IRS "Whistleblower" David A. Nielsen to Appear on 60 Minutes

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I understood the fine was broken down into parts with 1 million leveled specifically at church leadership because they were aware of the failures.

Calling them "alleged" is simply spin. It happened.

And, I think the lack of moral judgement on the SEC's end is irrelevant. 

As far as I can find the church was fined one million, not the leadership.  Can you provide a reference for it being specifically for church leaders?

It was the SEC that referred to them as alleged.  I took that quote directly from their website, where they released their findings.  It's an interesting accusation that the SEC is trying to spin their findings by using that term.  Why would they want to do so?

My point was that, though some (such as yourself) might interpret their findings as "lying" the SEC doesn't make the same interpreation.  They don't take a stand on whether a finding was intentional or a mistake.  It seems to all be the same to them.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If you look at the timeline, first some independent researchers figured out the LLC’s were all owned by the Church. They published this on the Internet. The very next quarter, the church changed its reporting practices. About a year later, the SEC investigation commenced.

The Church didn’t need special instructions that they were supposed to tell the truth on the signed documents.

Can you provide references for the timeline?

[webbles]

29 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If you look at the timeline, first some independent researchers figured out the LLC’s were all owned by the Church. They published this on the Internet. The very next quarter, the church changed its reporting practices. About a year later, the SEC investigation commenced.

The Church didn’t need special instructions that they were supposed to tell the truth on the signed documents.

It wasn't the very next quarter.  You have the timeline off.  From the SEC document:

Quote

The LLC Structure Was Made Public
33. In May 2018, a public website reported that various entities that appeared to have ties to the Church had filed Forms 13F revealing holdings of approximately $32 billion. The website referenced evidence indicating that these entities’ domain names were all registered to an entity tasked with overseeing and protecting the intellectual property of the Church, and that each of the LLCs identified listed a Business Manager whose name matched that of a Church employee.
34. After the website reported this information, two Business Managers resigned their roles, voicing concerns about what they had been asked to do. Rather than changing the LLC Structure, two new Business Managers were assigned to replace the two who resigned.
35. Ensign Peak continued to file Forms 13F through the Clone LLCs until February 14, 2020, when Ensign Peak filed a consolidated Form 13F for the quarter ended December 31, 2019. Ensign Peak’s Form 13F consolidated securities previously listed on the various Forms 13F filed in the names of the Clone LLCs. Ensign Peak’s first Form 13F disclosed its management of 1,659 Section 13(f) Securities valued at approximately $37.8 billion.

May 2018 is when it was reported publicly.  They filed the consolidated form for the 4th quarter of 2019.  If I have the math right, that's 6 quarters in between.

[CA Steve]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As far as I can find the church was fined one million, not the leadership.  Can you provide a reference for it being specifically for church leaders?

Given that only the 1st presidency and presiding bishopric are aware of finances, "the church" in this case can only refer to those leaders.

 

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It was the SEC that referred to them as alleged.  I took that quote directly from their website, where they released their findings.  It's an interesting accusation that the SEC is trying to spin their findings by using that term.  Why would they want to do so?

Do you think what happened is "alleged" or not? If not. then why use the term yourself?

 

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My point was that, though some (such as yourself) might interpret their findings as "lying" the SEC doesn't make the same interpreation.  They don't take a stand on whether a finding was intentional or a mistake.  It seems to all be the same to them.

And my response was that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. How do you find that relevant to what we are talking about? The SEC's lack of moralizing does not mean the church acted morally or not.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

The facts surrounding how employees were manipulated into signing the documents weighs the evidence more in favor of an intentional act, IMO.

By whom though?  It wouldn’t be the first time an employee took things further than they should have because they guessed the bosses would want them to do so, but were wrong.

I am not claiming this is what happened.  I would just find it odd for what is to me a low level responsibility (get the forms signed) to have been directed to be done at CEO level.  I have always assumed top bosses approve a general approach and leave it to the minions to figure out how to make it work…and the minions assume their bosses’ time is too valuable to waste on such mundane details as who signs and how 13F forms, whose name is on a company register and whether it goes to voicemail or not.  Micromanaging isn’t an efficient use of the very valuable time of ultimate bosses.

I do believe these actions (addresses and telephone numbers in other states while managers were all in SL area) were deceptive and instructing the managers to sign without reading the forms contrary to what was required in the instructions was telling them to lie.  The fines were appropriate imo because no matter who made the decision, they were acting as agents of the Church.  I just don’t see solid evidence the church leadership involved were aware of the splitting into smaller shell companies.  That may not matter to some, it matters to me and I withhold judgment on condemning church leadership based on that uncertainty.

[CA Steve]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

By whom though?  It wouldn’t be the first time an employee took things further than they should have because they guessed the bosses would want them to do so, but were wrong.

Given the quality of the people the church hires, especially when it comes to integrity, I doubt this is even a consideration.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

Given the quality of the people the church hires, especially when it comes to integrity, I doubt this is even a consideration.

I am not following you.

[CA Steve]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not following you.

I don't believe they would lie to try and impress their bosses.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I don't believe they would lie to try and impress their bosses.

You don’t think someone might misunderstand instructions “to get it done” or something along those lines from their church or EPA bosses to mean it is okay to bend the rules?  And then make self justifications to the point of breaking it when telling the managers to sign without reading contrary to the form’s requirements?
 

It seems strange to believe church leadership would insist on hiring all people with strong integrity and never make a mistake and yet not have enough integrity themselves since they then told these second tier employees to get other lower level employees to lie…and these second tier employees with strong integrity did just that rather than saying ‘we should do a different way’.  Seems much more complicated than assuming the possibility somewhere in the communication from top level to shell company manager, however many tiers that might be there was an individual that took shortcuts or precautions that crossed the line.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Calm

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Given that only the 1st presidency and presiding bishopric are aware of finances, "the church" in this case can only refer to those leaders.

Not really, since the leaders aren't paying the fine personally.

Quote

Do you think what happened is "alleged" or not? If not. then why use the term yourself?

I used the term because the SEC did.  You'd have to ask them why they used the term.  I would guess they used it because the charges were not proven, and the settlement specifically states that the church neither agrees or disagrees with them.  

Quote

And my response was that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. How do you find that relevant to what we are talking about? The SEC's lack of moralizing does not mean the church acted morally or not.

I find it relevant because you brought it up and I was responding to your questions.  

You said--"Wasn't leadership aware of that they were lying on the form? Wasn't that why the SEC fined leadership also?"

My point, to answer your specific question, was that it does not appear that the SEC fined the leadership for lying.

Edited May 19, 2023 by bluebell

[Analytics]

15 hours ago, webbles said:

It wasn't the very next quarter.  You have the timeline off.  From the SEC document:

May 2018 is when it was reported publicly.  They filed the consolidated form for the 4th quarter of 2019.  If I have the math right, that's 6 quarters in between.

Thank you for correcting me—they started filing correctly in response to David Nielsen’s IRS complaint, not the LLC ownership discovery. That makes sense, because people knowing these different LLC’s are owned by the church doesn’t imply that their reports are full of lies.  Nielsen is the one who revealed how EPA actually works.

 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Thank you for correcting me—they started filing correctly in response to David Nielsen’s IRS complaint, not the LLC ownership discovery. That makes sense, because people knowing these different LLC’s are owned by the church doesn’t imply that their reports are full of lies.  Nielsen is the one who revealed how EPA actually works.

 

Where do you see that they started filing correctly in response to the IRS complaint?  That doesn't fit the timeline either.

May 2018 is when mormonleaks released the information

June 2019 is when the "SEC first expressed concern about Ensign Peak’s reporting approach." (https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2023/2/21/23602967/church-settles-case-with-sec-over-financial-reporting)

November 2019 is when the IRS complaint was filed (https://kutv.com/news/local/washington-post-lds-church-accused-of-stockpiling-100b-intended-for-charitable-use)

February 2020 is when EPA started filing the correct forms

It looks more like they started filing correct forms because the SEC reached out to them.  I don't see how Nielsen's complaint had anything to do with the SEC issue.

Edited May 19, 2023 by webbles

[CA Steve]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Not really, since the leaders aren't paying the fine personally.

Wow, so since the money is not coming out of their pockets, they are not responsible for the decisions made under their stewardship? I am not sure you want to go there. The "no one is getting rich off of this" is a huge strawman. I don't think anyone believes leadership is motivated by personal gain. This was done to control members actions.

 

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I used the term because the SEC did.  You'd have to ask them why they used the term.  I would guess they used it because the charges were not proven, and the settlement specifically states that the church neither agrees or disagrees with them.  

So do you agree with it or not? You seem to keep dodging that question. I think it is clear the lying on the forms happened. In your mind are they alleged or not?

 

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

find it relevant because you brought it up and I was responding to your questions.  

You said--"Wasn't leadership aware of that they were lying on the form? Wasn't that why the SEC fined leadership also?"

My point, to answer your specific question, was that it does not appear that the SEC fined the leadership for lying.

I don't even know what to say here. At this point all we are doing is going in circles and you are doing anything you can to absolve leadership of direct involvement. I don't believe they are that incompetent and I don't believe multiple low level LDS fund managers would take it upon themselves over a period of years to lie on forms just to impress their bosses. I believe leadership knew that EP was were creating those holding companies for the purpose of hiding the information from members and that they knew that those fund managers were not managing any funds. Whether or not the SEC passes moral judgement on that or, how the settlement is worded is irrelevant to how I think members should view this deception. 

We were lied to with the purpose of hiding information from us.

[Analytics]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

You don’t think someone might misunderstand instructions “to get it done” or something along those lines from their church or EPA bosses to mean it is okay to bend the rules?  And then make self justifications to the point of breaking it when telling the managers to sign without reading contrary to the form’s requirements?
 

It seems strange to believe church leadership would insist on hiring all people with strong integrity and never make a mistake and yet not have enough integrity themselves since they then told these second tier employees to get other lower level employees to lie…and these second tier employees with strong integrity did just that rather than saying ‘we should do a different way’.  Seems much more complicated than assuming the possibility somewhere in the communication from top level to shell company manager, however many tiers that might be there was an individual that took shortcuts or precautions that crossed the line.

I bet there was some sort of group think dynamic going on. They probably had a meeting to discuss how to keep their financials secret despite the law. They probably brainstormed. Somebody suggested this  scheme. The First Presidency probably said, “that sounds good; let’s do that.” The FP probably didn’t fully understand the details and ramifications of that decision. But at that point, the prophet had spoken, all the thinking had been done, all of the subordinates just obeyed.

Because of the culture of secrecy and obedience, nobody questioned what they were being told to do.

That’s how I imagined it happening.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Analytics

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

Where do you see that they started filing correctly in response to the IRS complaint?  That doesn't fit the timeline either.

May 2018 is when mormonleaks released the information

June 2019 is when the "SEC first expressed concern about Ensign Peak’s reporting approach." (https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2023/2/21/23602967/church-settles-case-with-sec-over-financial-reporting)

November 2019 is when the IRS complaint was filed (https://kutv.com/news/local/washington-post-lds-church-accused-of-stockpiling-100b-intended-for-charitable-use)

February 2020 is when EPA started filing the correct forms

It looks more like they started filing correct forms because the SEC reached out to them.  I don't see how Nielsen's complaint had anything to do with the SEC issue.

They did it wrong for 20 years. Nielsen’s complaint became public. The next quarterly filing was correct. I don’t think that is a coincidence.

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

They did it wrong for 20 years. Nielsen’s complaint became public. The next quarterly filing was correct. I don’t think that is a coincidence.

The SEC talked to them a few months before they fixed their filing.  I think that is far more likely the cause of the change.  Nielsen barely mentions the 13 LLCs nor does he mention anything about them being incorrectly done.  See last paragraph and footnotes 'rr' and 'ss' on page 23 in his document.

[Tacenda]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

As far as I can find the church was fined one million, not the leadership.  Can you provide a reference for it being specifically for church leaders?

It was the SEC that referred to them as alleged.  I took that quote directly from their website, where they released their findings.  It's an interesting accusation that the SEC is trying to spin their findings by using that term.  Why would they want to do so?

My point was that, though some (such as yourself) might interpret their findings as "lying" the SEC doesn't make the same interpreation.  They don't take a stand on whether a finding was intentional or a mistake.  It seems to all be the same to them.

Somewhere I listened to a podcast that had a tax guy or accountant say that it was one of the biggest fines for tax violations ever, which really surprised me.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

They probably had a meeting to discuss how to keep their financials secret despite the law. They probably brainstormed. Somebody suggested this  scheme. The First Presidency probably said, “that sounds good; let’s do that.” The FP probably didn’t fully understand the details and ramifications of that decision.

 I see it similarly.  Perhaps I see it at a more general level meeting with the FP.  I think it would be more along the lines of suggesting to use shell companies that are not tied to the Church in public records to hide ownership, maybe even mentioning having them located elsewhere, but the nitpicky stuff of using common names (I don’t think the names are that common, so I am wondering about that claim; but perhaps they were the most common ones available), using voice mail, and signing tax forms seem more details that would come up later than be thought of in the initial meeting, so likely initiated by a mid level employee, imo.

I also agree the culture of not sharing information and the conflation of the business with the Church probably contributed to less questioning, but do lower level employees usually question their bosses in most businesses?  I got the impression that employees who are willing to criticize or question bosses were rather rare in the business world.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Somewhere I listened to a podcast that had a tax guy or accountant say that it was one of the biggest fines for tax violations ever, which really surprised me.

I would like to see his reasoning because from what I have read even from nonmembers it wasn’t remarkable.  It wasn’t a tax violation either.  It was an SEC issue.  As I understand it, it wasn’t that they didn’t pay taxes as they should have, they did that.  What they did wrong was to hide ownership of the companies a little too well.  I don’t know where the line is drawn, but shell companies are legal in many cases and would have been too if the managers were more than just signing papers pushed at them. 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Calm

[Diamondhands69]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would like to see his reasoning because from what I have read even from nonmembers it wasn’t remarkable.  It wasn’t a tax violation either.  It was an SEC issue.  As I understand it, it wasn’t that they didn’t pay taxes as they should have, they did that.  What they did wrong was to hide ownership of the companies a little too well.  I don’t know where the line is drawn, but shell companies are legal in many cases and would have been too if the managers were more than just signing papers pushed at them. 

They were not fined for hiding the money “too well.”

they were fined for false statements as to custody and reading discretion. 
 

The “fund managers” lied on the forms saying they are managing the money and that they had it in their accounts. 

[Diamondhands69]

Just now, Diamondhands69 said:

They were not fined for hiding the money “too well.”

they were fined for false statements as to custody and reading discretion. 
 

The “fund managers” lied on the forms saying they are managing the money and that they had it in their accounts. 

Trading discretion not “reading discretion.”

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

They were not fined for hiding the money “too well.”

I didn’t say they hid the money too well.  I said the ownership of the companies was hidden and mentioned they would have been legal in this case too if the managers had been doing more than signing papers…I am assuming people posting here are aware of what I mean by that, which is lying on the forms that they had read the rest of the form and verified it as accurate as was required as well as that the managers didn’t actually manage the account.  We have discussed this in great detail before and quite a few including myself were dissecting the SEC complaint, so most here are quite familiar with the issue, even if some of us are not informed about the relevant laws.  I am not inclined to mention every detail in every post.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Calm

[Diamondhands69]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I didn’t say they hid the money too well.  I said the ownership of the companies was hidden and mentioned they would have been legal in this case too if the managers had been doing more than signing papers…I am assuming people posting here are aware of what I mean by that, which is lying on the forms that they had read the rest of the form and verified it as accurate as was required as well as that the managers didn’t actually manage the account.  We have discussed this in great detail before and quite a few including myself were dissecting the SEC complaint, so most here are quite familiar with the issue, even if some of us are not informed about the relevant laws.  I am not inclined to mention every detail in every post.

It is no different hiding the company or the money too well. They are saying on the forms the company had the money when it didn’t. So if the company was hidden too well so was the money. 
 

That said any manager being told to sign a form and not being allowed to see it should have reported that to the sec. Thing is. There isn’t one licensed soul at EP who doesn’t know what a 13F is. If they are presented one and being told they can’t see the rest of the form they should have been personally fined if not lose their license if they signed it. Besides they can look it up online and see what it was anyway. Stupid and or corrupt. I say both in any one of these signing managers cases. 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

There isn’t one licensed soul at EP who doesn’t know what a 13F is. If they are presented one and being told they can’t see the rest of the form they should have been personally fined if not lose their license if they signed it. Besides they can look it up online and see what it was anyway. Stupid and or corrupt. I say both in any one of these signing managers cases.

According to Nielsen’s document, only 4 were or had been EPA employees.  The rest were COP employees.  
 

Just mentioning for accuracy.  Imo, if you sign something without knowing what you are signing at least basically, you are being foolish (I don’t read all the doctors’ forms now, but I read each the first time I was given them nor do I read each term of service agreement in totall after I read several, so I am not saying be obsessive about it, just be careful….and really careful with government or financial forms.  You don’t have to be trained in finances to understand this.  I don’t assume stupid or corrupt.  My guess is a bit lazy and too trusting and some foolishness.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

They were not fined for hiding the money “too well.”

they were fined for false statements as to custody and reading discretion. 

The “fund managers” lied on the forms saying they are managing the money and that they had it in their accounts. 

I don't think this is as clear-cut as you suggest.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

1. Timeframe for Church/EPA Decisions: Per the SEC Order, the Church and EPA first started looking at 13F in 1998, took its first steps on this issue in 2001 (when it created "a trust, and a separate LLC under the ownership of the trust"), and actually filed its first 13F Form in February 2003.  In other words, the formative events took place 20-25 years ago.

2. Availability of "Guidance" from the SEC: Per this article (footnote 62), this guidance existed at least as early as May 2005.  So that seems pretty close to the formative events here.

3. "Someone Else" Language is Statutory: The statute cited in Question 6 above, 15 U.S. Code § 78c(a)(35), seem to substantiate this (emphasis added) :

Quote

A person exercises “investment discretion” with respect to an account if, directly or indirectly, such person (A) is authorized to determine what securities or other property shall be purchased or sold by or for the account, (B) makes decisions as to what securities or other property shall be purchased or sold by or for the account even though some other person may have responsibility for such investment decisions, or (C) otherwise exercises such influence with respect to the purchase and sale of securities or other property by or for the account as the Commission, by rule, determines, in the public interest or for the protection of investors, should be subject to the operation of the provisions of this chapter and the rules and regulations thereunder.

This is seemingly important because, per the SEC Order, the SEC found it significant

• that "Ensign Peak failed to transfer investment discretion to the LLC" (paragraph 10),
• that the "Investment Management Agreements" the LLCs executed "assigned discretion and authority to manage the securities portfolio to the LLCs" (paragraph 18),
• that the LLCs "never exercised investment discretion over the Church’s assets" (paragraph 19),
• that EPA "continued to manage the entire portfolio and at all times maintained investment and voting discretion over all the securities listed in the Forms 13F" (paragraph 27), and
• that the managers of the LLCs "performed no functions for the Clone LLCs outside of signing the Form 13F signature pages each quarter" (paragraph 21).

I am not sure what to make of these findings.  They appear to be intended to inculpate EPA and/or the Church, but the statute passed by Congress appears to all "some other person" than the LLCs (such as EPA) to "have responsibility for {} investment decisions."

4. Shift from "Investment Discretion" to "Sole Investment Discretion": Per the SEC Order, the references to "investment discretion" start in the "Summary" section:

Quote

The Forms 13F that Ensign Peak filed in the names of these LLCs misstated, among other things, that they had sole investment and voting discretion over the listed securities, when Ensign Peak at all times retained discretion over all investment decisions. 

And in paragraph 27 of the Order:

Quote

Each Form 13F filed in the name of a Clone LLC misstated that the LLC had sole investment discretion for the securities listed, that there were no other managers for these securities, and that the Clone LLC had sole voting discretion over these securities. Even though the IMAs stated that Ensign Peak had delegated investment discretion, Ensign Peak continued to manage the entire portfolio and at all times maintained investment and voting discretion over all the securities listed in the Forms 13F.  

Note the shift here from "investment discretion" (the actual language of the statute passed by Congress) to "sole investment discretion," which is the phrase used twice in the SEC Order, including paragraph 27, which is pretty pivotal in terms of compliance because, again, the statute allows "some other person" than the LLCs (such as EPA) to "have responsibility for {} investment decisions."

So how do we explain this shift?  Where did the SEC get the "sole investment discretion?" 

And doesn't adding "sole" to the statutory text substantially alter the text itself?

How does the SEC reconcile its apparent requirement of "sole investment discretion" with the statutory text stating that "{a} person exercises 'investment discretion' with respect to an account if, directly or indirectly, such person ... makes decisions as to what securities or other property shall be purchased or sold by or for the account even though some other person may have responsibility for such investment decisions")? 

Is the requirement for "sole investment discretion" an editorial gloss/embellishment that not only goes beyond the statutory language passed by Congress, but even contradicts that statutory language?

We report, you decide!

5. "Sole Investment Discretion" as a Component of Filling out a Form: The SEC has provided guidance on how to fill out the 13F Form:

Quote

The Information Table – Columns 5–8

Question 44 (Updated: January 3, 2023)

Q: What should I enter in Column 5, "Amount and Type of Security"?

A: Generally, you will list the number of shares of a security here. For options, you will also enter either PUT or CALL, whichever is appropriate. Column 5 is where you actually indicate that the listing is an option because most of the column entries for an option refer to the underlying security, rather than to the option itself (i.e., Columns 1-5 and 7-8). For example, in reporting an option position, you would enter COM in Column 2 and list the CUSIP number for the underlying stock in Column 3. See Special Instructions 10 and 11.b.v to Form 13F [Adobe Acrobat^® (PDF) file].

Question 45 (Updated: January 3, 2023)

Q: What is sole investment discretion?

A: If you are the only entity managing the Section 13(f) securities reported on your Form 13F and you do not control (or are not controlled by) another reporting person, you have sole investment discretion. See Securities Exchange Act Section 3(a)(35), and Rule 13f-1(b). Enter the word SOLE in Column 6. See Special Instruction 11.b.vi to Form 13F [Adobe Acrobat^® (PDF) file].

For example, if you are an investment advisory firm reporting your aggregate holdings for all accounts under your management, you have sole investment discretion (even though the accounts may be handled by different individuals within your firm).

Question 46 (Updated: January 3, 2023)

Q: What is shared-defined investment discretion?

A: If you control another entity (or are controlled by another entity), you should report shared-defined investment discretion. This category includes parent corporations and their subsidiaries (e.g., a bank holding company and its subsidiaries), investment advisers and mutual funds that they advise, and insurance companies and their separate accounts. See Rule 13f-1(b) under the Securities Exchange Act. Enter the word DEFINED in Column 6. See Special Instruction 11.b.vi to Form 13F [Adobe Acrobat^® (PDF) file].

For example, if you are a bank holding company, you are required to file Form 13F even though you may not be directly involved in the management of Section 13(f) securities. Although your trust department or other subsidiary may handle that responsibility, you are deemed to have shared-defined investment discretion based on your corporate structure.

Take a look at Question 45: "If you are the only entity managing the Section 13(f) securities reported on your Form 13F and you do not control (or are not controlled by) another reporting person, you have sole investment discretion."  This seems to comport with the expectations of the SEC, but not with the statutory text (which, again, does not reference "sole investment discretion," just "investment discretion," and which discretion can - per the actual statute - be held by one party (such as the LLCs) "even though some other person {such as EPA} may have responsibility for such investment decisions."

Now take a look at Question 46: "If you control another entity (or are controlled by another entity), you should report shared-defined investment discretion."  Again, this seems to comport with the expectations of the SEC, but only because the SEC has apparently imported a requirement that is not part of, and perhaps even contradicts, the statutory text. 

And here:

Quote

The Church certainly has an obligation to comply with the law.  The law allows private parties to "hide" or obscure their sensitive information.  The purported error alleged by the {SEC} is not that the Church created these LLCs, but that it failed to vest them with "sole investment discretion" (an expectation that may very well be contradicted by the relevant statutory text, which would put the SEC, not the Church, in the wrong).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 19, 2023 by smac97