whistleblower on Church finances

[mrmarklin]

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 7:20 PM, Nofear said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/mormon-church-has-misled-members-on-100-billion-tax-exempt-investment-fund-whistleblower-alleges/2019/12/16/e3619bd2-2004-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html

Prediction: Even after the Church is cleared of any illegalities, the nay-sayers will use this as fuel for complaint and criticism for a long time.

 

edit: if you've reached your monthly limit of free post articles, clear your cookies for their sites and you should be good to go. I would change the unique identification url to be generic but haven't yet looked into their new technique. Stupid trackers.

The church has an army of lawyers protecting its interests.  I seriously doubt anything illegal is happening.  Over the years a lot of changes have been made about fund-raising, how tithing has been handled, as well as re-structuring the Church's operating corporations to comply with applicable laws.  Charities and Churches are no longer exempt from taxes of what is called "non related business income".  This has been the case for many years now.

Charities are required to give a certain amount to maintain charitable status, but this is an area of law that has a lot of complexities as to whether or not the requirements are fulfilled.

The Church controls other tax exempt organizations such as educational works etc.  I'm sure there is a fair sized legal department to keep track of all this.

Like many so called whistle blowers the guy has his own ideas of what is "right" and is working on limited information.  I doubt he's high up enough to have a complete picture.

And even if the Church has $100 billion invested somewhere outside its institutional buildings etc. that's only $16,000 per member.  Not much in the over all scheme of things.  If the budget is $7 billion, that's only $438 per member.  How much does anyone think it costs to operate a decent sized meeting house??  I don't know either, but I own a home and it's not cheap.  Utilities, maintenance, such as periodic painting, repairs, carpet shampooing, occasional remodels, insurance, etc all add up.  I spend an average of $10,000 per year to maintain my country home,  a single family dwelling of around 2,000 sq ft.  This does not count property taxes or insurance which is another $4,000 a year.  In the US, I believe churches are property tax exempt.

One can only guess the costs of a building ten times bigger than my second home.

Edited December 18, 2019 by mrmarklin

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I think David Nielsen is an incredibly intelligent guy and correctly figured out what was going on.

Meh. He may be bright and good at investing, but he's certainly no tax expert. 

I think the only really clever thing he has done here is that he found a way to insulate himself from liability by funneling his leak through an IRS whistleblower complaint. 

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

I'll just repost this without comment.

 

How about making the analogy that the Church is similar to a family, it is not a charity but likely engages in charitable acts....but that doesn't mean its savings accounts and other properties are always earmarked for charitable purposes if there is anything leftover from current expenses for the family's needs.

-----

There are a lot of assumptions being made based on one man's report of what others say in terms of the purpose of the fund.  I think people should be more cautious in accepting such as facts.

I trust Quinn's evaluations of church finances more than possibly self serving reports of one fund manager and a couple of reporters and a consultant who likely spent a few hours looking at a few pages of info (percentagewise of what Quinn has researched for years).

I don't have his book, does anyone have access to it and if so, is there a summary section or something that succinctly explains likely income and expenses in Quinn's view?  Or something online that summarizes his work?

Edited December 18, 2019 by Calm

[provoman]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is there a way to access the documents outside of taking screenshots of the video which has as I understand some, but not all 74 pages, shown?

go to the youtube videos, there should be a dropbox link the full pdf can be downloaded without a dropbox account....I do not understand why people use scribd

[provoman]

nvm

Edited December 18, 2019 by provoman

[gopher]

38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Has this process changed in the last few years?

When I served as bishop an individual or family in need would speak with the Bishop who would assess the level of need. The bishop would then have the family meet with the RS President to determine specifically what they needed from the Storehouse. In many cases the RS Pres would pick up the order from the store house and deliver it to the individual or in some instances the individual would go directly to the storehouse with their order form. But IIRC the bishop was required to sign off on the order to approve it before it was filled. In other words, a person doesn't show up at the storehouse and say they want 4 loaves of bread. There is a system in place to determine the level of need and the level of assistance.

So you may be correct in stating that the workers at the storehouse don't deny a food order signed by the bishop as the ecclesiastic leader, but that's hardly the same thing as saying that a person gets whatever they want.

The training was intended for those that fill out the food orders.  The instructions were to not be stingy and allow the members to decide how much food and household supplies they need.  Those decisions are not for the Bishop or RS president to make.  Of course, any outrageous requests can be denied, but everyone was instructed to be generous with the storehouse goods.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I think David Nielsen is an incredibly intelligent guy and correctly figured out what was going on.

Do you accept all incredibly intelligent persons' speculations based on partial info?  I would assume yes given what you just wrote  if you believed the partial info was a substantial part.  But how can anyone judge that without knowing how much info is actually out there?

Edited December 18, 2019 by Calm

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Has any of that actually been demonstrated instead of just alleged though?  Do the documents demonstrate this or is it based on Nielsen’s say so at this point?

My understanding is that the documents he cites are official internal documents, but the providence of them still needs to be proven. The IRS isn't going to make a ruling based upon what he has collected--it is going to open an investigation. I happen to believe Nielsen is right, but I want to see a thorough investigation and give the Church its "day in court" before coming to any final conclusions.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, provoman said:

go to the youtube videos, there should be a dropbox link the full pdf can be downloaded without a dropbox account....I do not understand why people use scribd

Is it in the video itself or some place else?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My understanding is that the documents he cites are official internal documents, but the providence of them still needs to be proven. The IRS isn't going to make a ruling based upon what he has collected--it is going to open an investigation. I happen to believe Nielsen is right, but I want to see a thorough investigation and give the Church its "day in court" before coming to any final conclusions.

I don't have a problem with people believing he is right.  I have a problem with people acting as if he is right (making conclusions as if they were facts and expecting others to refute or accept  them).

Edited December 18, 2019 by Calm

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

I'll just repost this without comment.

"501(c)(3) tax-exemptions apply to entities that are organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, for testing for public safety, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, for the prevention of cruelty to children, women, or animals."

Correct. So if Ensign Peaks generated $65 Billion in investment earnings and has spent zero dollars of interest and zero dollars of principle on any religious, charitable, or other approved reason, should it have its 501C3 status revoked? If it exists "exclusively" for those reasons but doesn't do anything at all for them, then how could we possibly say it is complying with its purpose?

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Do you acknowledge that David is not really a witness to much of what he claims?  Do you acknowledge that his claims are mostly based on assumptions?  Again from Helix:  

 

If this were being litigated, he could definitely be called as a fact witness on the matters he talks about. He isn't a witness to "much of it." Nobody is. But he is a witness to a lot of it. His story has some inferences and some speculations. But they are made from a very informed position.

[provoman]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is it in the video itself or some place else?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/31jklb5399iwy3e/Letter to an IRS Director.pdf?dl=0

Edited December 18, 2019 by provoman

[MiserereNobis]

Hey, you guys made The Onion!

Mormon Church Accused Of Hoarding Billions In Afterlife Tax Haven

https://www.theonion.com/mormon-church-accused-of-hoarding-billions-in-afterlife-1840512051

Unfortunately, there is no article, just the headline. But hey, go satire!

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, provoman said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/31jklb5399iwy3e/Letter to an IRS Director.pdf?dl=0

Bless you.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So "the court of public opinion" is the proper venue for sorting out complex financial issues pertaining to an unpopular religious minority?

Seriously?

That is where you and I are choosing to discuss it. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Because he's smart?  Aren't you the guy who just yesterday was recommending that I "consider the article Why Smart People Aren't Better at Transcending their Biased Views by Tauriq Moosa"?  Because "regardless of how intelligent and sophisticated" some people are, they can still overlook "fundamental problems"?

LOL. Touche.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have a hearing on Friday pertaining to a default judgment that was entered against my client....Both the plaintiff and the judge are very intelligent, very well-versed in the law, and very experienced in these procedural formalities.  However, they proceeded on faulty assumptions.  They did not have all the facts.  They overlooked important but basic considerations.  

Is it possible that David Nielsen is similarly situated?

That is a fair example. It is definitely possible.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As the Church noted, “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.”

Likewise, Richard Nixon noted that he wasn't a crook.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Is it possible that David Neilsen, and his oh-so-affable brother, Lars, have perhaps struggled in "transcending their biased views"?

David Nielsen is smart.  I'm happy to go with that.  But the folks working for the Church are smart, too.  Is that "compelling" for you?  If not, why not?

For example, it is totally possible that the Church considers the investment income earned by Ensign Peaks to be taxable investment income, and that it files taxes and pays them from a source outside of Ensign Peaks proper. If that were the case, Nielsen would have no way of knowing that the tax payments are being made, and he would have serious, serious egg on his face. I find that highly unlikely, but plausible.

Alternatively, it is plausible that the Church's attorneys sent their income statements to the IRS and asked for a Private Letter Ruling about whether or not their investment income is taxable, and was told that no, they don't have to pay taxes on it. I find this scenario a bit more plausible, and if this is true, it would put serious, serious egg on Nielsen's face. However, I doubt the Church would call attention to the size of its nest egg in this way. My impression is that it would rather sneak under the radar and would prefer to ask for forgiveness rather than permission.

Alternatively, there might be some other scenario that I haven't contemplated that would also vindicate the Church of the tax issue. Maybe the evolving Federal Courts will say this is all okay under a broad "Freedom of Religion" argument? That would be extremely disappointing, but definitely plausible.

All that said, my opinion is that in the end, Nielsen will be vindicated for raising some important and valid issues, and the IRS will be forced to deal with it.

As your story of "Bob" illustrates, it is possible for very smart people to make mistakes. It is possible that it is the Church that made the mistake in this case.

[Teancum]

On 12/17/2019 at 12:43 AM, carbon dioxide said:

Hopefully it will cash out before then.

If the government fails the cash will be worthless as well.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As the Church noted, “Claims being currently circulated are based on a narrow perspective and limited information.

Will the Church broaden the perspective and release sufficient information?

[Navidad]

22 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 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.

I am responding to Stemelbow's post which you quoted: She says "The poorest among us are required (at least to reach heaven) to donate money to the Church . . ." Is that correct? Tithing is required to reach heaven? Which heaven? Only to the LDS Church? This is the most interesting statement (to me) of the last 17 pages. 

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am responding to Stemelbow's post which you quoted: She says "The poorest among us are required (at least to reach heaven) to donate money to the Church . . ." Is that correct? Tithing is required to reach heaven? Which heaven? Only to the LDS Church? This is the most interesting statement (to me) of the last 17 pages. 

Obedience to all of God's commandments (and repentance when we don't) is required to reach heaven (His heaven).  If paying a portion of your income to His church as a tithe is one of those commandments then the answer is yes. 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

Something I don't get is that statement by Pres. Hinckley in 2002 to that reporter in Germany when he said that contributions (paraphrasing) are transparent to the people who pay them not to everyone else. That just isn't true though. I pay tithing, I did so yestarday even. I have never heard of EPA or any of these other corporations before, I don't see an accounting sheet on the ward or stake budget-I see somethings they spend their money on but not everything. what transparency is he talking about?

It was a false statement. 

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Will the Church broaden the perspective and release sufficient information?

Nope.  

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Have you bothered to read the Forbes article that has been posted (multiple times now)? 

The likelihood that the church isn't doing everything "above board" is pretty much zero. 

Whether it is obeying the letter of the law and obeying the spirit of the law are two different things. Likewise, just because what it is doing might be legal doesn't mean that what it is doing should be legal. From the Forbes article:

An interesting question is why we don’t demand the same level of transparency of churches, that we require of other not-for-profits. And you could also ask why church members don’t demand it of their churches. If there were that sort of transparency we would not have people being shocked, shocked that LDS has accumulated such a big stash. I have written about that issue here and here.

The other big issue is why not-for-profits are able to accumulate so much. Presumably the deduction for charitable contributions and the exemption from tax on investment earnings are reflective of not-for-profits doing something that serves some social purpose. If they are just going to accumulate, better they should pay some taxes. So called charities are becoming pools of tax-free capital.

 

 

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Meh. He may be bright and good at investing, but he's certainly no tax expert. 

I think the only really clever thing he has done here is that he found a way to insulate himself from liability by funneling his leak through an IRS whistleblower complaint. 

 

Have you read the Forbes article? Whether there is a tax liability and whether there should be one are two different questions. Assuming there isn't one, drawing attention to this defect in our tax code and the way the Church is exploiting it is a noble thing to expose. Quoting the Forbes article again:

An interesting question is why we don’t demand the same level of transparency of churches, that we require of other not-for-profits. And you could also ask why church members don’t demand it of their churches. If there were that sort of transparency we would not have people being shocked, shocked that LDS has accumulated such a big stash. I have written about that issue here and here.

The other big issue is why not-for-profits are able to accumulate so much. Presumably the deduction for charitable contributions and the exemption from tax on investment earnings are reflective of not-for-profits doing something that serves some social purpose. If they are just going to accumulate, better they should pay some taxes. So called charities are becoming pools of tax-free capital.

[provoman]

24 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Will the Church broaden the perspective and release sufficient information?

 

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Nope.  

From the Church newsroom

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