Patagonia has been and remains a very profitable business. I seriously doubt the annual tax burden outweighed what the family stood to gain from the substantial ongoing profits & earnings they have walked away from.
There was a pretty good piece about this transaction in the N.Y. Times (I think) the other day. They compared & contrasted the "gift" to monetary donations made in recent years by the truly super-wealthy (Gates, Bezos, etc.) to environmental causes. Their assessment: this deal was a substantially different animal and and not driven by tax dodge opportunities. As I understand it, the founder/owner has donated the entire on-going, self-sustaining, profitable business. So, rather than a one-time monetary thing, this is a kind of "living" donation that keeps on giving for a cause that is in keeping with the company mission statement.
I'm certainly neither an accountant nor a financial analyst. Also, I'm sure there
were some tax benefits for the donor. Nevertheless, from all I've read, this appears to be a rather unique, nearly altruistic deal that will do more good, in the long run, than many one-time big-dollar, headline-grabbing gifts that probably have tax-avoidance at their heart.
Such is my limited understanding, anyhow.
Jimbo