What I’m wondering is why the benifactor gave the money for the building to EV rather than buying the building themselves and just allow EV to use it for free. This would likely have avoided all the optics issues and I guess would have had some other advantages.
Also if the benefactor changes their mind (as e.g. might happen after all the recent negative PR), then EV would lose both their moral high ground and also $15M of real estate.
What I’m wondering is why the benifactor gave the money for the building to EV rather than buying the building themselves and just allow EV to use it for free. This would likely have avoided all the optics issues and I guess would have had some other advantages.
Without knowing who the benefactor was, the possibility of unfavorable tax treatment for the buy-and-donate-a-lease approach comes to mind.
Also if the benefactor changes their mind (as e.g. might happen after all the recent negative PR), then EV would lose both their moral high ground and also $15M of real estate.
Apart from other considerations, the benefactor would have been liable for c£750k of SDLT, for which EVF can claim a charitable exemption.