A new private ruling may be of great interest to clients with substantial real estate interests who wish to contribute one or more properties to a family foundation. The ruling suggests that payment by the foundation to a property management entity controlled by the donor may be permissible under the personal services exception.
This month more than 2,500 people gathered at the ninth Social Capital Markets (SOCAP) conference, billed as the intersection of money and meaning. The conference is designed to be the place where businesses built to solve the biggest problems meet investors, peers, partners and those who make it happen. Launched in 2008 in the midst of the economic crises, the conference has grown is size and scope. Coblentz was thrilled to have had the opportunity to sponsor, attend and speak at this event and we came away with the following takeaways:
In recent years, private foundations increasingly have sought to incorporate socially responsible investing (“SRI”) mandates. Some SRI mandates take the form of negative screens—e.g., screening out tobacco stocks. Other SRI approaches are more proactive—e.g., a foundation focusing on disease eradication might invest in companies that develop vaccines. However, there has been a view—accurate or not—that some socially responsible investments yield lower risk-adjusted financial returns than traditional investments (such investments are sometimes referred to as “concessionary”).
Accordingly, when a foundation engages in an SRI program, several legal issues arise.