![TE1019-HASKELL.jpg TE1019-HASKELL.jpg](https://eu-images.contentstack.com/v3/assets/bltabaa95ef14172c61/bltd386348b3b364e49/6734ba830ad5a94d318d0513/TE1019-HASKELL.jpg?width=1280&auto=webp&quality=95&format=jpg&disable=upscale)
Many practitioners and other advisors who have regular dealings with private foundation (PFs) are well aware of the direct self-dealing rules, which severely limit the financial transactions that may occur between a PF and its insiders, technically termed “disqualified persons” (DPs), as defined in Internal Revenue Code Section 4946. Although the direct self-dealing rules are arguably well-defined, the indirect self-dealing rules are fraught with ambiguity. Surprisingly, “indirect self-dealing” isn’t defined by the IRC or the Treasury regulations. Instead, the regulations take the curious approach of providing exceptions1 to this undefined rule. While many practitioners are aware of the potential for indirect self-dealing in connection w...
Unlock All Access Premium Subscription
Get Trusts & Estates articles, digital editions, and an optional print subscription. Choose your subscription now and dive into expert insights today!
Already Subscribed?