> When it comes to D.A.F.s, the United States tax code rewards the promise of good intentions. Wealthy donors — including many of the Silicon Valley billionaires who have asked the public to trust them with their digital lives — pledge to distribute their funds to charity once they get their tax break.
A contribution to a donor advised fund is irreversible. Once the donor has given that contribution, it is no longer "their funds." The NYTimes makes it sound like the donor could make a gift and then later spend that money on themselves. That's not how it works. They have the ability to advise the DAF where the grants go, but the grants must go to charities recognized by the IRS.
Giving money to a donor advised fund is giving money to charity. You don't get it back. It's not a promise to give later. It's a charitable donation.
I'm bewildered by the tone of this article. If the author wants to take a donor to task for giving to charity X instead of charity Y, that seems fair even if I disagree. But asserting that someone who gives hundreds of millions of dollars to a DAF -- an irreversible charitable gift -- is "Hacking Their Taxes" and somehow cheating is just disingenuous.