Apple CEO Tim Cook Donates $5 Million in Stock to Charity

[LizKat]

envious? Where did you get that from? It’s clear that he did this in a way that would be recognized publicly without him releasing something himself.

if you think his accountant was telling him what charity to donate to I think you are mistaken. There have been a lot of ‘smart’ people donating to charities that have been less than moral with the use of the money. That was my original point. It’s clear you want to believe it was to a good cause, all I’m saying is no one but he really knows, and if you’re going to do this in that way, why not make that public too?

There's no need for the public to know the identity of the organization that received Cook's personal charitable contribution, any more than there would be if you or I were the contributor. It's his money, so he can give it to any 501(c)(3) entity and take whatever is the allowed tax deduction for it. There'd be no need for the public even to be aware of a cash contribution to a charity unless Cook chose to disclose it. With shareholdings it's a different story, there can be public information reporting requirements. But the tax advantage of making a donation of shares may favor that approach. So I think we should not assume that Cook has sought such publicity.

As for whether a charity is operating as "less than moral with the use of the money", beauty there is in the eye of the contributor. The standard applied by IRS and state of registry can only be whether the use is legal. Then there are charity rating groups that look at things like percentage of revenue used for "administrative" costs versus program costs. Past that, it's up to the contributor to inquire if he or she has concerns.

And no I don't think Cook's accountant steered his donation. I think his accountant checked up on the status and qualifications of the receiving entity, that's all.

 

[stevet]

I thought he was worth $1B...?

This are just his shares. He has sold millions in shares as required by law and probably some personal decisions.

 

[stevet]

There's no need for the public to know the identity of the organization that received Cook's personal charitable contribution, any more than there would be if you or I were the contributor. It's his money, so he can give it to any 501(c)(3) entity and take whatever is the allowed tax deduction for it. There'd be no need for the public even to be aware of a cash contribution to a charity unless Cook chose to disclose it. With shareholdings it's a different story, there can be public information reporting requirements. But the tax advantage of making a donation of shares may favor that approach. So I think we should not assume that Cook has sought such publicity.

As for whether a charity is operating as "less than moral with the use of the money", beauty there is in the eye of the contributor. The standard applied by IRS and state of registry can only be whether the use is legal. Then there are charity rating groups that look at things like percentage of revenue used for "administrative" costs versus program costs. Past that, it's up to the contributor to inquire if he or she has concerns.

And no I don't think Cook's accountant steered his donation. I think his accountant checked up on the status and qualifications of the receiving entity, that's all.

Where is there any mention of a 501(c)3 charity and that he was deducting this from his taxes? You've mentioned this multiple times but it's a complete assumption on your part and the reason why I'm saying that we shouldn't applaud the guy when we don't even know what the charity was. That's ALL I was originally saying.

 

[LizKat]

Where is there any mention of a 501(c)3 charity and that he was deducting this from his taxes? You've mentioned this multiple times but it's a complete assumption on your part and the reason why I'm saying that we shouldn't applaud the guy when we don't even know what the charity was. That's ALL I was originally saying.

The required SEC filing, made public, does not require disclosure of the charity's identity. It's not to the same purpose as his tax return, which information is not made public.

So... "some people" might elect to figure a guy who's the CEO of a company like Apple would give millions of dollars of his personally owned stock (or cash, for that matter) to a charity that didn't pass the smell test, wasn't a 501(c)(3) and so didn't qualify for a tax deduction. And I might not be one of those people.

 

[mi7chy]

Just a distraction from current events. It's a tax write off afterall.

 

[C DM]

Just a distraction from current events. It's a tax write off afterall.

Distraction from what? In what way?

As far as the tax write-off goes:

Ah yes, always cynical.

You know what a better tax break is? Just keep your $5mil.

 

[MacBH928]

This are just his shares. He has sold millions in shares as required by law and probably some personal decisions.

Why does the law require him to sell shares? If anything it should be the opposite since the more shares he has the more self interest he has to lead the company to best performances. If he has to sell the shares why Apple board just not give him money, just transfer it to his bank account instead of giving him shares that he has to sell?

 

[richmond62]

Why is there so much tooth-sucking going on?

The man has been extremely generous, and that should be an end to it.

 

[ericwn]

Yah, not that we should be "bragging", but especially for those of us with outstanding loans such as school loans and no major property/investments, our net worth is essentially nil.

People forget how big numbers really are. If this guy actually is worth a billion, that means earning $100,000, 10,000 times. How many lifetimes would most people need to accumulate that? But for these people, their life is a numbers game. A normal person would have stopped working after they hit 10mil or maybe even 100. But that's why we aren't running multinational companies and instead sitting at our office desk and making armchair comments on MacRumors forums

While work to some is just a need-to-happen occurrence others actually like their work and continue on with it even after receiving a good bunch of money.
It rather looks as if the latter is the case here.

 

[richmond62]

Ha, Ha: I'll stop when I manage to save $10,000: but at the rate I'm going that seems unlikely.

 

[stevet]

Why does the law require him to sell shares? If anything it should be the opposite since the more shares he has the more self interest he has to lead the company to best performances. If he has to sell the shares why Apple board just not give him money, just transfer it to his bank account instead of giving him shares that he has to sell?

Honestly, I don't know all the ins and outs to it, but they are scheduled to be sold and either once he schedules it he has to legally sell them or he's legally obligated to sell a specific amount. The reason for not just getting money is because the shares can grow in value, I suspect. So it is in his best interest to make the company worth more as time goes on. There's also RSU's that are for compensation purposes, it gets more complicated with that type of compensation.

 

[stevet]

The required SEC filing, made public, does not require disclosure of the charity's identity. It's not to the same purpose as his tax return, which information is not made public.

So... "some people" might elect to figure a guy who's the CEO of a company like Apple would give millions of dollars of his personally owned stock (or cash, for that matter) to a charity that didn't pass the smell test, wasn't a 501(c)(3) and so didn't qualify for a tax deduction. And I might not be one of those people.

I didn't say it was required, but it can be released. The amount of money he gave is the same as me donating $100 to the Democratic or Republican Party. I wouldn't know where that money went or who it's benefiting.