whistleblower on Church finances

[Michael Sudworth]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Don't you think that that allegation has to be proven first? 

Did you not see the leaked documents, brother?

The Church has amassed 100B in assets without spending a nickle on religious activity.  This is a clear violation of the law.

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My husband worked for his dad's business most of his life as an ironworker with his brothers, often for less money, to help their dad. They also wanted to start their own business or work with other companies for better pay and for other reasons. Their dad asked that they stay and he would make it worth it in the end. But that never happened. The other brothers still pay tithing but my husband doesnt, he figured his tithing is already being paid, but he is inactive now. And doesn't have the testimony of tithing.

Does that answer your bewilderment?

Nope. Frustrating and disappointing for sure.  Bottom line, it's not your money.  And this has nothing whatsoever to do with topic. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

A couple of thoughts (assuming the financial numbers in the allegation are correct):

—The $32 billion in tithing ($12 billion in 1997 and $1 bil/year since then) has not been “misused”.  The Church still has it, in the form of investments that have basically tripled in value; and it has been able to use that income in part to a) keep a life insurance company from going belly-up during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and b) to keep afloat a project that no one ever thought would be profitable but was designed to keep Temple Square from turning into a slum.  I don’t find either use morally objectionable; and the fact that Beneficial didn’t immediately go bankrupt in 2009 is a good thing.

—Investment is not the same as “hoarding”.  A vault full of cash helps no one.  Operating capital in publicly-traded firms pays salaries and stimulates growth.

—Investments won’t be worth “zero” at the second coming because fundamentally an investment is in people and groups of people and the work that they do; none of which will completely evaporate when Christ returns.  Even if the Church’s asserts were in the form of cash reserves rather than investments (which, they apparently aren’t)—even in the face of stagflation, a hundred billion dollars  is still $100 billion more than will be held by those people/institutions that had openly disdained saving during the former times of prosperity.

—Spiritually, tithing doesn’t exist to feed the poor or even to sustain the Church.  The paying of tithing changes who we are.  It fosters sacrifice and financial planning and generosity which spill over into other aspects of our lives.  (That’s not a statement of “blind faith” for me; it’s knowledge based on my experience and observation.)  Granted, that would happen regardless of who I paid my tithing to.  But I’m happy to pay to the Church because a) I fundamentally trust its leadership; b) the Church seems to be one of few institutions that’s thinking ahead to the very long term, which I respect; c) I agree with the Church’s overall aims and like the work that it’s doing and want it to be able to do more; and d) the Church has financially been there for me in the past when I was in poverty, and I have full faith that it would do so again if needed.

Excellent thoughts. May I share them?

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, juliann said:

I understand the resentment over not receiving someone else's money, what I don't understand is the willingness to admit it. 

Tacenda’s case is a bit different in that the children stayed in the family business and accepted lower pay iirc because they were told it would be made up to them in the inheritance.  I don’t remember if she has said her husband ever confronted their parents about it. The parents may see the children as well off and not needing it.

added:  I see that she posted the info herself. 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Calm

[CA Steve]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

I understand the resentment over not receiving someone else's money, what I don't understand is the willingness to admit it. 

Hi Juliann,

My mother passed away a year or so ago and my father looks to follow soon. Their estate is probably not much more than a few hundred thousand dollars. My parents have at least 100 or more direct living descendants at this point, some of us are doing just fine financially and others are struggling. Many of those struggling are and have been full and faithful tithe payers. You are right, it is my parents money and they have every right to decide where their estate is distributed, and while I have no need myself for any of it, I would question the wisdom of donating some of it to the church which seems to have the next decade or more of rainy days covered when within our own family the rainy days are already here for some.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Whether it was a "good" use or a misuse of the funds doesn't seem to be the issue being addressed by the whistleblower complaint and the article.  The allegation is that tax exempt revenue was being given to for profit businesses which would be a violation of tax law.  At least that's how I understand it.  I welcome correction.

I think we have to separate the two things:

1) Payment of Tithes and Offerings - This is a commandment.  We do it out of love, faith, and our desire to be obedient.

2) Use of Funds received as Tithes and Offerings - This is independent of #1.  It is the responsibility of the leaders of the Church to use those funds according to their best understanding of the Lord's will.  And it is the responsibility of the members of the Church to accept their decisions through the process of common consent.

RE #2, D&C 120 cuts off that thought before "the responsibility of the members..." in a very succinct way:

"Verily, thus saith the Lord, the time is now come, that it shall be disposed of by a council, composed of the First Presidency of my Church, and of the bishop and his council, and by my high council; and by mine own voice unto them, saith the Lord. Even so. Amen."

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Which is really only possible as "informed consent," which is why transparency is so important.  It tends to nip these problems in the bud.

Transparency and 'informed consent" might have a practical application, but they are hardly what D&C 120 enjoins.

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, rchorse said:

Perhaps my faith is not blind, but based on personal evidence gathered through years of paying my tithing. Perhaps I also mentioned that this should be investigated and appropriately punished if it turns out that laws were broken. And perhaps it would be reasonable to refrain from judgment until there's concrete proof of wrongdoing rather than only one man's allegations.

Especially second hand allegations

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Tacenda’s case is a bit different in that the children stayed in the family business and accepted lower pay iirc because they were told it would be made up to them in the inheritance.

They made a bad decision, obviously. Parents could have gone bankrupt, father could die without honoring promise, mother who didn't make promise thinks it is her money, etc. It's a sad story, just so very irrelevant to this topic. 

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes. Again, the church is currently earning more than 6 billion a year off its investments. So in actuality the amount saved allows the church to operate in perpetuity with no tithing income.

This is, of course, assuming the whistle blower has the facts right which you seem to assume is the case.

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Which only happens once the IRS actually collects. Are you admitting wrong doing on the part of the church!? 

I don't not work in the church's finances and do not have any specific knowledge of how they operate. An admission or denial of wrongdoing would not mean anything from me.

I do know a thing or two about IRS whistle blower actions. I am just trying to describe how IRS whistle blower recoveries work. The laws surrounding the recovery of a whistle blower award can be complicated, as well as the procedures involved. If it is done wrong the whistleblower will often end up with nothing. There is a  a lot of case law.  If anyone initiated an action where billions of dollars in potential recovery are at stake, I would recommend that they get legal advice from someone who knows tax law, and be represented. 

The fact they don't appear to be represented shows they don't really know much about this area of law and that their chances of recovery are small.  

I would say the same if the entity they were going after was amazon, or Microsoft, or apple. 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Danzo

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Did you not see the leaked documents, brother?

The Church has amassed 100B in assets without spending a nickle on religious activity.  This is a clear violation of the law.

What law?

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If it really costs the church 6 billon a year to run things, then having 16 years worth of savings that unreasonable?

And if it is only usable for preparing for the Second Coming for that long before money becomes useless, well, do that math! Maybe that's a sign of the times!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is, of course, assuming the whistle blower has the facts right which you seem to assume is the case.

This is of course true. However, the whistle blower has documents from EPA which he has submitted to the IRS under penalty of perjury so...

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Tacenda’s case is a bit different in that the children stayed in the family business and accepted lower pay iirc because they were told it would be made up to them in the inheritance.  I don’t remember if she has said her husband ever confronted their parents about it. The parents may see the children as well off and not needing it.

Tacendas case also highlights the foolishness of entering into business relationships without competent legal advice. A few well drawn up notes, partnership agreements or contracts might have prevented this. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

They made a bad decision, obviously. Parents could have gone bankrupt, father could die without honoring promise, mother who didn't make promise thinks it is her money, etc. It's a sad story, just so very irrelevant to this topic. 

I agree. It is a family issue, only tangentially related to the Church. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't not work in the church's finances and do not have any specific knowledge of how they operate. An admission or denial of wrongdoing would not mean anything from me.

I do know a thing or two about IRS whistle blower actions. I am just trying to describe how IRS whistle blower recoveries work. The laws surrounding the recovery of a whistle blower award can be complicated, as well as the procedures involved. If it is done wrong the whistleblower will often end up with nothing. There is a  a lot of case law.  If anyone initiated an action where billions of dollars in potential recovery are at stake, I would recommend that they get legal advice from someone who knows tax law, and be represented. 

The fact they don't appear to be represented shows they don't really know much about this area of law and that their chances of recovery are small.  

I would say the same if the entity they were going after was amazon, or Microsoft, or apple. 

So you are saying their alleged profit motive probably isn't the driving factor here? 

[Amulek]

27 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

What I ask is that does the word  "whistleblower" in the USA automatically equate to truth and complete facts.  That any whistleblower is a person to be trusted.  So no need to doubt because it was a "whistleblower".

The term "whistleblower" is indeed intended to describe someone who exposes secretive information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, etc. The presumption is that a true whistleblower is someone who has witnessed something wrong happening within an organization and wants to pass that information on to others in the hopes of exposing the wrongdoing.

This is why the Nielson brothers want to be portrayed as whistleblowers.

Because the other (very similar) category would be to refer to them as "leakers" instead. Unlike "whistleblowers," "leakers" are generally viewed more neutrally or negatively because their intentions are often found to be less...high-minded. And in this case, there seems to be some evidence that this may be the case. Here are the portions of the article which stand out to me on that front:

• "Nielsen [...] is seeking a reward from the IRS, which offers whistleblowers a cut of unpaid taxes that it recovers."
• "Nielsen’s complaint is sharply critical of church leaders for continuing to ask for tithes, even from members who are struggling financially, while the church sits on a fortune."
• "He suggests church leaders favor continuing to collect tithes to avoid “losing control over their members’ behavior” by releasing them from their financial obligations."
• "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."

A lot of that indicates to me someone who is more disgruntled / disaffected with the church and its policies, rather than someone who is genuinely concerned about any sort of ongoing illegal activities. 

Oh, and while everyone seems quick to see what they want to see, let's not forget that the number one potential for alleged wrongdoing has not been substantiated:

• "While accumulating this wealth, Ensign has not directly funded any religious, educational or charitable activities in 22 years, the complaint said. No documents are provided to support this claim [...]"

I tried to watch the hour+ long video but was just not able to bring myself to stick with it. Half of the "exhibits" aren't actually financial statements from the company, but spreadsheets put together by the guy's brother which, according to him, are invariably incomplete because only the top four officers in the company have access to the complete financials.

And, call me crazy, but I have a hard time listening to "a health-care consultant in Minnesota" walk through all the possible outcomes from an IRS audit. You know, because he's got tons of experience in that area. 

 

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Did you not see the leaked documents, brother?

The Church has amassed 100B in assets without spending a nickle on religious activity.  This is a clear violation of the law.

No it isn’t a clear violation. It is a violation to personally benefit from or to spend money on commercial profit-making. The money must have a purpose allowed to a non-profit (it does). I question the one comment in the article that says non profits are not allowed to stockpile money for large amounts of future expenses considering many non-profits do just that.

Your statement is also factually incorrect. Of course they are spending money on religious activity. This one subsidiary of the church’s organization may not have but the church as a whole did. Chapels and temples are still being built. Wards still have budgets. The power and water are still on. That all costs at least two nickles.

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, 2BizE said:

We’ve all heard the conference talks saying if you have to choose between feeding your starving family and paying tithing, then pay your tithing.  This has never sat well with me, and now we see the church is hoarding money like Smaug on The Hobbit.  All is not well in Zion my friends.

You realize that if your family is starving the Church will give you food right?

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So you are saying their alleged profit motive probably isn't the driving factor here? 

Considering his family just left the church and he is following them out another motive springs to mind.

[topcougar]

12 hours ago, mgy401 said:

So . . . Over 20 years the Church used the miracle of the stock market to generate $68 billion in investment income from $32 billion of tithing seed; and then it used about $2 billion of that $68 billion profit to pay off the debts associated with other investments that didn’t do so well?

I think this is good stewardship to not spend all tithing money but to invest some of it. Is this not the parable of the talents? As a master, i gave tithing money to the Church. Instead of burying that money they increased it tremendously.  
This will give the Chruch power to withstand considerable attacks by adversaries. It will allow the church to assist the world after future wars like they did after World War Two.  This gives me greater trust in what is happening with my tithing. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Tacendas case also highlights the foolishness of entering into business relationships without competent legal advice. A few well drawn up notes, partnership agreements or contracts might have prevented this. 

Yeah, I cringed when I first heard it. My parents and eldest brother’s family moved in together and did write up a contract and there were still offended feelings when difficulties arose for one and the other chose to eventually back out as contract not met.  

In many ways family businesses are great, but everyone should be getting fair value out from the beginning and not be forced by family feeling to ‘invest’ their labor or resources without real choice.

off topic however, so no need to reply...just my brain wandering while waking up. 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Calm

[topcougar]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Considering his family just left the church and he is following them out another motive springs to mind.

If the IRS ultimate collects taxes on the profits of Ensign , Mr. Nielsen could receive a reward in the low billions. Is that motive enough??

[bsjkki]

11 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Did you not see the leaked documents, brother?

The Church has amassed 100B in assets without spending a nickle on religious activity.  This is a clear violation of the law.

The WP got the opinion of one expert who does not have access to all the facts and admitted things are evaluated on a case by case basis with no clear standard. 

Are you an expert? In my interpretation, I find no “clear violation of the law.” That whole article deserves a line by line critical  reading and refutation but once I saw the ‘video’ debacle of sleeziness , I decided not to take the time. Read the WP article with a skeptical, critical eye and you can see what a weak case and hit job it really is. Fake news.  (But that is how I read all news articles.)