In Most Nations, Donors Must Cede Control of Their Gifts

To the Editor:

The articles in the March 21 issue concerning the rights of donors and obligations of recipients walk around the central point (“Give and Take: More and More Donors Are Using the Law to Ensure That Charities Follow Their Wishes”).

In most countries, the act of donation may not, by definition, carry with it conditions, as otherwise it would not be a donation but a sponsorship. Thus, a (potential) donor and the (potential) recipient may discuss the wishes of the donor and the possibilities for recognition, but once the money has crossed over the transom the recipient must be able to do what it sees fit. The donor has no recourse. In the United Kingdom in particular this has been set down in case law for the past four centuries, long before “private” philanthropy was conceived in the now United States.

Further, in current circumstances throughout most of Western Europe, should a donor exert “rights” to recognition, then the contribution has to be considered a sponsorship. In the case of corporate contributions this becomes more than bothersome: While the contributing company can claim the contribution as a marketing expense, the recipient has to declare the income as earned income and pay rather high taxes (plus value-added tax of about 15 percent to 20 percent) and, in some cases, place its entire tax deductibility in question.

These legalisms may seem splitting hairs to the American practitioner; to most Europeans, these are at the very core of the nature of the nonprofit raison d’être.

Thomas Harris
Coordinator
The Virtual Consulting Firm
Paris