Yes, endowment funds are restricted in most cases. Under the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA), a true endowment exists only when a donor places restrictions on how the gifted money can be spent — meaning the principal must be preserved and only the income or appreciation can be used. UPMIFA has been adopted by 49 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, making it the primary law that controls how nonprofits handle endowment restrictions across the country.
The numbers are staggering. As of fiscal year 2024, U.S. college endowment assets alone totaled $837.7 billion, with the top 1% of institutions holding 56% of all endowment wealth. Breaking these restrictions — even with good intentions — can lead to lawsuits, forced repayment, and state attorney general investigations.
Here’s what you’ll learn in this article:
- 🏛️ How UPMIFA controls what nonprofits can and cannot do with endowment money
- 💰 The difference between restricted, unrestricted, and quasi endowments — and why it matters
- ⚖️ What happens when an organization spends endowment funds the wrong way (with real lawsuits)
- 📊 How the Seven Factor Prudence Test and Seven Percent Rule limit spending decisions
- 🔓 The legal steps required to remove or change donor restrictions on an endowment
What Exactly Is an Endowment Fund?
An endowment fund is a pool of money that a nonprofit receives through a donation with the condition that the principal stays intact. The organization invests the principal and uses the income — such as interest, dividends, and investment gains — to fund its operations or a specific purpose. UPMIFA defines an endowment fund as “an institutional fund or part thereof that, under the terms of a gift instrument, is not wholly expendable by the institution on a current basis.”
This definition is important. If a donor gives money for a specific upcoming project — like building renovations this year — that gift is not an endowment. If a donor gives an unrestricted gift that the organization can spend right away, that is also not an endowment. An endowment only exists when the donor expresses clear intent to preserve the principal over time.
The Three Types of Endowment Funds
Not all endowments carry the same level of restriction. The type of endowment determines how much control the nonprofit has over the money — and whether UPMIFA’s rules apply at all.
| Type of Endowment | Who Controls It |
|---|---|
| True (Permanent) Endowment — The donor restricts the principal in perpetuity. Only investment income and appreciation can be spent. This is the most common type and is fully governed by UPMIFA. | The donor sets the restrictions. The nonprofit cannot change them without legal action or donor consent. |
| Term Endowment — The donor restricts spending for a set period of time or until a specific event happens. Once the term ends, the principal becomes available. | The donor sets the timeline. The nonprofit must wait until the restriction expires. |
| Quasi Endowment (Board-Designated) — The nonprofit’s board voluntarily sets aside unrestricted funds and treats them like an endowment. No donor restriction exists. | The board controls everything. They can change or remove the designation at any time, subject to their own internal rules. |
The distinction between a true endowment and a quasi endowment is critical. UPMIFA’s rules on expenditures and modification of restrictions do not apply to board-designated funds. A board can reverse its own designation and spend that money whenever it decides to. A donor-restricted endowment, on the other hand, binds the organization by law.
As Harvard’s Office of Finance explains, unrestricted endowments must be used for the general purposes of the unit holding the funds, while restricted endowments are established for a more specific purpose — such as a particular department or program.
How UPMIFA Controls Endowment Restrictions
UPMIFA is the backbone of endowment law in the United States. The Uniform Law Commission passed it in 2006 to replace an older law called UMIFA (the Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act), which had been on the books since 1972.
The biggest change UPMIFA made was removing the old Historic Dollar Value Rule. Under UMIFA, nonprofits could never spend below the original dollar amount of the gift. This created a serious problem. During market downturns, organizations were sitting on millions of dollars they could not touch — even when their programs were desperate for funding. The North Carolina Symphony, for example, had $6.9 million in its endowment but could not spend a single penny because the market value had dropped below its historic dollar value.
UPMIFA replaced that rigid rule with a standard of prudence. Organizations can now spend from their endowments — including from “underwater” funds — as long as the spending is prudent based on a set of specific factors.
The Two Core Principles of UPMIFA
UPMIFA rests on two ideas that guide every endowment decision:
- Assets should be invested prudently in diversified investments that seek both growth and income.
- Once assets appreciate, the appreciation can be prudently spent for the endowment’s purposes.
These two principles work together. The organization grows the endowment through smart investing, then carefully spends the gains while keeping the purchasing power of the original gift alive.
Donor Intent Comes First
UPMIFA requires that decision-makers give primary consideration to the donor’s intent as expressed in the gift instrument. This means the donor’s wishes are not just important — they are the first thing the board must consider before making any spending or investment decision. The organization’s charitable purposes and the fund’s specific objectives come second.
If a donor writes in the gift instrument, “the principal must be maintained and only the income can be spent,” the nonprofit must follow that instruction. If the donor simply says, “this gift is for your endowment,” UPMIFA assumes an intent to preserve the purchasing power of the fund while making reasonable distributions each year.
The Seven Factor Prudence Test for Spending
UPMIFA does not set a fixed dollar amount that a nonprofit can spend from its endowment. Instead, it lays out seven factors the board must weigh before making any spending decision. Every factor must be considered in good faith, with the care that a prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances.
| Factor | What It Means |
|---|---|
| Duration and preservation of the fund | How long is the endowment supposed to last? A perpetual fund requires more caution than a 20-year fund. |
| Purposes of the institution and fund | What is the money supposed to support? Spending must match the endowment’s stated goals. |
| General economic conditions | Is the economy growing or shrinking? A recession may call for less spending. |
| Effects of inflation or deflation | Will the endowment’s purchasing power shrink if spending is too high? |
| Expected total return | What income and appreciation can the investments realistically produce? |
| Other resources of the institution | Does the nonprofit have other income sources, or is the endowment its lifeline? |
| Investment policy of the institution | Is the organization following a sound investment strategy that supports long-term growth? |
These seven factors are not a checklist where you pick and choose. The board must consider all of them together when deciding how much to spend. A board that ignores even one factor — like the effects of inflation — is acting imprudently under the law.
The Optional Seven Percent Rule
Some states added an extra layer of protection on top of the Seven Factor Test. This is the Seven Percent Rule, an optional provision in UPMIFA that creates a rebuttable presumption of imprudence if an organization spends more than 7% of an endowment’s fair market value in a single year. The fair market value is calculated using an averaging formula over the prior three years (12 quarters).
“Rebuttable presumption” means the organization is assumed to have acted imprudently — but it can fight back with evidence showing the spending was justified. The Uniform Law Commission warned that this rule has a serious downside: boards might treat 7% as a “safe harbor” and spend up to that amount without careful analysis, even when a lower rate would be more prudent.
Not every state adopted this provision. Organizations must check their own state’s version of UPMIFA to see whether the Seven Percent Rule applies to them.
What Happens When an Endowment Goes Underwater?
An endowment is “underwater” when its current market value drops below the original dollar amount of the donor’s gift. This happens during market downturns and can freeze an organization’s ability to fund programs.
Under the old UMIFA law, spending from an underwater endowment was prohibited. The organization had to wait for the market to recover before it could touch the money. UPMIFA changed this. Now, a board can spend from an underwater endowment — but only after applying the Seven Factor Prudence Test with even greater care.
Some institutions set internal spending thresholds for underwater endowments. Caltech, for example, requires approval from the Vice President and Provost if a restricted endowment falls below 90% of its original value. If it drops to 70%, the President must also approve any spending. At 50%, spending generally stops unless the Board of Trustees grants an exception.
| Endowment Value (% of Original Gift) | Spending Rule at Caltech |
|---|---|
| Above 90% | Normal spending continues |
| 80%–90% | VP and Provost approval required |
| 70%–80% | VP, Provost, and President approval required |
| Below 50% | Spending stops unless Board of Trustees grants exception |
The 2008 financial crisis showed how devastating underwater endowments can be. A survey by the Association of Governing Boards found that, on average, 38% of the dollar value of participants’ total endowment pools was underwater as of December 31, 2008. Only 31% of institutions continued making normal distributions. The rest either suspended distributions, reduced their spending rate, or limited payouts to interest and dividends only.
State-by-State Differences That Change Everything
UPMIFA is a model law, not a federal mandate. Each state decides whether to adopt it, how much of it to adopt, and whether to change its provisions. This means the rules that apply to an endowment fund in New York are different from the rules in Pennsylvania.
New York’s NYPMIFA: Extra Rules, Extra Protections
New York adopted its own version of UPMIFA in 2010, called the New York Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (NYPMIFA). It includes several provisions that no other state has.
New York added an eighth factor to the prudence test that organizations must consider when making spending decisions. The state also created an “opt in, opt out” system for endowment funds that existed before NYPMIFA took effect. If the donor is still alive, the organization must follow a statutory notice procedure or reach a specific agreement with the donor before making appropriations under the new law.
NYPMIFA also limits how far an organization can dip into the historic dollar value of certain endowment funds. This makes New York’s law stricter than the standard UPMIFA model in several respects, giving donors additional protections that do not exist in most other states.
Pennsylvania: Still Using the Old Law
Pennsylvania is one of only two jurisdictions that have not adopted UPMIFA at all. Pennsylvania nonprofits still operate under the older UMIFA framework. This means Pennsylvania organizations cannot spend from underwater endowments the way organizations in UPMIFA states can. The old Historic Dollar Value Rule still applies, which can trap endowment funds during market downturns.
How to Remove or Modify Endowment Restrictions
Donor restrictions on endowments are powerful, but they are not permanent in every situation. UPMIFA provides three paths to change or remove a restriction.
Path 1: Donor Consent
The simplest way to change a restriction is to get the donor’s written agreement. If the donor is alive and has the mental capacity to consent, the organization can ask them to modify or release the restriction. This requires no court involvement and no attorney general notification.
Path 2: Court Approval
When the donor is deceased or unavailable, the organization can petition a court to modify the restriction. The court will look at whether the restriction has become impracticable, impossible to achieve, or wasteful. The modification must align with the donor’s probable intent. The state attorney general must be notified and may participate in the proceeding.
Path 3: Small and Old Fund Exception
UPMIFA includes a special rule for endowment funds that are both small and old. If a fund holds less than $25,000 and has been in existence for more than 20 years, the organization can modify or remove the restriction without going to court. The organization must notify the attorney general and wait 60 days. If no objection is raised, the restriction can be changed — as long as the funds continue to be used in a way that is consistent with the charitable purposes expressed in the original gift.
| Modification Path | When It Applies |
|---|---|
| Donor consent | Donor is alive, has capacity, and agrees in writing to modify the restriction |
| Court approval | Donor is unavailable; restriction has become impracticable, impossible, or wasteful |
| Small/old fund exception | Fund is under $25,000 and over 20 years old; attorney general notified with 60-day waiting period |
Real-World Scenarios: When Restrictions Are Broken
The consequences of violating endowment restrictions are severe. These three high-profile cases show what happens when organizations ignore the rules.
Scenario 1: Princeton and the Robertson Family
In 1961, Charles and Marie Robertson gave Princeton University a gift that grew into a roughly $900 million endowment. The restriction was clear: the money was to train students for careers in government service, primarily through the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
The Robertson heirs believed Princeton was spending the money on a broader range of careers that had nothing to do with government service. They filed suit. A forensic audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers revealed that Princeton had misused more than $100 million in earmarked funds. After both sides spent nearly $90 million on legal fees, Princeton settled in 2009. The university agreed to return $100 million — $40 million for legal fees and $50 million plus interest to a new foundation supporting education for government service.
| What Princeton Did | What Happened as a Result |
|---|---|
| Spent restricted endowment funds on programs outside the donor’s stated purpose | Forensic audit revealed $100M+ in misused funds |
| Fought the Robertson heirs in court for years | Both sides spent nearly $90M in legal fees |
| Settled rather than going to trial | Princeton paid $100M back and lost control of future spending decisions |
Scenario 2: Crystal Cathedral Ministries
Crystal Cathedral Ministries, the megachurch founded by Robert Schuller in California, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2010. A lawsuit filed by creditors alleged that the Schuller family used more than $10 million from the ministry’s restricted endowment to pay for operating expenses and staff salaries.
Those donors gave money with specific restrictions on how it could be spent. Using restricted endowment funds for general operating costs is what the nonprofit world calls “invading” the endowment — and it is a direct violation of donor restrictions and state law.
| What Crystal Cathedral Did | What Happened as a Result |
|---|---|
| Used $10M+ from restricted endowment for operating expenses and salaries | Creditors filed a lawsuit against the founding family |
| Filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy | The organization lost its property and reputation |
Scenario 3: Westminster College
Westminster College asked a court for permission to access restricted endowment funds during financial hardship. During the hearing, it came to light that the college’s president had already withdrawn restricted endowment funds without a court order — and was actually asking for more money to repay the $6.3 million spent without authorization.
The court grudgingly granted the petition but imposed strict conditions: a full repayment schedule with interest, a new policy requiring Board of Trustees approval for any endowment access, and mandatory submission of annual audit statements to the state attorney general.
| What Westminster Did | What Happened as a Result |
|---|---|
| President withdrew $6.3M from restricted endowment without court authorization | Court imposed mandatory repayment with interest |
| Asked court for even more access to restricted funds | Court required Board approval for all future endowment access and annual audits to the attorney general |
Fiduciary Duties That Bind Every Decision-Maker
UPMIFA does not just restrict spending — it also imposes fiduciary duties on every person involved in managing and investing endowment assets. This includes board members, directors, trustees, officers, employees, and third-party asset managers.
Four fiduciary duties apply:
- Duty of care — Act with good faith and the care a prudent person would use in similar circumstances
- Duty to minimize costs — Only authorize fees and expenses that are appropriate and reasonable
- Duty to investigate — Research and verify the information used to make investment decisions
- Duty of loyalty — Manage and invest the assets solely in the best interests of the organization, not for personal benefit
Violating any of these duties opens the door to personal liability. A board member who rubber-stamps an imprudent spending decision without reviewing the Seven Factor Prudence Test is breaching the duty of care. A director who hires an expensive investment manager without comparing alternatives is violating the duty to minimize costs.
Delegation Rules
UPMIFA allows boards to delegate investment management to outside professionals. The board must choose the manager using reasonable skill and caution, ensure the fees are reasonable, define the scope of the manager’s authority, and periodically review their performance.
One thing the board cannot delegate: spending decisions. The authority to decide how much to appropriate from an endowment stays with the board. No investment manager or outside advisor can make that call.
Mistakes to Avoid With Endowment Funds
These are the most common errors nonprofits make — and the damage each one causes.
Mistake 1: Treating quasi endowments like true endowments (or vice versa). A board-designated fund is not subject to UPMIFA’s restriction rules. But a true donor-restricted endowment is. Confusing the two leads to either unnecessary restrictions on money the board controls — or illegal spending of money the donor restricted.
Mistake 2: Ignoring the gift instrument. The gift instrument is the legal document that spells out the donor’s restrictions. Failing to read it carefully — or losing it — means the organization may not know what it can and cannot do with the funds. Princeton’s $100 million settlement started with a dispute over the terms of the original gift.
Mistake 3: Spending from an underwater endowment without proper analysis. UPMIFA allows it, but only after rigorous application of the Seven Factor Prudence Test. Boards that skip this analysis face legal exposure and possible attorney general investigation.
Mistake 4: Assuming all states follow the same rules. Pennsylvania still uses the old UMIFA law. New York has unique provisions that do not exist anywhere else. An organization operating in multiple states must know which version of the law applies to each endowment.
Mistake 5: Failing to document spending decisions. If a board appropriates funds from an endowment, it must be able to show how it considered each of the seven prudence factors. Undocumented decisions look imprudent — even if they were reasonable at the time.
Mistake 6: Not notifying the attorney general when required. Modifying restrictions on small, old funds requires 60 days’ notice to the attorney general. Skipping this step makes the modification legally invalid.
Mistake 7: Using restricted endowment funds for general operating expenses. This is “invading” the endowment. Crystal Cathedral’s leadership learned this lesson the hard way — it contributed to the organization’s bankruptcy and legal action.
Do’s and Don’ts of Managing Endowment Funds
| Do | Don’t |
|---|---|
| Read and preserve every gift instrument. The gift instrument is the legal foundation of every restriction. Without it, you cannot prove what the donor intended. | Don’t assume a verbal agreement replaces a written gift instrument. UPMIFA requires written consent for modifications. A handshake deal with a donor has no legal weight. |
| Apply all seven prudence factors before every spending decision. Document each factor and how the board weighed it. This creates a legal record of prudent decision-making. | Don’t treat the Seven Percent Rule as a spending target. It is a ceiling that triggers a presumption of imprudence, not a goal. Many endowments should spend well below 7%. |
| Review your state’s specific version of UPMIFA. Provisions vary. New York, Pennsylvania, and other states have unique rules that change how your endowment operates. | Don’t apply another state’s UPMIFA rules to your organization. The law in your state controls your endowment, not the model law or another state’s version. |
| Set up internal spending policies for underwater endowments. Create clear thresholds and approval requirements before the market drops. | Don’t spend from an underwater endowment without heightened scrutiny. The Seven Factor Test applies with even greater force when the fund is below its original gift value. |
| Notify the attorney general when legally required. Small/old fund modifications and certain spending actions require advance notice. | Don’t modify a donor restriction without following the proper legal path. Donor consent, court approval, or the small/old fund exception are the only options. |
Pros and Cons of Endowment Fund Restrictions
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Protects the donor’s intent. Restrictions ensure the money goes exactly where the donor wanted it, building trust and encouraging future giving. | Limits organizational flexibility. Restricted funds cannot be redirected to urgent needs, even during financial emergencies. |
| Provides long-term financial stability. A well-managed endowment generates income for decades or even centuries, creating a reliable funding stream. | Creates administrative burden. Tracking restrictions, documenting compliance, and reporting to the attorney general require significant staff time and legal resources. |
| Encourages prudent investing. UPMIFA’s fiduciary duties push boards to make thoughtful, well-researched investment decisions rather than chasing short-term returns. | Exposes the organization to legal risk. Even accidental misuse of restricted funds can lead to lawsuits, forced repayment, and reputational damage. |
| Builds donor confidence. Donors give larger gifts when they know their restrictions will be honored and enforced by law. | Locks up capital during downturns. Underwater endowments can freeze millions of dollars at the exact moment the organization needs them most. |
| Preserves purchasing power over time. UPMIFA’s prudence standard protects against inflation and reckless spending, keeping the fund valuable for future generations. | Makes it hard to adapt to changing needs. A restriction set in 1960 may no longer make sense in 2026, but removing it requires donor consent, a court order, or meeting narrow statutory criteria. |
Key Organizations and Their Roles
Several entities play important roles in how endowment restrictions work in practice.
The Uniform Law Commission drafted UPMIFA in 2006 and promotes its adoption across states. The Commission is made up of attorneys, judges, legislators, and professors appointed by state governments to create uniform laws where consistency is needed.
State attorneys general serve as the watchdogs of charitable endowments. They have the power to investigate misuse of restricted funds, participate in court proceedings to modify restrictions, and receive mandatory notifications when organizations seek to change restrictions on small or old funds.
NACUBO (the National Association of College and University Business Officers) tracks endowment data across U.S. higher education. Their annual survey revealed that college endowments returned an average of 10.9% in fiscal year 2025, with Harvard’s endowment leading at over $55 billion.
Boards of directors and trustees bear ultimate responsibility for endowment management. They cannot delegate spending decisions, and they must personally ensure that every appropriation meets UPMIFA’s prudence standard.
Accounting for Endowment Restrictions
How an endowment is classified on financial statements matters for both legal compliance and donor transparency. Under current accounting standards, endowment funds fall into categories based on their level of restriction.
A true endowment with a perpetual restriction is reported as net assets with donor restrictions. The original gift amount remains in this category permanently. Any investment income or appreciation that the donor did not restrict is reported as net assets without donor restrictions once the board appropriates it for spending.
A quasi endowment is reported as net assets without donor restrictions because no donor restriction exists. The board’s internal designation does not change the accounting classification. This is an area where many nonprofits get confused — a board-designated endowment may feel restricted, but legally and financially, it is not.
UPMIFA’s drafters made an important clarification: “regardless of the treatment of endowment funds from an accounting standpoint, legally an endowment fund should not be considered unrestricted.” This means that even when accounting rules classify some endowment income as “unrestricted,” the legal restrictions under UPMIFA still apply. The assets remain donor-restricted until the board formally appropriates them for expenditure.
The Investment Standard Under UPMIFA
UPMIFA does not just regulate spending — it also tells nonprofits how to invest endowment assets. The law allows investment in any kind of property or type of investment, subject to the donor’s restrictions.
If a donor specifies in the gift instrument that the endowment cannot be invested in tobacco companies or fossil fuels, the organization must follow that restriction. Former SEC Commissioner Bevis Longstreth has argued that UPMIFA’s prudence standard should also apply to climate risk, noting that institutions investing heavily in fossil fuels could be acting imprudently. Students and alumni at Harvard and Boston College have filed complaints with state attorneys general making exactly this argument.
UPMIFA requires diversification of investments unless special circumstances dictate otherwise. The organization must also review new donated assets within a reasonable time to make sure they fit the fund’s investment strategy. A donor who gives stock in a single company, for example, may need that stock sold and reinvested into a diversified portfolio — unless the gift instrument says otherwise.
Investment decisions cannot be made in isolation. Each asset must be evaluated in the context of the entire portfolio and the organization’s overall investment strategy. Risk and return objectives should be suited to both the fund and the organization’s needs.
How Endowment Spending Policies Work in Practice
Most nonprofits do not decide endowment spending on a case-by-case basis. They adopt a spending policy — a formula that determines how much the organization will appropriate from its endowment each year.
A common approach is the “spending rate” method, where the organization spends a fixed percentage (often 4% to 5%) of the endowment’s average market value over the prior 12 quarters (three years). This smoothing formula prevents wild swings in annual distributions caused by short-term market movements.
The Uniform Law Commission recommends that organizations establish spending policies that are responsive to short-term fluctuations while maintaining appropriate levels of expenditures in both good and bad economic conditions. In some years, it is more prudent to accumulate rather than spend. In other years, the organization may appropriately make expenditures even if the fund did not generate a positive return.
The spending policy must also respect donor restrictions. If a gift instrument says the organization can only spend 4% per year, that restriction overrides UPMIFA’s broader provisions. As Ropes & Gray explains, a fund with a specific spending cap in the gift instrument is governed by that cap — not by UPMIFA’s prudent spending analysis.
FAQs
Are all endowment funds restricted by law?
No. Only true endowments created by donor-restricted gifts are legally restricted under UPMIFA. Quasi endowments designated by the board are unrestricted and can be spent at the board’s discretion.
Can a nonprofit spend the principal of an endowment?
No — not for a true endowment under normal circumstances. The principal must be preserved. Only investment income and prudent amounts of appreciation can be appropriated for spending.
What is an underwater endowment?
An underwater endowment is one where the current market value has fallen below the original gift amount. UPMIFA allows prudent spending from underwater funds, but the old UMIFA law did not.
Can a donor change restrictions after making the gift?
Yes. A donor can agree in writing to modify or release a restriction at any time. The organization and donor simply need a written agreement reflecting the change.
Does UPMIFA apply in every state?
No. UPMIFA has been adopted by 49 states and D.C., but Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico have not adopted it. Pennsylvania still operates under the older UMIFA framework.
Can a nonprofit change endowment restrictions without the donor’s consent?
Yes, but only through a court order or the small/old fund exception. The restriction must be impracticable, impossible, or wasteful, and the attorney general must be notified.
What happens if a nonprofit misuses restricted endowment funds?
Lawsuits, forced repayment, attorney general investigations, and reputational damage. Princeton paid $100 million and Westminster was ordered to repay $6.3 million with interest.
Is a board-designated endowment the same as a true endowment?
No. A board-designated (quasi) endowment has no donor restriction and is not governed by UPMIFA’s spending rules. The board can reverse the designation and spend the funds freely.
What is the Seven Percent Rule?
It is an optional UPMIFA provision creating a rebuttable presumption of imprudence if spending exceeds 7% of an endowment’s average fair market value over three years. Not all states adopted it.
Do fiduciary duties apply to outside investment managers?
Yes. UPMIFA’s fiduciary duties apply to everyone involved in managing endowment assets, including third-party managers. Boards must monitor manager performance and ensure reasonable fees.
Related reading
- Are Endowments Really Taxable? Avoid this Mistake + FAQs
- Can Donor Advised Funds Give to Individuals? + FAQs
- Can Donor Advised Funds Make Pledges? + FAQs
- Are Endowment Contributions Tax Deductible? (w/Examples) + FAQs
- Do Nonprofits Have Endowments? (w/Examples) + FAQs
- What Counts as a Prohibited Benefit From a DAF? (w/Examples) + FAQs
- What Donations Qualify for the Above-the-Line Charitable Deduction? + FAQs