Detailed Explanation
To answer The Mysterious Dowry,
let us consider the following scenarios:
Two parties
entrust a trustee with securities totaling three hundred dollars.
One party deposits
two hundred while the other party deposits one hundred.
The trustee fails to
remember the amount deposited by each party.
-
I. The trustee bears responsibility for his or her accounting
negligence and therefore must pay two hundred to both parties assuming
each depositor claims to have deposited the higher sum.
-
II. If however, both depositors are uncertain of the sum
of their deposits, yet claim that the questionable sum might indeed belong
to them, the trustee returns one hundred to each party and should hold the
remaining one hundred in escrow until the matter is further clarified.
-
III. If neither of the depositors lay any claim whatsoever
to the questionable sum, the trustee divides it evenly between the two
parties.
Nevertheless, in
both scenarios II and III, it is noble for the trustee to return two hundred to
each party. [Choshen Mishpat 300: 1, Sha"ch 5]
Application:
What should Hilda do?
Tammy and Naomi entrusted their mother with their
CDs. Mrs. Neuberger could not identify
the owner of the $9,000 CD. While the $9,000
CD belonged either to Tammy or to Naomi, neither one of them laid any claim of
ownership thereof. Hence, The Mysterious Dowry is similar to Scenario III
Consequently, Mrs. Neuberger need
not award $9,000 to both Tammy and Naomi. Instead, she is required to divide the sum equally between the two
daughters, giving $4,500 to each. While
not required, it would be noble for Mrs. Neuberger to assign each of them
$9000.
May she write a check payable
to the school's DDF (Dean's Discretionary Fund), with a request to add the
amount to Tammy's and Naomi's holiday bonuses and receive a receipt for a
tax-refund in return?
Mrs. Neuberger is required to
give 4,500 to both Tammy and Naomi. This sum belongs to them. She cannot write
it off as a charitable donation.
Should she wish to act nobly and
assign each of them an additional 4,500 from her own funds, she may consider it
as a charitable donation.
Whether or not she may receive a
tax-refund for requesting the DDF to add the amount to her daughter's holiday
bonuses is contingent on local tax laws. For example, in Australian Common Law
assuming the institution is not limited under its own constitution, a
contributor may hold the institution liable to comply with pre-agreed
conditions of a donation.
However, here is a quote from the
USA IRS Publication 526 "Charitable Contributions" pg. 4, 7 "Generally,
you can deduct your contributions of money or property that you make to, or for
the use of, a qualified organization...the contributions must be made to a
qualified organization and not set aside for use by a specific person... You
cannot deduct contributions to specific individuals including the
following...Contributions to individuals who are needy or worthy. This includes
contributions to a qualified organization if you indicate that your
contribution is for a specific person. But you can deduct a contribution that
you give to a qualified organization that in turn helps needy or worthy
individuals if you do not indicate that your contribution is for a specific
person."
Consequently, in the USA, Mrs.
Neuberger can receive a tax deduction for any donation exceeding the initial
$9,000 to the DDF, if she does not specify that the sum should go specifically to
her daughters. It would seem
though, that the DDF maintains the right to use their discretion to award Mrs.
Neuberger's daughters with the extra bonus.
