Ongoing Investigation Into Church Finances by IRS? $20 Billion in Taxes Dodged?

[Hogmeister]

So now I have read the whole thing.

I can't help thinking the recent increased spending on Temples when active church members seems to be dwindling, at least in my country, might be a response to one of the charges in the memo. That EPA has not distributed any money to charitable causes in 22 years. Better late than never I guess

[helloitsme]

There is something more here beyond tax avoidance.

What are they hiding?

Every fund tries to make money.

How were they making money.

And with who.

If this were me.

I wouldn't be sleeping too well.

Sir H

No wonder they consider that pesky SEC matter "closed".

They've got work to do!

p.s. - I see your questions, but have no idea how to pursue it. My one lead didn't pan out... any hints as to how to find an answer?

Because I'd DEFINITELY like to have an answer for that TRILLION dollar question:

How were they making money?

I have no idea how to find out.

But I do think it all ties into what they were upto during the Beverly years.

it might even tie into what is going on right now in Eastern Europe.

Speculation of course.

For now.

Sir H

You-kraine.

I-kraine.

We all kraine

for CIA-kraine

Slava Cocaine!

[Ciams]

So now I have read the whole thing.

I can't help thinking the recent increased spending on Temples when active church members seems to be dwindling, at least in my country, might be a response to one of the charges in the memo. That EPA has not distributed any money to charitable causes in 22 years. Better late than never I guess

For that to be true, you can simply track the value of ensign peak's fund. Is it growing or did it decline the last year or two because the church is selling shares to fund building. Answer, the fund is still growing and shrinking as the market does, but not from selling shares. You can look it up, the fund will sell X amount of stocks and buy Y amount of stocks. It doesn't appear to be cashing out for building.

The argument that the EPA must pay out now is a shallow one. The EPA represents the savings fund of the churches charitable activities. Is the suggestion really that the church should put all it's money into direct deposit cash accounts and just let it not grow and indeed shrink with inflation?

Is the suggestion the church should have no savings at all to cover any potential future issues where tithing can not cover operational costs?

Or is the suggestion that the church is saving too much? Are people just upset that the savings is increasing, with the value of the market? There has to be some savings when you have as much assets as the church. The savings has to be parked somewhere. I can't believe some people would hold it against the church for parking that savings in a vehicle that increases in value rather than decreases.

I can see some people saying, ya but maybe just tell members to tithe half as much, cut it to 5%. Ok, fair enough. Make that case that the church should ask for less tithing across the board. I wonder how that would impact the church's finances. If EPA started to shrink to cover short falls if that happened, it would be disastrous. That fund is to pay for future needs, not current operating costs.

[JohnnyL]

I didn't see anything that was done wrong; in fact, it was all done legally. Had any big bank done this, the SEC would have had no problem with it. Many companies break themselves up into smaller companies. Look at Google and Facebook, lol.
The SEC came out looking like fools, and wanted the Church to pay for it.

[LDS Physician]

I didn't see anything that was done wrong; in fact, it was all done legally. Had any big bank done this, the SEC would have had no problem with it. Many companies break themselves up into smaller companies. Look at Google and Facebook, lol.
The SEC came out looking like fools, and wanted the Church to pay for it.

Perhaps a more careful reading of the SEC order is warranted, then ... because illegality is present.

And dishonesty is present as well. Even if illegality wasn't present, you can't read what the SEC shows us without thinking the church pulled some fancy shenanigans that makes answering a certain temple recommend question in the correct manner impossible.

UNLESS ... unless you've drunk the kool-aid; all of the kool-aid in the cup.

[zionssuburb]

There is a major problem with the complaint, it assumes because of 'things' that it's really a charity and not a religious entity (which it officially is) but then all the complaints tend to be about how, as a charitable organization, it doesn't meet the standard, so it should just be taxed. So you have to make 2 leaps of category here for the entire complaint to make sense, but like it or not, this is a religious entity, that doesn't fall under the scenario others want it to.

[JohnnyL]

I didn't see anything that was done wrong; in fact, it was all done legally. Had any big bank done this, the SEC would have had no problem with it. Many companies break themselves up into smaller companies. Look at Google and Facebook, lol.
The SEC came out looking like fools, and wanted the Church to pay for it.

Perhaps a more careful reading of the SEC order is warranted, then ... because illegality is present.

And dishonesty is present as well. Even if illegality wasn't present, you can't read what the SEC shows us without thinking the church pulled some fancy shenanigans that makes answering a certain temple recommend question in the correct manner impossible.

UNLESS ... unless you've drunk the kool-aid; all of the kool-aid in the cup.

Could point out exactly where it was illegal?
Fancy shenanigans that about every company--from companies traded on the stock market to local businesses--uses, and are legal.
How do you define "dishonest"? What do you mean by it?
The SEC wanted someone to blame, and some easy money.

[LDS Physician]

I didn't see anything that was done wrong; in fact, it was all done legally. Had any big bank done this, the SEC would have had no problem with it. Many companies break themselves up into smaller companies. Look at Google and Facebook, lol.
The SEC came out looking like fools, and wanted the Church to pay for it.

Perhaps a more careful reading of the SEC order is warranted, then ... because illegality is present.

And dishonesty is present as well. Even if illegality wasn't present, you can't read what the SEC shows us without thinking the church pulled some fancy shenanigans that makes answering a certain temple recommend question in the correct manner impossible.

UNLESS ... unless you've drunk the kool-aid; all of the kool-aid in the cup.

Could point out exactly where it was illegal?
Fancy shenanigans that about every company--from companies traded on the stock market to local businesses--uses, and are legal.
How do you define "dishonest"? What do you mean by it?
The SEC wanted someone to blame, and some easy money.

If you read the SEC order and think the church wasn't dishonest, then I don't know what to say to you: you've got the rosiest-tinted glasses I've ever seen. What comes to mind is the scripture that says something about our day when people will call "evil good" and "good evil".

A lawyer friend of mine had this to say about what happened:

1) must some be illegal to be dishonest or immoral?

2) the statements signed by the managers of the shell companies likely fall within the definition of forgery, perjury, and mail fraud, even if it's uncharged.

3) concealing something like this because you know its revelation would carry negative consequences could potentially be criminal conduct, but we'd need more info.

Criminal or not and despite the fact that "other businesses do this all the time" --- I don't expect prophets, seers, and revelators to act like "other businesses" -- I expect them to act like they expect me to act: to be honest in all my dealings.

One thing is for sure. It's awfully entertaining to watch the mental gymnastic feats necessary to excuse the church when they do things like this, or other things like publicly supporting homosexual marriage in the promised land, or things like buying a $148 million Maui resort, or building a $2 billion mall in SLC, or other things like inviting a choir full of sodomites to sing on temple grounds.

I can't wait to see what you explain away next. *gets the popcorn out*

[Reluctant Watchman]

This might be a good place for this. A Reddit thread/repository w/ leader quotes on tithing:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TithingRepository/

[Lizzy60]

I didn't see anything that was done wrong; in fact, it was all done legally. Had any big bank done this, the SEC would have had no problem with it. Many companies break themselves up into smaller companies. Look at Google and Facebook, lol.
The SEC came out looking like fools, and wanted the Church to pay for it.

Perhaps a more careful reading of the SEC order is warranted, then ... because illegality is present.

And dishonesty is present as well. Even if illegality wasn't present, you can't read what the SEC shows us without thinking the church pulled some fancy shenanigans that makes answering a certain temple recommend question in the correct manner impossible.

UNLESS ... unless you've drunk the kool-aid; all of the kool-aid in the cup.

Could point out exactly where it was illegal?
Fancy shenanigans that about every company--from companies traded on the stock market to local businesses--uses, and are legal.
How do you define "dishonest"? What do you mean by it?
The SEC wanted someone to blame, and some easy money.

If you read the SEC order and think the church wasn't dishonest, then I don't know what to say to you: you've got the rosiest-tinted glasses I've ever seen. What comes to mind is the scripture that says something about our day when people will call "evil good" and "good evil".

A lawyer friend of mine had this to say about what happened:

1) must some be illegal to be dishonest or immoral?

2) the statements signed by the managers of the shell companies likely fall within the definition of forgery, perjury, and mail fraud, even if it's uncharged.

3) concealing something like this because you know its revelation would carry negative consequences could potentially be criminal conduct, but we'd need more info.

Criminal or not and despite the fact that "other businesses do this all the time" --- I don't expect prophets, seers, and revelators to act like "other businesses" -- I expect them to act like they expect me to act: to be honest in all my dealings.

One thing is for sure. It's awfully entertaining to watch the mental gymnastic feats necessary to excuse the church when they do things like this, or other things like publicly supporting homosexual marriage in the promised land, or things like buying a $148 million Maui resort, or building a $2 billion mall in SLC, or other things like inviting a choir full of sodomites to sing on temple grounds.

I can't wait to see what you explain away next. *gets the popcorn out*

Yep, lots of mental gymnastics in my area.
Reminds self to put popcorn on the grocery list.

[Dusty Wanderer]

I didn't see anything that was done wrong; in fact, it was all done legally. Had any big bank done this, the SEC would have had no problem with it. Many companies break themselves up into smaller companies. Look at Google and Facebook, lol.
The SEC came out looking like fools, and wanted the Church to pay for it.

Perhaps a more careful reading of the SEC order is warranted, then ... because illegality is present.

And dishonesty is present as well. Even if illegality wasn't present, you can't read what the SEC shows us without thinking the church pulled some fancy shenanigans that makes answering a certain temple recommend question in the correct manner impossible.

UNLESS ... unless you've drunk the kool-aid; all of the kool-aid in the cup.

Could point out exactly where it was illegal?
Fancy shenanigans that about every company--from companies traded on the stock market to local businesses--uses, and are legal.
How do you define "dishonest"? What do you mean by it?
The SEC wanted someone to blame, and some easy money.

If they were innocent, why pay the $5M? Why do you think they chose to settle out of court, preferring that the Church's image/brand/reputation take a hit?

[madvin]

Would cost them more if they went through the trial and won?

[Bronco73idi]

I didn't see anything that was done wrong; in fact, it was all done legally. Had any big bank done this, the SEC would have had no problem with it. Many companies break themselves up into smaller companies. Look at Google and Facebook, lol.
The SEC came out looking like fools, and wanted the Church to pay for it.

Perhaps a more careful reading of the SEC order is warranted, then ... because illegality is present.

And dishonesty is present as well. Even if illegality wasn't present, you can't read what the SEC shows us without thinking the church pulled some fancy shenanigans that makes answering a certain temple recommend question in the correct manner impossible.

UNLESS ... unless you've drunk the kool-aid; all of the kool-aid in the cup.

Could point out exactly where it was illegal?
Fancy shenanigans that about every company--from companies traded on the stock market to local businesses--uses, and are legal.
How do you define "dishonest"? What do you mean by it?
The SEC wanted someone to blame, and some easy money.

You are literally justifying them being part of the Whore of Babylon. Revelation 18

[LDS Physician]

I didn't see anything that was done wrong; in fact, it was all done legally. Had any big bank done this, the SEC would have had no problem with it. Many companies break themselves up into smaller companies. Look at Google and Facebook, lol.
The SEC came out looking like fools, and wanted the Church to pay for it.

Perhaps a more careful reading of the SEC order is warranted, then ... because illegality is present.

And dishonesty is present as well. Even if illegality wasn't present, you can't read what the SEC shows us without thinking the church pulled some fancy shenanigans that makes answering a certain temple recommend question in the correct manner impossible.

UNLESS ... unless you've drunk the kool-aid; all of the kool-aid in the cup.

Could point out exactly where it was illegal?
Fancy shenanigans that about every company--from companies traded on the stock market to local businesses--uses, and are legal.
How do you define "dishonest"? What do you mean by it?
The SEC wanted someone to blame, and some easy money.

You are literally justifying them being part of the Whore of Babylon. Revelation 18

You know a guy is doing backflips and somersaults on the mental gymnastics floor when they ask you to define "dishonest".

Seriously ... don't ask me to tell you what I mean by "white" when I describe the blank piece of paper in front of your face.

[Seed Starter]

Would cost them more if they went through the trial and won?

Would cost them even more than that if they went through trial and lost Imagine the mental gymnastics required to dispute a conviction.

[Reluctant Watchman]

It cost them hundreds of millions, and potentially billions, by getting caught.

But it was totally worth it to awaken a few saints.

[JohnnyL]

So... nothing?
Okaaaaaay.....

[Seed Starter]

Here are just a few dishonest/illegal things the church caused to happen right from the SEC order the church agreed to. Hint, look for the word misstated. Professional investment firms don't misstate things by accident. Perhaps those poor clueless presiding bishops and that guy in the FP who was on the Utah Supreme court for a decade can't understand SE law. I doubt it. Dumb or evil, you pick.

27. 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.

The church through EPA stated something that was factually inaccurate. They lied to the feds. FOR YEARS...

28. Each Form 13F was signed by the designated Business Manager. The signature page stated, “The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom it is signed hereby represent . . . that all information contained herein is true, correct and complete[.]”However, Ensign Peak provided the Business Managers with insufficient information about the Clone LLCs or the securities assigned to them that would enable the Business Managers to make this representation. When Ensign Peak obtained the Business Managers’ signatures for the Forms 13F, Ensign Peak gave the Business Managers only the signature pages of the Forms 13F and not the complete documents. In addition, the Forms 13F were often filed with electronic signatures before Ensign Peak actually obtained the Business Managers ’handwritten signatures.

The church didn't give the business manager signing for their shell company the information they needed to know if what they signed was true. The business manager didn't even see the part of the form that showed what they were saying was true. They (the church and ensign peak) told their employee to sign the form which was dishonest. They lied to the feds. They said this is true when it wasn't. How Is this complicated?

and

29. Each Form 13F also misstated that the Business Manager signed the Form 13F from the address listed on the signature page. In fact, all Business Managers were located in Salt Lake City, and the addresses on the forms were used to convey the impression that the Clone LLC s were located across the country.

A small lie but a lie nonetheless. It was a lie they told for years. Are they honest in their dealing? No.

11. On March 15, 2005, the Church became aware that the public might link this first LLC to the Church because the person signing the Forms 13F was listed in a public directory as a Church employee. To address this issue, on March 21, 2005, the senior leadership of the Church approved a new reporting entity to be created with “better care being taken to ensure that neither the ‘Street’ nor the media[could]connect the new entity to Ensign Peak.”

Deception. They wanted to hide it from you and they broke laws to do it. If they can hide it without breaking laws that should still cause one to ask why. Even with all the king's horses and all the king's men they couldn't figure out how to do this legally. They knowingly broke the law in a premeditated way and they knew a mulit million $ fine would be worth it when they considered how much tithing would be lost by being transparent with members. Besides saving legal fees I also think the church knew the SEC had evidence to convict them so it's better to settle.