Charity Navigators say they are being unfairly targeted by some of the largest private foundations, who have used the phrase “donate” to describe how much money they will give away.
They say that many of the private foundations that use the phrase, such as the National Institutes of Health and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are trying to skirt the law by offering a way to give away funds without having to disclose the terms.
“It is a double standard,” said Sarah Rehfeldt, director of the nonprofit watchdog, Charity Navigators, a non-profit that monitors and vets the charitable giving industry.
The phrase has been used by private foundations to describe what amount of money to give out and what amount to withhold.
It is used to describe a donation, as opposed to a donation.
The nonprofit has filed more than 200 complaints with the Internal Revenue Service and more than 250 complaints with state attorneys general.
In many cases, donors have given to the charities without telling them they are using the phrase.
The foundation has said it will continue to use the term “donation” to indicate the amount of donations.
But, Rehfield said, many of those donors have been paying thousands of dollars a year for the services that charity Navigators have deemed inappropriate.
“We are being targeted by a few of these organizations, and we are just trying to do our job and make sure we don’t do that,” Rehstein said.
One of the biggest cases is the Bill & Melinda and Donors Trust, which says it uses the phrase to describe its efforts to help those in need.
It uses the term to describe “a limited grant that we are giving to those in a crisis, when it is the right time and the right thing to do,” said DonorsTrust president Mark DeSantis.
In response, Rehefferts group filed an audit in January 2016 that found DonorsTrac, which is the parent company of DonorsFund, received more than $2 million from donors with “donor-approved” names.
The IRS said DonorTrust had not been audited for at least five years, and that DonorsTac had not disclosed the full amount to the IRS.
“There is no way that these organizations are doing their job,” said Rehferts.
“DonorsTrust and DonorTac have been caught using ‘donor approved’ as an improper way to avoid disclosing that they are soliciting donations for use in their charity’s programs.”
Charity Navigs says that its audit was the first time that the IRS had looked into the issue, and it will pursue legal action.
The tax agency also issued a warning to Donors, saying that while donors may be happy to donate to charity, it is a mistake to solicit money for a cause.
In addition to Donor, CharityNavigators also investigated DonorsGroup and Doners Trust, but the agency said those groups have not received the attention they deserve.
The watchdog says that when donors are given information about how much they are donating and how it will be used, they can decide to give more or less.
For instance, donors could donate as much as they like, but don’t have to say how much, or even to specify the amount they want.
“The public can be misled by a donor’s enthusiasm or enthusiasm can be deceptive,” Rehnstein said, adding that many people think the phrase means “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Donors have been getting a lot of attention from the media in recent months, especially after former President Bill Clinton, who gave a $1 million check to charity Navigator, made a public apology for using the “donations to charity” phrase.
In a recent New York Times article, a former donor named Robert F. Smith said he gave about $3 million to charity.
But he didn’t tell the foundation he was giving it to charity until later.
In the Times article and in an interview with the AP, Smith said that after a couple of months, he realized that he had been giving the money to charity anyway.
“I didn’t want to do that, and I didn’t think that I was supposed to,” Smith said.
The charity is still not sure why he did it.
“What I would like to know is why we are doing this,” said the foundation’s Rehfried.
The public has not been given a good answer, said Rehnfeldt.
“Many people have given money and no one has ever been told why they gave,” she said.
“They have been asked questions about the phrase and their intentions and whether they are really charitable.
The truth is, they are not.”
The nonprofit says that while it is committed to protecting the integrity of charities, it also believes in transparency and accountability.
It plans to work with charities that have been