[dantiberian]

Certainly it was better optics for her to donate the stock to charity, but she didn't come out ahead from it AFAICT.

A simplified example, assuming one year of income from the shares, and one year of $150mm income from Google.

### Keep the shares:

Year1 = $150 - ($150 * 0.2) => $120

Year2 = $150 - ($150 * 0.55) => $67.5

Year1 + Year2 => $187.5

### Donate the shares:

Year1 = $150 - $150 - $0 => $0

Year2 = $150 - $0 => $150

Year1 + Year2 => $150

The first law of tax is that it is always better to have more money than less money. I could be wrong here, but I can't seem to find a way that you come out with more money by giving it away (ignoring donations to your own dodgy charity). I'm a big proponent of charity giving, but I don't see a way to make it turn a profit.

- https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-09/deutsche-... - https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-06-27/texas-bil...

[Denzel]

Did you read my reply? You've arrived at the same number I posted in my TL;DR... $37.5MM.

The point was never for her to come out ahead, just less behind.

Why does this matter?

I was simply pointing out that she achieved exactly what she wanted. Better optics. :)

People commending her and commenting how amazing, how selfless, how fantastic it is that she donated all her proceeds to charity.

Understand that her primary motivation in donating was the write-off, not charity.

Otherwise, if she was feeling so chummy, why didn't she instead divide her almost 50% share among the employees that helped build her company? Hint: there's no write-off for that.