The Republican Congress sure knows how to take care of its friends. This is tax weekend in the United States and in celebration of the annual ritual, the White House released President Bush's and Vice-President Cheney's tax returns. The VP may be a lousy shot, but he sure can hit the target buried deep in the tax code. The VP was one of the prime beneficiaries...
of the special provision in the Katrina legislation that suspended the 50% of adjusted gross income limitation on charitable contributions of cash for the 2005 tax year. And guess what, most, if not all, of the VP's charitable contributions went to causes unrelated Hurricane Katrina relief (unless of course, some of Tulane's students temporarily transferred to the University of Wyoming). The arrangement is ably described in a memorandum from the VP's lawyers, Williams and Connolly LLP. The relevant portion provides as follows:
The Cheneys' adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006 which was largely the result of the exercise by an independent gift administrator of stock options that had been irrevocably set aside in 2001 for charity. The Cheneys donated $6,869,655 to charity in 2005 from the exercise of these stock options under the terms of the Gift Administration Agreement and from Mrs. Cheney's book royalties from Simon & Schuster on her books America: A Patriotic Primer, A is for Abigail: An Almanac of Amazing American Woman, and When Washington Crossed the Delaware: A Wintertime Story for Young Patriots. As provided in the Gift Administration Agreement, gifts were made to three designated charities named in that Agreement. The Cheneys' return was filed on March 20, 2006.
During the course of 2005 the Cheneys paid $2,468,566 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. Taxes were withheld from their salaries and from the net proceeds of stock options that were exercised under the Gift Administration Agreement. Given that the option proceeds were dedicated to charity, there was a substantial over withholding in 2005 from the income attributable to the exercise of the stock options, which reduced the amount available for charity in 2005.
To enable the gift administrator to maximize the charitable gifts in 2005, the year in which the options were exercised, the Cheneys wrote a personal check in December 2005 to the gift administrator in the amount of $2,331,400. That amount, combined with the net proceeds from the stock options, was given to the three designated charities by the gift administrator. As a consequence, the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930. This refund returns the Cheneys to a neutral position of no personal financial benefit or financial detriment resulting from the transactions under the Gift Administration Agreement. Thus, the Cheneys received no financial benefit from the stock options. The transactions were tax neutral to the Cheneys. The amount of taxes paid by the Cheneys from their income, other than the income from the exercise of the stock options, was the equivalent of what they would have paid if the options had not been exercised.
In a press release of March 5, 2001, the Cheneys reported that they had established the Gift Administration Agreement on January 18, 2001 to donate all net after tax proceeds from various stock options that the Vice President had earned at Halliburton and for their service on the boards of directors of other companies to three designated charities--George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates, Inc. for the benefit of the Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming for the benefit of the University of Wyoming Foundation, and Capital Partners for Education for the benefit of low-income high school students in the Washington, D.C. area. By entering into the Gift Administration Agreement the Cheneys divested themselves of the economic benefit of the options and granted the gift administrator full discretion, power and control over the options. The Agreement directed the gift administrator to maximize the gifts to the three charities while avoiding financial or after tax benefit or detriment to the Cheneys.
Not seeing the actual calculations, it is hard to determine exactly what the ultimate benefit from the suspension of the 50% limitation was to the VP or the charities. We suspect that it means that either the three charities received the donations sooner than they would have, that they received more money than they would have, or a combination of the two. In any event, the VP and Mrs. Cheney had effectively relinquished their interest in this money long ago. It is hard to argue with any result that sees charities getting more money sooner.
If you agree with us, then a good case can be made that the 50% limitation on charitable contributions should be repealed altogether. The overall affect of the limitation is to encourage taxpayers to spread their charitable contributions out over time to the extent they are concerned that they will not have sufficient income in subsequent years to utilize charitable contribution carryovers (either because of death, bankruptcy, or the expiration of the five-year carryover period).
We originally objected to the suspension provision in the Katrina tax package because we do not believe the tax code should be amended on such an ad hoc and reactive basis. These amendments may give politicians something to crow about when it is time to campaign, but they also add considerable complexity to the Internal Revenue Code and do result in unintended consequences.
Note that the temporary suspension of the 50% limitation did not apply to just donations to Hurricane Katrina-related charities. And for good reason. Imagine the definitional and tracing problems. VP Cheney's use of the suspension aptly demonstrates that a one-time tax benefit was granted to wealthy individuals who were making donations to charities that had nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina relief. We do not use the word "wealth" in a perjorative way. Generally speaking, you need to be fairly wealthy to give over 70% of you adjusted gross income away to anyone.
So just maybe, VP Cheney hasn't been hiding in his special bunker all these years. More likely he has been wandering the halls of Congress with his tax return in hand.
Internal Revenue Service - Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in
Treasury regulations, any advice (but none is intended) relating to
federal taxes that is contained in this communication is not intended
or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any plan or arrangement
addressed herein.
If you liked this post, please visit http://www.charitygovernance.com
for a description of our Guide/Tutorial for non-profit directors and
officers entitled “Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good: A Guide for the
Non-Profit Director and Officer.” Copyright 2006, Auto Didactix LLC. All Rights Reserved. You may not
copy any portion of this post to a computer "clipboard" for re-posting
anywhere or e-mailing, or otherwise reproduce this post. If you want
others to review this post, you may provide them with a link to this
web blog. Any use of the material or ideas in this post by reporters or
other publishers shall make reference to Jack Siegel, author of
"Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good, A Guide for the Non-Profit Director
and Officer" and this web blog. For additional information call 773-325-2124
THE
FOREGOING IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS LEGAL ADVICE. IF LEGAL
ADVICE IS REQUIRED, THE NON-PROFIT OR OTHER PARTY IN QUESTION SHOULD
SEEK THE ADVICE OF QUALIFIED LEGAL COUNSEL.
