Lawsuit over $21 million donor-advised fund highlights risks of DAFs

A version of this article first appeared in CNBC’s Inside Wealth newsletter with Robert Frank, a weekly guide to the high-net-worth investor and consumer. Sign up to receive future editions, straight to your inbox.

With donor-advised funds gaining popularity as a vehicle for the wealthy to give back, risks and potential conflicts of interests are emerging — and being put on display in a lawsuit over a family’s $21 million charitable fund.

Philip Peterson, a 63-year-old Kansas resident, filed suit in January alleging that the nonprofit that administers his family’s donor-advised fund has refused to communicate with him and has failed to make charitable grants that he has recommended since early 2024. The suit, filed in Colorado federal court, alleges the Christian nonprofit, called WaterStone, cut off his access to information about the account and that he doesn’t know how the fund has fared since the end of 2023, when it had $21 million in assets.

Counsel for WaterStone, founded as the Christian Community Foundation, said in a statement that the Colorado Springs nonprofit has respected the wishes of Peterson’s late father, who originally created the fund in 2005 and died in 2019.

The case sheds light on the growing uptake, and dangers, of donor-advised funds, or DAFs, which have quickly become one of the most dominant forces in philanthropy. Americans donated nearly $90 billion to DAFs in 2024, per the most recent annual report from the DAF Research Collaborative. According to the most recent data available, DAFs held $326 billion combined in assets in 2024.

For Americans looking to give back and save on taxes, DAFs are marketed as a flexible and simple way to do so, often described as charitable saving accounts or credit cards. Instead of writing a check to a nonprofit, donors contribute cash and other assets to a DAF. While the tax deduction is immediate, the funds can be allocated to charities later.  

DAFs, unlike private foundations, are not required to distribute assets within a given timeframe, a common criticism among opponents who say DAFs are wealth hoarding vehicles.

The Peterson case offers a cautionary tale on the tradeoffs – especially when it comes to control. While donors are able to recommend how the funds are distributed to charity, the assets are legally controlled by the organizations that administer the DAF on their behalf. Though these organizations, also known as sponsors, typically respect their donors’ wishes, donors have little recourse if they do not.

“It’s sold to the public as, ‘This is your account, and you can decide where it goes, and you can move it, and you maintain full control.’ But if you don’t give up dominion and control, you don’t get the tax benefits,” said Ray Madoff, tax scholar and professor at Boston College Law School. “There’s a disconnect between the legal rules that govern it and the understanding of the parties. And this case is a perfect example of it.”