whistleblower on Church finances

[provoman]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Naturally. I'm just cautioning against bias. 

Do you think a religious purposes for a 501c3 could be to build a surplus for when it is needed, such that the no contributions in 22 years does not remove the exempt status?

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's not about what a former member of the Church, disgruntled or otherwise, thinks the Church should do with its money. It's about the U.S. Code. I'd be interested in your response to the following quote from the Washington Post. If a charity simply amasses a war chest year after year and does not spend any money for charity purposes, does it meet the requirements of tax law to be tax-exempt? Or is Professor Hackney wrong?

"If" being the operative word there.

From the Church's statement: "Claims being currently circulated are based on a narrow perspective and limited information. The church complies with all applicable law governing our donations, investments, taxes and reserves. We continue to welcome the opportunity to work with officials to address questions they may have."

"Narrow perspective and limited information."

"The church complies with all applicable law."

"We continue to welcome the opportunity to work with officials to address questions they may have."

I'm going to wait and see what happens.  I suspect the IRS will make a finding that the Church does indeed comply with the laws governing its finances.  The discussion will then shift from "The Church broke the law!" to oh-so-more-nebulous grumbling from armchair quarterbacks about what the Church should do (which can best be defined as "something vague, but definitely more than the Church is doing now, 'cuz the Church is bad").

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In what way is that special pleading?  I haven't argued either way about whether anyone should itemize their taxes.

You are criticizing the Church not paying all the taxes it theoretically could owe by accusing it of shifting its tax "burden" onto "the rest of us," right?

But you itemizing your taxes also results in you not paying all the taxes you could theoretically owe, so you shift your tax "burden" onto "the rest of us," too.

But somehow it's okay for you to do this.  Hence "special pleading."

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I mentioned my concerns and it devolved into you two getting worked up about itemized taxes, which point feels like a mere deflection and missing the point.  

Nope.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I would, because if your numbers were possible (I doubt it), it would mean our national treasury was healthy. I don't think it currently is.

So you wouldn’t want any tax cuts additional spending or rebates. Correct? Be glad to keep paying taxes at your current levels even though the government was earning more in interest than taxes brought in?

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"If" being the operative word there.

From the Church's statement: "Claims being currently circulated are based on a narrow perspective and limited information. The church complies with all applicable law governing our donations, investments, taxes and reserves. We continue to welcome the opportunity to work with officials to address questions they may have."

"Narrow perspective and limited information."

"The church complies with all applicable law."

"We continue to welcome the opportunity to work with officials to address questions they may have."

I'm going to wait and see what happens.  I suspect the IRS will make a finding that the Church does indeed comply with the laws governing its finances.  The discussion will then shift from "The Church broke the law!" to oh-so-more-nebulous grumbling from armchair quarterbacks about what the Church should do (which can best be defined as "something vague, but definitely more than the Church is doing now, 'cuz the Church is bad").

Thanks,

-Smac

Or the ever popular. "All religions should be taxed" !!!  Shifting the blame on the US government.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And according to Lars on the podcast I shared, the IRS personel in Ogden are probably LDS. But the IRS will get monies so who knows which way they will go.

And they aren't overseen by nonlocal directors who will fire them if they show favoritism to the Church in such a massive claim according to him?

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

Do you think a religious purposes for a 501c3 could be to build a surplus for when it is needed, such that the no contributions in 22 years does not remove the exempt status?

I think that is a question for the Department of Treasury.  That being said, my preliminary opinion is that in writing the Code, the authors clearly intended for charitable contributions to be used for charitable purposes.  I'm not sure the accumulation of a very sizable investment account meets that definition. I could, however, be wrong and I don't claim expertise on interpreting the Code.

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And according to Lars on the podcast I shared, the IRS personel in Ogden are probably LDS. But the IRS will get monies so who knows which way they will go.

 

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

And they aren't overseen by nonlocal directors who will fire them if they show favoritism to the Church in such a massive claim according to him?

I don't think this is a valid concern. Washington DC will clearly be involved with this.

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

He's not talking about taxes

You didn't understand my post.

[provoman]

20 minutes ago, Analytics said:

 

IRS rules dictate that a nonprofit organization must carry out charitable activity that is “commensurate in scope with its financial resources” to maintain its tax-exempt status. No threshold for this test is specified, and the agency instead considers examples case by case.

 

13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The key phrase. So let's let them examine the case and make a ruling on it ........... based on this lack of threshold.   Huh?  

IRS Office of Chief Counsel

https://www.irs.gov/pub/lanoa/pmta00954_7317.pdf

 

key word search "commensurate in scope to its financial resources"

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Those are valid to a point, but we are well beyond that point Comparing the size of the endowment to the churches annual operating expenses. People are saying the church has been so wise compared to the US government. I wonder how people here would react to the news that the US in secret stocked piled .7 trillion a year and had a reserve worth 66 trillion? Would they praise it for its fiscal responsibility?

I would accuse them of having lied to get to this point. If they played it off as a prank I might give it to them. It would be a pretty good prank.

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I think that is a question for the Department of Treasury.  That being said, my preliminary opinion is that in writing the Code, the authors clearly intended for charitable contributions to be used for charitable purposes.  I'm not sure the accumulation of a very sizable investment account meets that definition. I could, however, be wrong and I don't claim expertise on interpreting the Code.

Charitable Purposes according to the IRS:
"The exempt purposes set forth in Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.  The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."  

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with the bolded part.  However, before something has been proven true, it's reasonable to use the evidence provided, including the source, when trying to gauge the credibility of the accusations.

There's really nothing in the allegation that surprises me.  We know that the Church invests... heavily.  And it doesn't seem surprising that they would use those funds to invest in the Church's for profit entities.  I imagine that further investigation will show that the transfers from Ensign Peak to City Creek and Beneficial Life were investments and that they were not done illegally (I can't imagine the Church would make a mistake like that).  

What could be a problem is the issue of whether having this sum of money from a tax-exempt organization being invested over that lengthy of a period of time is a violation of tax code.  I guess we'll have to see how that plays out.

What this prompts for me is the question of how much investment is enough?  Is there a point at which we stop?

[The Nehor]

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yay!  23 TRILLION in debt and a private bank that prints our monopoly money for us that we pay interest on! 

All I see is unsustainable financial practices and eventual total collapse.  The future sucks...just wait.  

 

Ah, but check this out......polio vaccine!

We also have flying machines. Not jet packs though. Not yet.....we are working on it.......a lot.

[Thinking]

18 hours ago, Nofear said:

Even after the Church is cleared of any illegalities...

Is the only focus on what's legal?

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I think that is a question for the Department of Treasury.  That being said, my preliminary opinion is that in writing the Code, the authors clearly intended for charitable contributions to be used for charitable purposes.  I'm not sure the accumulation of a very sizable investment account meets that definition. I could, however, be wrong and I don't claim expertise on interpreting the Code.

What else would/could that money be used for if not for charitable purposes?  It's not there to line the pockets of our leaders.  It CAN'T be used for anything other than charity, so why do people care when it is used?  By saving the way they have, they can do far more good than if they would have spent it all without investing.  That money has a charitable purpose that has already been explained:

Quote

The vast majority of these funds are used immediately to meet the needs of the growing church including more meetinghouses, temples, education, humanitarian work and missionary efforts throughout the world. Over many years, a portion is methodically safeguarded through wise financial management and the building of a prudent reserve for the future. This is a sound doctrinal and financial principle taught by the Savior in the Parable of the Talents and lived by the church and its members. All church funds exist for no other reason than to support the church’s divinely appointed mission.

 

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

IRS Office of Chief Counsel

https://www.irs.gov/pub/lanoa/pmta00954_7317.pdf

 

key word search "commensurate in scope to its financial resources"

Sounds pretty vague to me. How do they measure that? 

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Ah, but check this out......polio vaccine!

We also have flying machines. Not jet packs though. Not yet.....we are working on it.......a lot.

All things we could have had with more sustainable financial practices.   

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are criticizing the Church not paying all the taxes it theoretically could owe by accusing it of shifting its tax "burden" onto "the rest of us," right?

But you itemizing your taxes also results in you not paying all the taxes you could theoretically owe, so you shift your tax "burden" onto "the rest of us," too.

But somehow it's okay for you to do this.  Hence "special pleading."

Nope.

Thanks,

-Smac

You did not read my responses at all I take it?  

[Nofear]

5 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Is the only focus on what's legal?

There are those that say any church being tax exempt is highly unethical. I set the bar lower for this particular issue.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, Thinking said:

You didn't understand my post.

Sorry if I misunderstood. 

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Is the only focus on what's legal?

If this guy is an actual whistleblower? Yes. Otherwise he is just a gossip.

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Charitable Purposes according to the IRS:
"The exempt purposes set forth in Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.  The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."  

 

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

What else would/could that money be used for if not for charitable purposes?  It's not there to line the pockets of our leaders.  It CAN'T be used for anything other than charity, so why do people care when it is used?  By saving the way they have, they can do far more good than if they would have spent it all without investing.  That money has a charitable purpose that has already been explained:

 

To be more explicit, I guess, I have no interest in applying a personal interpretation to the Code.  There other people who are paid to do that who have substantially more experience with these things than I do.  I will say, on the surface, I'm not sure how bailouts of the insurance company and mall (if those allegations are true) meet that definition, but broad interpretations are certainly plausible. 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

All things we could have had with more sustainable financial practices.   

Probably, but the gold standard was never sustainable. Nor does it make sense anymore. We could spend less or collect more. My personal favorite idea is to actually fund the IRS as studies show that increased funding catches more cheats and more than pays for the additional funding required. It is one of the few ways government can spend money to make even more money and everyone except those who cheat on their taxes come out ahead. Sadly politicians prefer to get political donations from tax cheats instead of catching them.  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I have two main concerns with the issues raised.

1.  The poorest among us are required (at least to reach heaven) to donate money to the Church and as it turns out the Church can operate in the exact same way it has without any more donations.  It's grown into an enormous corporation off the backs of the poor and the poor or no one really has any knowledge of where that money goes and what its used for.  This gives us some light--the money goes to make more money.

2.  If the Church is a large corporation it certainly should be treated like one.  If it is intent on being amongst the most lucrative corporations in the world it should be treated like one.  Large corporations are externally audited, made public (for the most part) and actually pay taxes.  If the Church is building wealth off investments, off the backs of members and through it's business interests it should bear the burden of taxes, without such that burden falls on all of us instead.  If these allegations are true, the Church is benefitting from all of us, whether donors or not, to build more wealth.  

 

 There are things that bother me as well. Such as Sister Nelson mentioning in her talk awhile back the man who paid tithing on what kind of income he hoped to have one day, very unnecessary and seems to imply another standard, IMO. And the extravagant Christmas programs and the multiple videos, and the many books written by leaders, some have several. The monies go straight to them. And also, are the leaders expected to pay tithing on their stipends? Or maybe it's the mission presidents that aren't, forgot.