On Jun 21, 1:41*am, rdad...[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
- quote -

Well, I had a job there. The job ended when I resigned to take a
position at another institution.

- quote -

Not that I'm aware of.

As I said in another post in this thread, if and when significant
dollars are ever involved, if I'm going to be treated as though I've
received consideration for my pledge then I will get consideration for
my pledge.

Regards,
Bill

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bill Brown <brownwp[at]longwood.edu> wrote:

- quote -

Try a charitable remainder trust, or a charitable lead trust if you
have kids you want to leave money to. That way you'll get a tax
writeoff, actual consideration and tax advantaged money for either you
or your heirs.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

rdadams[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

- quote -

Let's just say they'll find consideration where they can, even if it
wouldn't constitute consideration is a different kind of case. For
example I found more than one case that enforced a pledge when the
donor knew it was part of a project contributed to by other donors.
The consideration wasn't something given by the donnee, but the
promises of the other donors to make gifts to the same project.

It's not normal consideration because the donnee doesn't give anything
and the donor doesn't receive anything. But the other donors will
presumably be disappointed if someone's pledge is not satisfied.
That's all that's required. Sort of like saying that a contract is
enforceable simply because there is a third party beneficiary, even if
there is no consideration.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bill Brown <brownwp[at]longwood.edu> wrote:
- quote -

Actually they are both right. If you still have your contract
law text book, you can look it up. Stu is citing the case of
Davis who pledged $150K to his alma mater and they named the
football stadium after him. That's the quid pro quo. Upon
his death eight months later, his heirs wanted to renege.

Stu later mentions that California Courts are predisposed to
enforcing pledges even when they lack consideration.

- quote -

For those who are unaware, a William & Mary alum withdrew a
$12M pledge after then President Nichol had the Cross in Wren
Chapel removed so that the Chapel would be "a welcoming place
for people of all faiths". Nichol is no longer President, the
Cross is now displayed on least Sundays, and there are some
elected officals is VA who are very pi$$ed off about this. As
for taking this to Court, it happened about a year and a half
ago and I am certain the Board of the University is engaged in
diplomacy with the alum.

- quote -

Did VCU give you consideration for the pledge?
Did VCU take significant financial measures in reliance
on your pledge?

Going back to Contract Law, even verbal contracts are binding
when one party relies upon it to their financial detriment.

- quote -

Neither is likely correct.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jun 19, 6:59*pm, rdad...[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
- quote -


Well, I am persuaded that if I win the lottery (the BIG one, not one
of those piddling scratch off games) I will be using a highly skilled
and knowledgable attorney to help craft any charitable pledges I make.
If I'm going to be treated like I've received consideration for simply
pledging money then I, by God, am going to get some consideration.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jun 19, 4:54*pm, "Gil Faver" <rowdy'sb...[at]xxyz.com> wrote:
- quote -

<<Shrug> > I just love those "I know something you don't know" answers.
Well, I learned just the opposite in my undergraduate commercial law
class -- something about consideration in the chapter on contracts.

I haven't heard anything about William & Mary going to court to get
the money pledged by people who reneged over the cross in Wren Chapel
dust up. There were significant dollars involved (7+ figures to the
left of the decimal point) unlike the next example.

And, VCU didn't come after me when I changed employers and thus
stopped having amounts pledged to them withheld from my paycheck.

But maybe Virginia law is different or maybe Virginia institutions
have better sense than to try to enforce unfulfilled monetary pledges.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

- quote -


I vote for spite. Actually, if you speak to them (somebody with a head on
their shoulders) and explain their egregious behavior, you would be doing
them a favor. Spite PLUS altruism. And no cash out of pocket. A triple.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Gil Faver wrote:
....

- quote -

Sounds familiar when you mention it...

On a side note I've (at least so far) reneged on a "pledge" to the
school from which I received a degree owing to when they called for the
drive I asked for a pledge card to be mailed and I'd consider the amount
and timing having just taken a mostly unplanned early retirement owing
so finances were still pretty much up in the air. What they did was
enter it into their records as a committed pledge of a particular amount
which is not what I said I'd do...hence, so far they've gotten nothing
(although they have promoted my major professor to President which has
improved their standing so I've been thinking of softening my stance )...

Of course, not enough $$ involved here they're going to come after me w/
legals, but it is somewhat annoying to have the routine invoices
continue to come for a pledge I didn't actually make. Hmmmm....that
starts to get the bile flowing again--who _will_ win in the end:
altruism or spite?

--

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Gil Faver" <rowdy'sboss[at]xxyz.com> wrote:
- quote -

Thanks, that's so interesting!

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Gil Faver" <rowdy'sboss[at]xxyz.com> wrote in message
news:Wiz6k.58002$102.37042[at]bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

as always, it is more complicated that a simple yes or no.

http://www.msk.com/csl_files/325308.pdf

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"dpb" <none[at]non.net> wrote in message news:g3et4r$l4p$1[at]aioe.org...
- quote -


I believe that case involved a substantial gift to be used for a specific
purpose, and the school just blew off the specific purpose.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Stuart Bronstein wrote:
....

- quote -

Seems like I recall a case with an (Ivy League maybe?) school a while
back where they donor won although I'm not sure whether the suit
actually went to trial or the university/endowment association backed
off owing to the criticism received from the action...

--

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

jack <jack[at]yahoo.org> wrote:

- quote -

This is covered under GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting
Practices) for Not-for-Profits. A Not-For-Profit is
required to show pledges due with the fiscal year as
Current Assets and pledges that will be due as Long-Term
Assets. In the case of Long-Term Assets a contra-account
for Uncollectible Pledges is required. If a currently
due pledge is uncollectible, it must be added to both
long-term pledges and the contra-account.

This is required for written pledges and is not allowed
for verbal pledges.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

rdadams[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

- quote -

Pretty good opinion.

- quote -

You may have noticed that I did spend some time to research this a bit
more - yes I have better things to do but I feel like procrastinating
at the moment. The California courts actually do agree with Bill in
concept, though in practice their definition of "consideration" for
gifts to charity is considerably broader than in other cases, and they
can generally find some reason to enforce a pledge.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bill Brown <brownwp[at]longwood.edu> wrote:
- quote -

Agreed.

- quote -

That is a legal question, not a tax question (de je vous).

While my legal knowledge is limited to passing the Business
Law section of the CPA Exam, my "guess" is that during the
lifetime of a person making a pledge, he/she would have
affirmative defenses to revoke the pledge. However, it is
my opinion with near certainty that unless he/she was
preparing to revoke the pledge at the time of death, the
estate would be unable to raise these defenses.

Considering Bill's an Accountant, I'm an Auditor, and Stu
is an Attorney, I have to side with Stu. This is in spite
of the fact that, unlike Bill and myself, Stu does not have
the benefit of a Chapel Hill education.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Bill Brown" <brownwp[at]longwood.edu> wrote in message
news:11c1b2d1-2d0a-45cf-b212-8b7fd1ea0e56[at]u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
- quote -


Stuart is right. We learned it in law school, and I am not going to do your
legal research for you.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bill Brown <brownwp[at]longwood.edu> wrote:
- quote -

I'd always heard that was the rule, but never had the need to research
it. After looking into it more, it turns out you're right. The courts
are pretty quick to find consideration when it comes to charities,
however. If a pledge is made knowing others are being asked to
contribute to the same purpose, the court hold that, sort of like third
party beneficiaries, a pledge becomes enforceable for that reason
alone.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jun 19, 3:37*am, Stuart Bronstein <spamt...[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

In that case there was a quid pro quo, naming of a football stadium.
Also, it was an action against the estate of the person who had made
the pledge before kicking the bucket. The case seems to have revolved
around whether the decedent was competent to have made the pledge.
IOW, the heirs were trying to defeat the intent of the decedent and
failed.

I'm not persuaded that a California resident after having made a
promise of a gift could not successfully renege on that promise.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bill Brown <brownwp[at]longwood.edu> wrote:
- quote -

The case I could come up with on quick research for the California rule
is exemplified in Board of Regents v. Davis, 74 Cal.App.3d 862 (1977),
which can be found here:
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/cal...3d/74/862.html

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jun 18, 1:43*pm, Stuart Bronstein <spamt...[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

As far as I know, pledges to charities are NOT an exception to the
general rule that promises of gifts are NOT legally enforceable. Maybe
you're state is different.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >