--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 3:07 PM +0000 3/14/03, Piers Cawley wrote: >Brad Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Piers Cawley wrote: >> [...] >>> Nope, send it to TPF as discussed. It's what I've said in all the >>> summaries after all. I just hope that a chunk of it ends up in Larry's >>> pocket. >> >> Does anyone know if TPF is set up to allow earmarked contributions? > >Dunno. But I'm merely expressing a preference. TPF can do with it what >they will.
Earmarked contributions are apparently somewhat dodgy from an IRS perspective--they don't want folks setting up a 503(c)(3) to do payroll stuff as a way to avoid taxes. (Rather than have an employee you have a grantee of a charity, thus the money you use to pay that person becomes a tax deduction, or something like that)
The TPF's grant fund stuff's OK, though. It's just a matter of getting a grantee for this year... (Working on that)
This doesn't seem right. The United Way runs "directed drives" all the time, in which they raise money for a particular cause. (And tap me on the shoulder...)
There's no reason the TPF couldn't run a "Fund P6" drive.
There's a difference between "Fund project X" and "Fund person X". Funding a project, and having one person suitable to do the project, is OK, generally speaking. (Though I expect the feds still peer pretty closely) Funding a specific person is dodgier.
That means that TPF's "perl development grant" fund is fine to donate to, and if there's only enough cash for one grantee, and Larry's the best candidate, that's keen. Setting up a "Fund Larry Wall" fund is where things get much less easy.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
