whistleblower on Church finances

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Really, every news story on a controversy should be read by parsing it’s construct and facts vs opinions contained within it.

Like the Deseret News article The Washington Post says the Church of Jesus Christ has billions. Thank goodness,

The bias is even in the title.

 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Quote

Really, every news story on a controversy should be read by parsing it’s construct and facts vs opinions contained within it.

Like the Deseret News article The Washington Post says the Church of Jesus Christ has billions. Thank goodness,

The bias is even in the title.

Your link takes us to an opinion piece.  Surely you acknowledge the difference between it and a news article (the difference being the former is necessarily "biased," whereas the latter should strive for objectivity)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is incredibly idealistic. I can say that if I were running a brokerage or some kind of financial management company I would not hire someone who previously blew the whistle on a previous employer and blew up a confidentiality agreement. Why take the risk of a repeat and the headache it would be for me. I am not suggesting I would engage in financial duplicity but someone on a crusade for fairness could cause explosions and a PR disaster even where there is no wrongdoing.

Yep.  The splashy headlines, plus the possibility of David colluding with his brother to achieve some sort of "plausible deniability" angle (which, TBH, seems to be getting more plausible as time goes on), could end up weaking David's employment prospects.

And if David is telling telling the truth about him not wanting Lars to publicize this, and if David's employability suffers as a result, then Lars really messed up.

-Smac

 

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

A ton of potential employers and hiring managers will believe that David's actions were honorable given the situation. Sure, people who have things to hide or are somehow really sympathetic for the Church's position of hoarding money and hiding its financial details from the donors wouldn't trust him. But a lot of people will see the other side and think he did the right thing.

In general (and in theory, at least), big corporations profess love, respect, and protection for people who are in difficult situations when they perceive unethical behavior and who blow the whistle. David is quite employable.

I disagree.

If the tax experts are correct, that Private Foundation 501c3 tax regulations (foot note 12 in Lars paper) do not apply to religious purpose 501c3; is that a rookie mistake or is it something a 10 year veteran of finance should know the difference between? 

Edited December 22, 2019 by provoman

[Thinking]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your link takes us to an opinion piece.  Surely you acknowledge the difference between it and a news article (the difference being the former is necessarily "biased," whereas the latter should strive for objectivity.

I found 3 articles - 2 were labeled as opinion, and the third, while not labeled as opinion, was heavily biased toward the Church IMO.

These are the other two.

Church presiding bishop details how tithing and donations are used

Is the Church of Jesus Christ rich, or is it enriching?

Did the Deseret News publish an objective piece that I missed?

[canard78]

On 12/17/2019 at 5:44 AM, carbon dioxide said:

Well perhaps he will give it to charity.  PERHAPS.  Time will tell

Unlike the church apparently, ironically. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is incredibly idealistic. I can say that if I were running a brokerage or some kind of financial management company I would not hire someone who previously blew the whistle on a previous employer and blew up a confidentiality agreement. Why take the risk of a repeat and the headache it would be for me. I am not suggesting I would engage in financial duplicity but someone on a crusade for fairness could cause explosions and a PR disaster even where there is no wrongdoing.

If I knew it was this case specifically I would be even more sure never to hire him. He has someone else submit a whistleblower complaint on his behalf (so you are already disclosing to someone else you do not need to to file a complaint) who is willing to publish that complaint in the public eye and the complaint is a shoddy piece of garbage focused mostly on spreading propaganda. So either you approve of blasting employers beyond what is needed to correct a perceived wrongdoing or you show horrible judgement by passing on confidential information to those who will.

Then look at the supposed wrongdoing. He is accusing the Church of violating minimums on spending. He cites a law aimed at non-profits. The problem is churches share many of the protections of non-profits but they are not non-profits and are under separate rules (even though they overlap to a degree). More reason to question this doofus’s judgement. It is clear he is attacking his employer more than he is looking to fix something.

I am guessing his good career prospects are shot and deservedly so. Whistleblowers are often unemployable just because they blew a whistle despite all the well-intentioned protections. This guy went above and beyond to make sure this stain is not going to come out. Who knows though? Maybe he can go on the anti-Mormon celebrity list for a bit and try that for a career?

Maybe his brother is going to put his kids through university and pay their medical bills, etc in a disaster. 

Hope David was okay with a sizable rainy day fund for his family. 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

On 12/21/2019 at 11:20 AM, JAHS said:

Yes. The complaint was filed to the IRS by David and in it he did ask the IRS to strip Ensign of its tax-exempt status but it was his brother Lars that decided to make it go public.
I still wonder if David did anything internally to warn the church and the Ensign company that they might be doing something wrong, before he filed the complaint. 

David is a mystery to me.  I have read that he is still an active, temple worthy member, who continues to pay tithing (although his wife and child left the church).  It is claimed he is not in it for the money. 

It is claimed that he is not doing this to attack the church (that seems like a weird claim), yet Lars claimed that both he and David worked together to publish those documents and videos online before they even knew about the whistleblower program.  David is denying that now apparently.

Why would David claim they made the very anti-Mormon videos (this is before David publicly denounced his brother for the leaks) together if it wasn’t true?  

https://kutv.com/news/local/whistleblowers-brother-insist-irs-complaint-was-not-attack-on-latter-day-saint-church

In this article Lars claims David is being quiet publicly because of potential litigation against him.  

Now, it is claimed that David is being quiet because he wants to distance himself from his brother.

Interesting that he quit ensign when his wife and child left the Church (presumably due to info David leaked to them).  Is it possible David is pretending to be friendly to the church as a defense against potential litigation?

[10THAmendment]

I wish people would stop using the ad hominem approach to this and focus on the documents. 
 

That goes for everything else, especially politics. 

[provoman]

3 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

I wish people would stop using the ad hominem approach to this and focus on the documents. 
 

That goes for everything else, especially politics. 

What? Who is attempting to dismiss the allegations by attacking Lars or David?

Edited December 22, 2019 by provoman

[provoman]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

.

Interesting that he quit ensign when his wife and child left the Church (presumably due to info David leaked to them).  Is it possible David is pretending to be friendly to the church as a defense against potential litigation?

Do you have anything substantive to back that presumption?

[Tacenda]

I hope the church changes the missionary amounts. I understand that many believe it's good for missionaries to have to pay towards their missions, but why the increase to $500, and not even a gradual increase. They need to reduce it, it wouldn't make the slightest dent in that 100 billion.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Tacenda

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

Do you have anything substantive to back that presumption?

The presumption that his wife and kid left the church because of leaked info to them?

1) Timing seems more then coincidental that they left the church at the exact same time that he quit and filed the complaint.

2) David clearly was not keeping the information private - he leaked it to other family (his brother) after all.  Highly unlikely his own wife didn’t hear about it from him too.  Why would he tell his brother and not his wife about his concerns?

3) Lars claims they were working together to publish the documents and videos online even before knowing about the whistleblower program.  If Lars is telling the truth, then David and Lars are colluding  together and both are anti-Mormon.

If there was solid proof then it wouldn’t be a presumption. I am making a presumption, not declaring anything as fact.

[Teancum]

On 12/20/2019 at 5:30 PM, Amulek said:

Do you honestly think that their audit / controls are so lax that they really disbursed roughly $2 billion dollars illegally? 

The very notion strains credulity.

Keep in mind that we're supposed to believe the church is just hoarding all of this money - never using it for anything holy, and never doing anything with these funds but re-investing their profits year-after-year in order to fill up the church's money bin, a' la Scrooge McDuck.

Except, of course, for the fact that we're just so evil that we can't help ourselves from spending some of that money.

And (again, since we're evil - I mean really evil, like forcing people to watch Moulin Rouge! over and over again evil) the only times we have bothered to do so in the last 22 years just happen to always be for illegal purposes?

Seriously?!? 

No wonder all of the antis are eating this stuff up. It feeds right into their narrative - the story they want to believe - the one where the church is wearing the black hat, and the enlightened ex-mos are the ones shining a light on the darkness. 

Puhleese. 

 

I guess you have not bothered to read the entirety of my comments on this before you posted tour incredulous comments.

[alter idem]

51 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I hope the church changes the missionary amounts. I understand that many believe it's good for missionaries to have to pay towards their missions, but why the increase to $500, and not even a gradual increase. They need to reduce it, it wouldn't make the slightest dent in that 100 billion.

My youngest daughter will be serving starting in January and yes, we'll have to come up with an additional 100.00 a month, but I suspect they've been holding off raising the amount for awhile now.  I'm not mad at them for doing it, it's likely it was deemed necessary because it was costing more to supplement missionaries than it should have, and for any families who can't afford to pay for their child's mission or need help, they can always get it from their Bishop and ward missionary fund that members often contribute to.  I don't think they should touch that 100 billiion (if that's the correct amount), if it's supposed to be a rainy day fund.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Timing seems more then coincidental that they left the church at the exact same time that he quit and filed the complain

Iirc the WaP has the wife and kids leaving awhile back and it has after a time become unworkable for David Nielsen, so it is not exact same time.  I will get quote.

Added:  Looks like I remembered it incorrectly or read it elsewhere.  There is no time period, it just feels that way as it would take time imo to try and see if him continuing to work for the Church was workable and then the conclusion it created too much conflict in the home or whatever would come a couple of months at least later...but this is me imagining how it might work in my home and nothing to do with the Nielsens.

Quote

Nielsen told Ensign in a resignation letter dated Aug. 29 that his employment had become unworkable after his wife and children left the Mormon Church and asked him to follow them, according to a copy of the letter provided by Lars Nielsen. David Nielsen offered to continue working until Oct. 4.

My reading is probably colored by a rumor I read that had additional info, but I won't repeat the rumor as I don't know the original source.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, bsjkki said:

The Newsweek article is designed to highlight the negative. It deserves a deep analysis in media bias...anyone need a term paper?

Is does state, “For those who viewed tithes as an act of faith or obedience, the size of the church's fortunes is not only acceptable, but gratifying. Others, particularly those who understood tithing to be humanitarian giving, were more likely to express disappointment.”

It then goes on to provide statements from those in the latter category and giving them a dominate role in the story while those who see it as ‘positive’ are sidelined. It also does not point out that the church also teaches that tithing is an act of faith and that members are taught extensively tithing is provided for church operations (buildings, temples, hymn books etc) and that fast offerings are a direct help to the poor. I’ve taught this many times in Primary. 

Really, every news story on a controversy should be read by parsing it’s construct and facts vs opinions contained within it.

Part of that underlying analysis is reasonably that the recognition that the church is extremely wealthy, very politically powerful in some places, and very authoritarian in nature. It is not democratic, it is not a place where grievances or disagreements take up a welcome place at the chapel or conference pulpits. These news articles might be the only way some dismissed or stifled voices get heard or taken seriously. Even then, those speaking have miniscule power in this story. Most of it belongs to President Nelson.

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, bsjkki said:

 

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, bsjkki said:

 

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

The more I read, the more I am wondering about David's part in Lars' expose.

The WaP first article...

Quote

The complaint was filed by David A. Nielsen, a 41-year-old Mormon who worked until September as a senior portfolio manager at the church’s investment division, a company named Ensign Peak Advisors that is based near the church’s headquarters.

Nonprofit organizations, including religious groups, are exempted in the United States from paying taxes on their income. Ensign is registered with authorities as a supporting organization and integrated auxiliary of the Mormon Church. This permits it to operate as a nonprofit and to make money largely free from U.S. taxes.

The exemption requires that Ensign operate exclusively for religious, educational or other charitable purposes, a condition that Nielsen says the firm has not met.

In a declaration signed under penalty of perjury, Nielsen urges the IRS to strip the nonprofit of its tax-exempt status and alleges that Ensign could owe billions in taxes. He is seeking a reward from the IRS, which offers whistleblowers a cut of unpaid taxes that it recovers.

It seems to me the 74 page "document" is not the complaint, that is a certain IRS form used for that purpose including relevant documents and maybe a cover letter I am guessing.

Quote

Nielsen did not respond to repeated phone calls and emails seeking comment.

His twin brother, Lars P. Nielsen, provided a copy of the complaint to The Post, along with dozens of supporting documents. Lars Nielsen, a health-care consultant in Minnesota, said he prepared the complaint with his brother and helped him submit it to the IRS.

Lars Nielsen said in a statement to The Post that his brother asked him to write an exposé on his former employer.

Lars' statement looks like he is taking major credit for it...as in "he prepared...".

Given the example of his accounting understanding (the expose), I just don't see his brother having reason to ask him for help (is his consulting work in terms of helping health care companies with their finances?)  unless he wants to know if it is easily understood or clearly written, typos, that kind of thing.  I just can't understand how a professional working for a decent size company would be making the mistakes that are in the exposé.  And given there are possibly billions obtainable by David Nielsen if the complaint is followed up and it is concluded EPA was in violation, surely a higher quality effort on the part of David to ensure he got it right would have taken place?

The exposé (74 pages) is therefore not the complaint in my view.  The WaP confuses things by using "Nielsen" for both brothers.  I am wondering if they also used "complaint" for two different documents.

Quote

Nielsen’s complaint is sharply critical of church leaders... he wrote in a 74-page narrative that accompanied his complaint.

It is not Lars Nielsen's complaint, but his brother's, David Nielsen.  Yet they use "his complaint" where "his" refers to Lars.  Even if Lars helped his brother, he has no personal knowledge of the company, so he can't qualify as a whistleblower or IOW, complaint is not his surely.

Quote

The complaint filed by Nielsen comprised a signed Form 211, the formal piece of IRS paperwork for reporting tax avoidance, a notarized cover letter to officials, plus the 74-page narrative document co-written with his brother in which he detailed his allegations at length.

The introduction says the whistleblower asked Lars to write the expose.  He claims to have written every word, it was not according to that "co-written".  He even filed the claim (did David really want it to be at that time or did Lars go ahead with "permission" being something more in line with 'I, David, have filled out this form as a possible future action').  Did David Nielsen actually want Lars to include Lars' riddle with errors and irrelevancies narrative in the IRS complaint?  Why the heck didn't David file it, how difficult would it have been?  Is Lars attempting to lay claim to some of the potential billions of finder's fee David may be eligible to receive by taking the step of submitting the Form 211 on behal of David and allegedly with his permission, but also including his probably irrelevant "full analysis"?

Quote

I wrote every word and composedevery exhibit of “Letter to an IRS Director” and solely produced theonline videos that goby the same name. I did so with informationthat the whistleblowerfreely supplied,and with his permission I filed his claim(Form 211), notarized cover letter, and my full analysis to the IRS Whistleblower Office from my home state, which was done under penalty of perjury.And there it might never see the light of day for a good seven years.

If the WaP is accurate in what Lars Nielsen told them, it seems to me he may be changing his story to give himself maximum credit and authority and lay partial claim to any monetary reward.  Where he needs to look informed, he did things as an equal partner with his brother.  Where he has documents to give him the appearance of knowledge, he claims to be the sole author with his brother relegated to being a source.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Calm

[ttribe]

On 12/20/2019 at 3:30 PM, Amulek said:

Do you honestly think that their audit / controls are so lax that they really disbursed roughly $2 billion dollars illegally? 

The very notion strains credulity.

Keep in mind that we're supposed to believe the church is just hoarding all of this money - never using it for anything holy, and never doing anything with these funds but re-investing their profits year-after-year in order to fill up the church's money bin, a' la Scrooge McDuck.

Except, of course, for the fact that we're just so evil that we can't help ourselves from spending some of that money.

And (again, since we're evil - I mean really evil, like forcing people to watch Moulin Rouge! over and over again evil) the only times we have bothered to do so in the last 22 years just happen to always be for illegal purposes?

Seriously?!? 

No wonder all of the antis are eating this stuff up. It feeds right into their narrative - the story they want to believe - the one where the church is wearing the black hat, and the enlightened ex-mos are the ones shining a light on the darkness. 

Puhleese. 

 

Controls are not perfect and mistakes do get made.  I suggest letting the investigators do their job and not engaging in speculation that, by default, favors management of these funds.  If, in fact, money from charitable donations was transferred from this fund to prop up the insurance company and the mall, it is my suspicion that those in charge probably believed what they were doing was legal.  If, however, additional evidence comes to light suggesting there were concealment efforts, that changes the nature of the evaluation considerably.  Either way, as a forensic accountant and former auditor, I agree with Teancum that the allegation is worth concern and additional investigation.

Edited December 22, 2019 by ttribe

[mgy401]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I hope the church changes the missionary amounts. I understand that many believe it's good for missionaries to have to pay towards their missions, but why the increase to $500, and not even a gradual increase. They need to reduce it, it wouldn't make the slightest dent in that 100 billion.

It has often been said that the US minimum wage is not a living wage.  

Therefore $1260/month is not a living wage (or barely so).

Yet the Church provided a living to its US-born missionaries—ostensibly worth at least $1260/month—in exchange for a monthly donation of $550/month.

Just how much more can the Church subsidize its first-world missionaries before we have to quit describing them as “unpaid” “volunteers”?

[pogi]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Iirc the WaP has the wife and kids leaving awhile back and it has after a time become unworkable for David Nielsen, so it is not exact same time.  I will get quote.

From the WP:

“Nielsen told Ensign in a resignation letter dated Aug. 29 that his employment had become unworkable after his wife and children left the Mormon Church and asked him to follow them, according to a copy of the letter provided by Lars Nielsen. David Nielsen offered to continue working until Oct. 4.”

It doesn’t specify when they left, but it seems to imply that it was recent (that’s how other news agencies have interpreted it too) If they left the Church long ago, why would his work only become complicated and “unworkable” now because of it?  Why would their request of him to leave the church complicate things for him at work unless he had serious reservations himself?  

Doesn’t It seem like the real reason he resigned is because he was working on a big expose with his brother (as claimed by Lars) of his employer and because he disagreed with their practices?  Why bring his wife into this at all? Weird!

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

It has often been said that the US minimum wage is not a living wage.  

Therefore $1260/month is not a living wage (or barely so).

Yet the Church provided a living to its US-born missionaries—ostensibly worth at least $1260/month—in exchange for a monthly donation of $550/month.

Just how much more can the Church subsidize its first-world missionaries before we have to quit describing them as “unpaid” “volunteers”?

This post was supposed to be a joke right? You have to figure in all the tithing they and their family have been paying into it as well over the years.

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

The more I read, the more I am wondering about David's part in Lars' expose.

Quote

I wrote every word and composed every exhibit of “Letter to an IRS Director” and solely produced the online videos that go by the same name. 

This seems to contradict what he has said elsewhere:

Quote

Nielsen said he and his brother wrote the document they published online and started making YouTube video explaining their findings before they knew about the IRS whistleblower program.

https://kutv.com/news/local/whistleblowers-brother-insist-irs-complaint-was-not-attack-on-latter-day-saint-church