Re:Pearsons, Who Pledged $100M to UChicago, Want Their Money...
by chii on Tuesday March 06, 2018 @01:07AM
(#16527195)
why should it have tax implication (in favour of Pearson's), if it is full of strings attached?
Re:Pearsons, Who Pledged $100M to UChicago, Want Their Money...
by jjeaff on Monday March 05, 2018 @08:39PM
(#16526225)
Why would having strings attached necessarily reduce the generosity?
If I gift you a new car, but with the caveat that after 5 years, you must donate it to charity, does that make my gift disingenous or not generous?
Re:Pearsons, Who Pledged $100M to UChicago, Want Their Money...
by IntronExon on Monday March 05, 2018 @08:57PM
(#16526303)
It certainly changes it, although I’d be far more likely to compare this case with you giving me a car with instructions telling me to pick certain people up and drop them off at certain times, or you’ll take the car back.
Re:Pearsons, Who Pledged $100M to UChicago, Want Their Money...
by jjeaff on Tuesday March 06, 2018 @02:51AM
(#16527531)
You have the option to take the car with those caveats or not. If you choose to accept it, I must conclude that you consider it a net positive and thus a gift. Not as good as a full, unfettered gift, but a gift nonetheless.
Just 100% of this. Gift in this case has tax implications, but it in no way implies generosity of spirit, friendship, or the spirit of giving for another’s sake.