole lot of advertising, social capital, and influnce over which causes get proped up, on the back of donating customers, while you’re out a few bucks that you could have pooled for a single charity and gotten a tax receipt of your own for.
Sure, but that’s not a tax write-off as originally said. Stick to the things that are actually things.
If your donations for the year exceed the standard deduction (hint: the standard deduction is about $15k. Most people take that instead of itemizing). Doesn’t have to be one single donation, and if your receipt shows the donation (it should) and it’s for a legitimate charity I don’t see why you couldn’t use that to deduct that donation if you itemize.
That leaves out when the company prompting you charges an administration fee to collect part of that sum donated for their own profits.
It leaves out when they, like CVS did with the diabetes association charity collecting at checkouts, take the money as an IOU to the charity while making money out to offset loans in the near term.
It leaves out structuring of collected funds to allow a 503C arm of the corporation to have tax advantaged status while also specifically being chartered to help the for profit company that you are shopping at.
There are a variety of scummy practices employed by organizations collecting those funds and it absolutely can benefit them to do so.