He is giving the money to his own charity.<p>With this guys track record, I wouldn't chalk this up to anything more than a clever tax-avoidance strategy.<p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/02/08/manoj-bhargava-the-mystery-monk-making-billions-with-5-hour-energy/3/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/02/08/manoj-bh...</a><p><i>Bhargava claims to have given away $1 billion in 2009, with a letter to FORBES from his attorney, David Lieberman of the Michigan firm Seyburn Kahn, to back him up. Tax returns of Bhargava’s U.S. charity, the Rural India Supporting Trust, suggest a different narrative. Virtually the entire donation was in the form of a 45% stake in the privately held Living Essentials. Only a few million dollars was in cash.<p>Rural India then sold that 45% stake to Nevada 5, a private for-profit company. In exchange, Rural India got a note worth $623.6 million. Bhargava’s accountant Paul Edwards of Plante Moran says his client is not a beneficial owner in Nevada 5—but another one of his associates says it is a vehicle for Bhargava’s philanthropy and affiliated with Innovation Ventures, the parent company of Living Essentials.<p>This kind of deal raises questions, says Roger Colinvaux, professor at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law and an expert on tax and philanthropy. “If it were a private foundation, it would be prohibited from selling to a company related to a major donor.”<p>Rural India itself appears not to be giving much away. It lists total grants paid out in 2010 of just $4 million off a total asset base that by the end of that year had been stepped up to just over $1 billion. Bhargava can get away with this because he set up Rural India as something called a supporting organization, or a group that financially supports other charities. Unlike a traditional private foundation, a supporting organization has no mandated 5% minimum outlay, pays no excise taxes on investment income and has fewer self-dealing restrictions. Bhargava is not doing anything illegal here, just exploiting a loophole in the tax code many other big philanthropists have used as well.</i>