5-Jurisdiction Compliance Matrix
GrantsProof operates grant-capital vehicles in five jurisdictions. Each is selected for the strength of its charitable-sector regulator, its beneficial-ownership transparency, and its civil-evidence framework. This page sets the matrix out side-by-side for fiduciaries, foundations, and grantees evaluating the platform.
| Dimension | United States (Wyoming foundation) | Switzerland (Stiftung) | UAE (DIFC Foundation) | Singapore (S-CT charity) | Brazil (Fundacao) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulator | IRS Tax-Exempt and Government Entities Division; state Attorney General | Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA) | DIFC Authority; Charity Regulation Authority | Charity Council; Commissioner of Charities | Ministerio Publico (state-level) |
| Founding instrument | Articles of incorporation + IRC 501(c)(3) determination letter | Public deed before notary; Stiftungsurkunde | Foundation charter + by-laws filed with DIFC | Trust deed or company-limited-by-guarantee constitution | Public deed (escritura publica) + Estatuto |
| Beneficial ownership | FinCEN BO reporting under CTA (subject to ongoing rule changes); state-level reporting | Commercial Register; FATF-compliant disclosure | UBO disclosure to DIFC; FATF-compliant | ACRA register; controllers register required | RFB beneficial-owner registry |
| Deductibility for donor | 501(c)(3) deductible to limits | Deductible up to 20% of net income (federal) | Limited deductibility under UAE tax framework; pending CIT rules | 250% tax deduction for IPC-status charities | Deductible up to 1-2% of taxable income for qualifying entities |
| Audit cadence | Annual Form 990-PF; state-level audit thresholds vary | Annual external audit required for most foundations | Annual independent audit per DIFC rules | Annual audit for charities above $500K revenue | Annual demonstrativo financeiro filed with MP |
| Distribution requirements | 5% minimum distribution for private foundations | Foundation purpose must be substantively pursued; no fixed minimum | Per foundation charter; supervised by DIFC | Substantial-portion-applied test (broadly 80% within reasonable time) | Foundation purpose must be pursued; supervised by MP |
| Sanctions framework | OFAC SDN; secondary sanctions exposure | SECO sanctions; aligned with UN and EU | UAE sanctions list; UN Security Council aligned | MAS targeted financial sanctions | Brazilian Central Bank; UN Security Council aligned |
| Civil-evidence admissibility | Federal Rules of Evidence 902(13)/(14) - certified electronic records self-authenticating | Code of Civil Procedure - electronic documents admissible with authentication | DIFC Court Rules - electronic records admissible | Evidence Act - electronic records admissible with authentication | CPC Article 411 - documentos eletronicos admissible with assinatura digital |
| Cross-border grant treatment | ED or ER required for foreign grantees | Foreign grants permitted within charter scope | Foreign grants permitted; subject to disclosure | Foreign grants subject to charter and Council rules | Foreign grants permitted within charter scope; disclosure required |
| Public registry availability | Form 990-PF publicly accessible (e.g., ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer) | Foundation register publicly accessible | DIFC public register | Charity Portal public listings | Public via MP (varies by state) |
Why this matrix matters
The five-jurisdiction structure is not for tax optimization. It is for civil-evidence durability and beneficial-ownership transparency across multiple regulatory regimes. A claim made on the platform that survives scrutiny in five distinct legal frameworks is more credible than one made in a single regime, particularly when the entity behind the claim is the foundation pursuing recovery.