Notice 2017-73

Schwab Charitable, a tax-exempt public charity that administers donor-advised funds (DAFs), opposes the proposed regulatory burdens and treatment of DAFs as similar to private foundations. They argue that DAFs are already compliant, and that the proposed rules—specifically regarding bifurcated gifts, pledges, and public support—would create unnecessary administrative burdens and reduce the efficiency of charitable giving.

Carolyn Yeager, representing Mercersburg Academy (an educational institution), is inquiring about the status of the proposed rule and specifically seeking clarification on Section 4 regarding distributions from a Donor-Advised Fund (DAF). The comment is a request for information rather than a statement of support or opposition.

The New York Community Trust, a community foundation, submits comments regarding proposed regulations on donor-advised funds (DAFs). They generally support the proposed rules but advocate for specific clarifications regarding bifurcated payments for events, the treatment of charitable pledges, and the identification of advisors (rather than original donors) for public support tests.

The New York State Bar Association Tax Section submitted a report generally supporting the Treasury's proposed rules regarding donor-advised funds (DAFs). They specifically advocate for consistency between DAF and private foundation rules, including "look-through" rules for public support tests and requirements for donor-advisor certifications regarding charitable pledges.

Schwab Charitable, a tax-exempt public charity, opposes the proposed regulations in Notice 2017-73 that would impose additional regulatory burdens on donor-advised funds (DAFs) similar to those on private foundations. They argue that DAFs are already compliant, and that the proposed rules—specifically regarding "bifurcated gifts," pledges, and public support—would create unnecessary administrative burdens, undermine donor privacy, and reduce the efficiency of charitable giving.

The Kosciusko County Community Foundation, a community foundation, submitted a mixed response to Notice 2017-73. They oppose the Treasury's positions on ticket/grant splitting (Section 3), the aggregation of DAF grants for public support tests (Section 5), and new regulations regarding private foundation grants to DAFs (Section 6), while supporting the position that DAF grants can be used to pay pledges (Section 4).

Fidelity Charitable, an independent public charity, opposes the proposed regulations in Notice 2017-73, arguing that they incorrectly import private foundation rules onto donor-advised funds (DAFs). The organization contends that the proposed rules are unwarranted, overly burdensome, and lack a basis in statutory authority or evidence of abuse.

The Four County Community Foundation, a community foundation, provides a mixed response to Notice 2017-73. They oppose the Treasury's position on ticket/grant splitting and the attribution of DAF grants for public support tests, but they support the position allowing DAF grants to satisfy pledges.

The Greater Kansas City Community Foundation opposes the proposed rules for bifurcated grants and public support treatment for DAF grants, arguing they create unnecessary administrative burdens and lack clarity. They advocate for a "bright-line" Section 170 analysis that allows DAFs to cover tax-deductible portions of fundraising events and suggest that DAF grants from public charities should be treated as coming from the public charity itself.

Elizabeth Kingsley requests that the Treasury Department and IRS include specific guidance on how contributions from donor-advised funds (DAFs) should be treated under IRC § 4945(f) in any proposed regulations. She argues that the treatment established for calculating public support under §§ 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(2) should also be applied to the 25 percent support limitation.