Discusses the implications for planned giving of the new Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Describes changes in income, estate, generation-skipping, and gift tax regulations and their consequences for estate planning. (EV)

The Internal Revenue Service maintains that donors must subtract the value of any "substantial benefits" they receive from the amount of their gifts before they can claim tax deductions. It's the donors' job to make that adjustment--but it's a fund raiser's job to put disclosure statements on a solicitation. (MLW)

Affinity-group marketing--selling credit cards or insurance to people who have a lot in common, such as alumni--is booming. The IRS's case for taxing profits from credit card and insurance plans is discussed. The vehicle for collecting taxes would be the UBIT--the tax on unrelated business income. (MLW)

Charities have an obligation to give donors "accurate and sufficient information concerning the deductibility of contributions." Donors must subtract any benefit of "substantial value" from their gifts. The value of a benefit is based on its fair market value, not on its cost to the charity. (MLW)

This article reviews the tax implications of alumni association merchandising programs, focusing on unrelated business income tax (UBIT) that nonprofit organizations, such as alumni associations, must pay on income derived from a trade or business not substantially related to their tax-exempt status. It also discusses postal regulations that…

The IRS argues that income from alumni associations group life and medical insurance policies is business profit, not tax-exempt contributions to its member associations. The unrelated business income tax (UBIT) is described. (MLW)

The best way to support charitable causes after tax reform is planned giving. Seven changes in the new tax laws that may affect donors are identified: charitable deduction, fewer deductions, fewer itemizers, increased capital gains tax, alternative minimum tax, generation-skipping tax, and retirement plan restrictions. (MLW)

Major implications for fund raising in higher education due to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 are discussed. A list of fund- raising resolutions includes: going back to basics and working harder; consequences of last year's donation rush; and answering questions on the new alternative minimum tax. (MLW)

The most recent tax law creates stiffer rules forcing donors to document their charitable gifts in exchange for offering charities relief from the 1986 Alternative Minimum Tax law. For colleges and universities, who already follow relatively stringent receipt rules, the new regulation is a free and valuable benefit. (MSE)

A donor-advised fund, increasingly popular for college giving, can be used by donors for immediate tax benefits and flexibility in charitable giving. The donor makes an irrevocable gift to the fund, which is considered a charitable organization, and the fund administrator invests the gift. The donor specifies the amount to be given and the…

The life estate gift annuity program, which can benefit both the donor and the institution of higher education, is explained; the legal aspects are discussed; and the potential advantages and disadvantages to both parties are outlined. (MSE)

Colleges and universities are generating state funding by forming or joining grassroots coalitions. Such coalitions are essential for creating the broad understanding and support necessary to achieve difficult objectives, such as raising taxes. (MLW)

Federal regulations governing receipts from fund-raising events at colleges and universities are summarized, including rules concerning tax deductions for raffle tickets, how and when to acknowledge donor gifts (cash or non-cash), and disclosure of fair market value. (MSE)

College fundraisers can enhance their planned-gift negotiation by focusing on donor concerns, knowing the variety of gift options available, and presenting them effectively to the prospective donor. With this approach, it is possible to choose the solution that most benefits both donor and institution. (MSE)

The ways in which the University of Colorado helped to fight a statewide tax limitation measure are presented. The initiative would have severely inhibited the state's economic development and have mired the government in extensive litigation while trying to clarify conflicting interpretations of the proposal. (MLW)