whistleblower on Church finances

[Danzo]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

No, none of this! I just think they might get an increased budget for the wards. But maybe other wards do fine, but the ones I've been in, there was always a worry of going over budget. 

There is always a worry of going over budget.  

That is the point of a budget, to limit spending, if there was not a limit on spending there wouldn't be a budget. 

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Characteristics of tax-exempt organizations

Tax-exempt organizations do not have to pay federal income taxes when they buy or sell items. For tax-exempt eligibility, the organization’s purpose must not be to generate profit. The owners or founders of a tax-exempt organization cannot receive profits from the organization.

Though you may be tax exempt from federal income taxes, you might have to pay state and local taxes. To be exempt from state and local taxes, you need an exemption from your state and local governments. Usually, you’re eligible for state tax exemption after receiving federal exemption.

Is my business tax exempt?

There are a variety of organizations that can be tax exempt. Here are some common tax-exempt organizations:

• Churches and religious organizations
• Educational organizations
• Social welfare organizations
• Fraternities, societies, and associations
• Veterans’ organization with at least 75% of its members serving or have served in the armed forces
• Trade associations that promote the common interest of its members, such as chambers of commerce
• Labor organizations that promote the interests of workers, such as work conditions and wages
• Agricultural and horticultural organizations, including forestry, livestock, and crop institutes
• Scientific organizations that research for public interest and make results available to the public

Section 501(c)(3) status

For federal tax exemption, your organization must register with the IRS. Though there are other ways to gain exemption, the most common is with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Besides tax exemption, 501(c)(3) organizations also receive eligibility for tax deductible charitable gifts, exemption from federal employment taxes, the likelihood of exemption from state and local taxes, and bulk postage rate privileges.

To be eligible for 501(c)(3) status, an organization must:

• Operate for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes
• Not give net income to any private individual, such as an owner or founder
• Not attempt to influence government legislation or be involved with political campaigns
• Not practice illegal activities or violate fundamental public policy

The process of becoming tax exempt is long and difficult. You should consult with an attorney as you pursue tax-exempt status.

I fail to see in your post where it requires an organization to give a certain amount to charity.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

If you are truly hiding Jews in your basement from Nazis why hide it? If you truly think a loved one is fat or unattractive, why hide it? 

Probably because, in all of these cases, there are competing moral obligations. In the case of Joseph Smith's polygamy and of the Church's finances, I don't think we have enough information to cast any sort of moral judgment on them. They are legitimate questions to ask, but one should recognize that transparency isn't always a moral obligation or virtue. At least, most people are willing to make exceptions in some circumstances.

I'm sure the Church knows that a lack of financial transparency is perceived negatively by some people. What we think about the Church's motivation for maintaining their non-transparent policy, however, is probably just a reflection of our overall attitude toward the institution on many other fronts. When people we already trust keep secrets from us, we tend to ascribe positive or justified motivations for their doing so. When people we don't trust aren't transparent about something, we are more prone to assume some sort of foul play. Until any compelling case can be made, people's take on the issue will most likely just be a reflection of their previous biases.

 

This is what I actually said

If he truly believed that is what God wanted him to do, then why hide it.  If the Church truly believes this is how contributions should be treated then why hide it.

Are you really going to compare that to the systematic genocide of 6 million Jews?  

Maybe if you could explain why you think it is better for the Church to hide how it uses Church funds is a superior moral position, I could understand your point.

 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I fail to see in your post where it requires an organization to give a certain amount to charity.

I think this section is the problem, according to Lars, EPA bailed out the church's insurance company, and also according to Lars, the monies from EPA went to help with money problems with City Creek Mall.

Not give net income to any private individual, such as an owner or founder

Also, not having anything to do with this thread, but this as well, is a problem.

Not attempt to influence government legislation or be involved with political campaigns

Edited December 19, 2019 by Tacenda

[kimpearson]

I am curious if the members of this group believe God would allow leaders of the Church to make major mistakes.  For example, I have no problem with a reserve fund but would it be possible that while the original prompting to establish a reserve was from God, God expected his leaders to use their own wisdom and knowledge to determine when the reserve was large enough and then use the funds elsewhere.  Then human beings being human, those leaders incorrectly let the reserve get too big.  Like any mistake we make, such mistakes often lead to consequences that demonstrate the mistake, in this case, someone with at least some knowledge of the facts becomes disillusioned and calls attention to the situation.  Was it a mistake to hold the priesthood from our black brethren as long as we did?  Was the Indian placement program a mistake?  Or back to my original question, do you believe God would never allow the leaders of the Church to make a major mistake?

Personally I believe God does allow major mistakes because we, including leaders, would never be able to exercise true free agency if we know God was always going to stop any major mistakes.  I think our scriptural history backs me up on that belief.  I also believe that our modern church leaders have demonstrated an ability to overcome those mistakes and move on.  I actually think those major mistakes are part of the test of what we truly believe in.  

[Danzo]

Just now, Tacenda said:

I think this section is the problem, according to Lars, EPA bailed out the church's insurance company, and also according to Lars, the monies from EPA went to help with money problems with City Creek Mall.

Not give net income to any private individual, such as an owner or founder

Are you saying that beneficial life insurance owns the church? City Creek Owns the Church?

Or are you accusing the church of gifting (rather than investing) the money to City Creek or Beneficial Life insurance?

Help me understand what law (hopefully you can cite the code or regulation) that you think the church is violating.

[california boy]

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

People keep making it seem like this is some obscene amount of money.  You have to look at it in scale, it is only 6-7 thousand per member.  On the scale of our church, it is not that much money to be honest  - not that significant of a rainy-day fund if you ask me.  On the scale of our Nation, it is tiny.  On the scale of the world, it is almost not worth mentioning.

Wow.  Do you really think you can convince anyone that is having issues with the100 billion dollars that it is not much money?  When did 100 billion dollars become chump change.  

Personally I don't really care how much the Church has in it's investment portfolio, but I don't think you trying to tell people who are having issues with this that 100 billion is not really that much money.  

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

No, none of this! I just think they might get an increased budget for the wards. But maybe other wards do fine, but the ones I've been in, there was always a worry of going over budget. I remember back when copies were made before text and tools on LDS.org, I made a RS newsletter every month. Well, the copier was only available on Saturdays which is fine, until it got taken out and the stake presidency/bishop etc. was only allowed to use it. Then I was told to use the library's printer, and it kept having to get fixed and ran slow, and I was only allowed to use it when the library was open. So I gave up and paid for the copies on my own. So I don't think I'm asking much to have the ward budgets increased. But to each their own, it just feels like members on the low end of the totem pole, get the shaft. But I know they are probably the foundation for this church to run as good as it does. So I mean no ill will towards the local leaders and members.

I am guessing the reason for that policy was abuse of the copier. I have spotted way too many people using the church copier for garage sale flyers, school assignments, and to print resumes. For the first two just go print it at work like a normal person.  

We recently got a replacement copier/printer in our library. Sounded nice and we are told it was a bargain but then found out the toner costs way too much. I was hoping to get some new equipment for the library and the clerk’s office at the end of the year but then we found out we were moving to a different chapel in January and have expenses from that and then the stake cut our 4th quarter allocation just like last year and now we may go over budget. Ugh!

Churches generally all get the same budget per head based on attendance as every other ward in the same region or country. The only difference is how much of that allocation the stake takes and that is entirely at their discretion. If a ward seems to have a ton of money for certain activities it is almost certainly because someone in the ward is voluntarily paying out of pocket.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Are you saying that beneficial life insurance owns the church? City Creek Owns the Church?

Or are you accusing the church of gifting (rather than investing) the money to City Creek or Beneficial Life insurance?

Help me understand what law (hopefully you can cite the code or regulation) that you think the church is violating.

Maybe watch this video to see exactly what it means. I'm pretty inept at all things law. 

 

[smac97]

Just now, kimpearson said:

I am curious if the members of this group believe God would allow leaders of the Church to make major mistakes. 

Yes, I believe he would, and does, allow the leaders to make "major mistakes."  I'm not quite sure what you mean by "major," so I'll go with the dictionary: "great, as in rank or importance."

Here are a few that come to mind as potential candidates:

• Joseph Smith's loss of the 116 pages.
• The priesthood ban (its lack of a revelatory provenance is, to me, significant).
• Mountain Meadows (the local leaders and perpetrators, that is).
• The introduction of polygamy (in some respects).
• The practice of polygamy (in some respects).
• The cessation of polygamy (in some respects).
• The treatment of GLBT folks (in some respects).

I reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "{t}he Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."  I also agree with this statement attributed to Joseph Smith: "I will give you a key that will never rust; if you will stay with the majority of the twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."  (This last link is an excellent blog entry by Matthew Roper.  Definitely with a read.)

Just now, kimpearson said:

For example, I have no problem with a reserve fund but would it be possible that while the original prompting to establish a reserve was from God, God expected his leaders to use their own wisdom and knowledge to determine when the reserve was large enough and then use the funds elsewhere.  Then human beings being human, those leaders incorrectly let the reserve get too big.  Like any mistake we make, such mistakes often lead to consequences that demonstrate the mistake, in this case, someone with at least some knowledge of the facts becomes disillusioned and calls attention to the situation. 

Fair questions, these.

Just now, kimpearson said:

Was it a mistake to hold the priesthood from our black brethren as long as we did? 

I'm inclined to think so.

Just now, kimpearson said:

Was the Indian placement program a mistake? 

In each and every respect?  No.  In some ways?  Yes.

Just now, kimpearson said:

Or back to my original question, do you believe God would never allow the leaders of the Church to make a major mistake?

Again, yes.

Just now, kimpearson said:

Personally I believe God does allow major mistakes because we, including leaders, would never be able to exercise true free agency if we know God was always going to stop any major mistakes.  I think our scriptural history backs me up on that belief.  I also believe that our modern church leaders have demonstrated an ability to overcome those mistakes and move on.  I actually think those major mistakes are part of the test of what we truly believe in.  

Good points.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No one here is 100% sure.

Is anyone even 50% sure?  Should they be? (No imo)

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I am curious if the members of this group believe God would allow leaders of the Church to make major mistakes

Yes, for the same reasons as you and a few more, including if leaders never made mistakes why would the rest of us have to approach God on our own seeking for answers or instructions.  

Edited December 19, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Tacenda - I listened to the Infants on Thrones podcast because of your recommendation. Overall, it was interesting but there wasn't a lot of new light shed on the subject beyond what was in the original Washington Post story. I was hoping it would give a lot more info.

Also, my two biggest complaints are:

1) The guy kept talking about how he "interviewed the whistle blower" but never bothered disclosing that it was his brother. He made it sound like he was dispassionately involved with the Whistle Blower and only acting out of a sense of duty, and never mentioned they are blood relatives (and likely sharing the loot if the IRS decides in their favor)

2) No on mentioned that the Whistle Blower or the Brother would make a percentage of the cut that the IRS takes. I want someone to ask him exactly how much he gets if the church is fined $10B. Then I want the follow up question of how much he will give away to charity as opposed to keep for himself. 

The guy kept lecturing the church on how it should give money back to the poor Mexican woman who paid tithing that he met on his mission. I want to know if he will do this with his portion of the money - will he give it ALL back (all of the Billions he might earn) to the poor tithing payers from whom the church "robbed" it? Or would he feel like "finder's keepers, losers weepers" and keep all that money that was "robbed" from the poor Mexican families paying tithing?

Exactly!

Everyone keeps accusing the Church of money-lust, when really the only people who are looking to get rich off of this money are these two hooligans.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you really think you can convince anyone that is having issues with the100 billion dollars that it is not much money

When it is about a rainy day/emergency fund, there is a difference between how much the local soccer club needs and a 15 million member (5 million likely active) global organization needs.  Pogi is simply suggesting we look at the amount in the correct context before making a judgment.

[provoman]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think this section is the problem, according to Lars, EPA bailed out the church's insurance company, and also according to Lars, the monies from EPA went to help with money problems with City Creek Mall.

Not give net income to any private individual, such as an owner or founder

Also, not having anything to do with this thread, but this as well, is a problem.

Not attempt to influence government legislation or be involved with political campaigns

The Nelson brother have an issue with EPA being a religious 501c3. 

The forbes article best outlines their issue.

A tax exempt Private Foundation has a disbursement requirement.

A tax exempt religious organization does not. 

In the 74 page page document, Lars wrote to the effect of "in the spirit of a private foundation" EPA should have disbursed funds. That statement statement suggest to me that Lars and David know the difference between a tax exempt religious 501c3 and a tax exempt private foundation.

Also as the author of the forbes article explains the disbursement that were made were not in violation of tax regulations.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe watch this video to see exactly what it means. I'm pretty inept at all things law. 

 

From what I have heard, the video guy is no expert.

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

When did 100 billion dollars become chump change.  

When is it chump change?  I thought I just answered that - when you divide it between 15 million members and other charities in an emergency.

Again, you and others are not looking at it in scale.  For any single person it is a crap-load-o'-moolah, but it isn't there to get any single person, or group of people, rich.  Again, the only people looking to get rich from it are the Nielsen brothers.  

Edited December 19, 2019 by pogi

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think this section is the problem, according to Lars, EPA bailed out the church's insurance company, and also according to Lars, the monies from EPA went to help with money problems with City Creek Mall.

Not give net income to any private individual, such as an owner or founder

Also, not having anything to do with this thread, but this as well, is a problem.

Not attempt to influence government legislation or be involved with political campaigns

That insurance company is a private individual?

As to legislation that bullet point is wrong. Churches and non-profits cannot support or oppose candidates but they can advocate on ballot measures and legislation. Check the IRS website. They do very specifically have to avoid candidate or partisan advocacy. There are also vague limits about this not being a substantial portion of their activity which (if the $100 billion number has any merit) the Church can say that the amount spent on such campaigns is definitely not substantial. The Johnson Amendment which prohibits supporting or opposing candidates was slipped into a bill by LBJ when he was in congress, probably because he was ticked off that he faced a primary challenger funded by non-profits.

Cutting churches off from being involved at all even in a non-partisan way is a rebuff of our history. Prohibition was tied to church support. Churches both supported and opposed the abolition of slavery. African American churches were a major force in the civil rights movement. Churches have taken stances on lots of wars and domestic issues. I do not see this as bad. In the current days of the super-PACs though I definitely see the need to avoid churches turning into untraceable slush funds for political candidates or for political parties.

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

In the 74 page page document...

My iPad is dying and kept crashing, so I could never read the PDF but just got glimpses.

Can someone tell me what the relevance of the Kirtland Safety Society would have to a 2019 tax violation of a tax law that didn't exist at that time by a company that didn't exist at that time and the usefulness of a picture of the KSS note issued way back then?

How much of the 74 pages actually dealt with the IRS complaint?

[Teancum]

On 12/17/2019 at 1:22 PM, Bob Crockett said:

Some observations:

1.  The article is strangely incoherent.  It is difficult to see exactly what the wrong is that is alleged.   

2.  The fact that the whistleblower is out for the money is rather irrelevant.  Congress set up the whistleblower statute to encourage people to come forward and get a share of the penalty assessed against the taxpayer.  It is frequently done.

3.  The fact that a lawyer is not handling the matter is very suspicious and suggests that no lawyer thought the case had merit.

4.  The sheer size of the unspent fund is irrelevant.  Harvard has a huge endowment fund and the university lives off the interest, and not the corpus.  In other words, it is standard to amass a huge corpus and use the interest to meet the non-profit objectives.  I used to raise funds for a university.  We would never touch the corpus, ever.

5.  Comparing the Church's charitable funding with, say, the Gates Foundation, is irrelevant.  The Church's mission is to spend money on the Church and its programs and not on charities.

6.  Pointing to money spent for downtown office buildings and the likes is irrelevant.  These are investments which are part of the corpus.  The corpus may be held in cash, the stock market, or income-producing assets. 

7.  Pointing to the rip-off of tithe-payers -- don't you want to contribute to the advancement of the Church?

I think your summary is fairly accurate except I am not sure that item 6 is correct but would have to chase it to be sure.

[provoman]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

My iPad is dying and kept crashing, so I could never read the PDF but just got glimpses.

Can someone tell me what the relevance of the Kirtland Safety Society would have to a 2019 tax violation of a tax law that didn't exist at that time by a company that didn't exist at that time and the usefulness of a picture of the KSS note issued way back then?

How much of the 74 pages actually dealt with the IRS complaint?

Page 22, lines 345 - 350 "Smith created an anti-bank and illegal printed money. EPA is an Anti-501c3"

 

I feel sorry for the investigator there is a reference to worthiness interviews, there is a reference to Oaks and LGBT issues, there is a reference to Lord Of the Rings.

Edited December 19, 2019 by provoman

[Teancum]

On 12/17/2019 at 1:39 PM, rockpond said:

All true.  But what does a doctor choosing to serve a humanitarian health mission have to do with the Church's expenditures on humanitarian aid or charitable contributions.  It is the doctor's time and opportunity cost, not the Church's.  

In other words, if someone is trying to assess how much the Church spends on humanitarian causes (setting aside the question of whether humanitarian aid is something the Church even needs to do), a member choosing to donate his/her time and talents is not relevant.  The Church doesn't get to claim that they contributed some dollar value for the member's time.

Agreed. If they paid the member then they could just like my firm could claim that we give $x per year of employee time to community service projects assuming the employee is doing it on our time, which they and we do.

[DonBradley]

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

My response to both of you is that I agree there are other good reasons for paying tithing, but  what I meant by what I said is that in my opinion the number 1 reason for paying tithing is because I love God and want to obey His commandments, including the law of tithing. That way if the money is used for reasons I might not agree with I will not be disappointed nor will I withhold my tithing because of it.  With everything else that is going on in my life I can't be concerned about what the church does with what I donate. I have to trust the church leaders and God, at least for this one thing.   It works for me.  

Despite what people may say about themselves, everyone does this to a great extent - chooses who they are going to trust, who they are going to rely on. Even secular humanists do. No one can master every branch of science for himself or herself and prove to their own satisfaction that the things scientists of specialties consider settled findings really are settled findings.

As you say, life is busy--there's so much going on. I think it's perfectly reasonable to trust the church's leaders when it comes to finances--particularly when they have done much to earn that trust! 

It's also quite understandable to me that people with greater interest and/or acumen in finances would give greater scrutiny to church finances.

Don

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, provoman said:

Page 22, lines 345 - 350 "Smith created an anti-bank and illegal printed money. EPA is an Anti-501c3"

Seriously?  My understanding was the use of Anti was solely to avoid calling it a bank as they had been denied a bank charter.  (History buffs please correct me).

Which is nothing like being claimed as a violation for Ensign Peak as far as I can tell.

Too funny. I bet the IRS people might be tempted to toss the document at that point unless they are paid by the hour. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Calm

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

This is what I actually said

  3 hours ago, california boy said:

If he truly believed that is what God wanted him to do, then why hide it.  If the Church truly believes this is how contributions should be treated then why hide it.

That is literally what I said you said, verbatim. So I'm not sure what that is about.