Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The Choir’s participation in these events is not an implied support of party affiliations or politics, but rather a demonstration of its support for freedom, civility and the peaceful transition of power."
Dude, I live in Springville. We had a regional conference in which a GA explicitly told people that not getting what you wanted in an election was not grounds for insurrection. You'll forgive me for believing that my neighbors strongly believe otherwise.
SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
211–220 of 232 posts
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude, I live in Springville. We had a regional conference in which a GA explicitly told people that not getting what you wanted in an election was not grounds for insurrection. You'll forgive me for believing that my neighbors strongly believe otherwise.
> Dude, I live in Springville. Hey, neighbor, me too! > You'll forgive me for believing that my neighbors strongly believe otherwise. Oh, I know exactly what you mean, but how come what they think trumps (see what I did there, haha) what I think - why does their wacky opinion count for more than mine? Or even better, doesn't the organization's official stance count for something? I mean, the church also told people t…
When a church sings at a president's inauguration, there's a signal that's being given, regardless of statements that the church might be making to the contratry. When you are celebrating, you pull your allies to celebrate with you. Politicians don't take pictures with babies because the babies are super into policy. They take pictures with babies because a picture of your baby with the politician is a social bond. When your church's musical ambassadors sing for and are on the photographic record with a politician, that's a social bond.
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#213- $5 million in fines, for - 22 years of willful reporting violations - using 13 shell companies - to conceal ownership of a $32 billion portfolio I'm sure they're gutted by this ~0.016% fine.
Why would the fine be higher? Presumably it's proportionate to the harm caused, not by the size of the fund.
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better to just get rid of the tax exempt status for religious organizations altogether. They can operate like any other non-profit and be subject to that set of rules, or they can be a regular corporation and be subject to a different set of rules. The religious exemption is a big regulatory gap that doesn't need to exist.
The details vary from country to country, of course, but some of the tax exemptions which religious groups get are actually just standard exemptions available to all non-profits, or all charities. English law has long defined "advancing religion" as a "charitable purpose". The Charitable Uses Act of 1601 (aka the Statute of Elizabeth) included "the repair of... churches" as a charitable purpose, and later case law to…
Right. Religious groups in the US get tax exemptions that non-religious 501(c)(3)s don't get. Churches can exempt themselves from FICA taxes. Churches are not required to withhold income taxes on wages paid to ministers. Churches can provide a housing allowance as compensation to ministers which is exempt from taxation
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417
> When people advocate ending religious tax-exemptions, do they mean to end tax-exemptions specific to religious groups – but not available to charities in general, or non-profits in general? Or do they also mean to deny religious groups their status as charities? Or even their status as non-profits?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think churches should not get special treatment relative to other charitable organizations.
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the fine is less than the profit of committing the crime, then it is now de facto legal, taxed profit. There is no incentive not to continue committing the crime. Perhaps $5mm is a valid fine on top of repaying the illegal profits. But on its own? It is an endorsement.
I don't know if they made additional profits from this. I think they hid their holdings to prevent bad press for the LDS church. Not to give them a market advantage. This appears to me to be a slap on the wrist saying "don't do that".
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel worse for the whistleblower that probably reported that They thought they were going to get a much bigger payday by reporting the malfeasance of a 32 billion portfolio
I would guess that the whistleblower was employed by the church directly or via a subsidiary. Knowing many people who work for the Mormon church, it is likely the whistleblower lost their job and their pension. You will lose your job and pension if you stop regularly attending church services or giving 10% of your paycheck back to the church ('tithing'). I can't imagine they don't take a harder approach to this. To b…
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Dude, I live in Springville. Hey, neighbor, me too! > You'll forgive me for believing that my neighbors strongly believe otherwise. Oh, I know exactly what you mean, but how come what they think trumps (see what I did there, haha) what I think - why does their wacky opinion count for more than mine? Or even better, doesn't the organization's official stance count for something? I mean, the church also told people t…
Having a stance and taking a stand are, as we were both probably taught taught, probably from the same Aaronic Priesthood manuals, very different things. Vaccines were painfully, tragically, massively politicized from the getgo. I was guilty of being partisan on the issue. When Trump announced that he was responsible for developing the best vaccine, I was vocal about how there was no way in hell that something he was…
I actually agree with a lot of your point, but I'm uncomfortable with the extent to which you're suggesting our actions have to be governed by what others think, especially when we go on record as to saying why we are doing something. I might be hypersensitive to it now, but one of the things in our political environment that really gets under my skin is the mentality of "you say you think X, but I [somehow] know you really think Y, and Y is bad, and I'm gonna judge you the same as if you had said you think Y". So, apologies as I've probably misinterpreted what you were saying. IMO it's good to be sensitive to perception, but only to a point. If there are naysayers who will pick at whatever you do, and won't believe what you tell them anyway, letting them overly influence what you end up doing seems like a bad idea.
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#218For having Jesus Christ in its name, I have a hard time believing Jesus is running the board of this corporation and is suggesting billions be spent in investments instead of billions feeding, clothing, housing, and providing healthcare for those in need.
And don’t tell me about their humanitarian efforts. A fraction of their wealth is used on such endeavors.
End of the day, all their leadership cares about is wanting the whole world to volunteer their free time to the local congregation, pay tithing, and do temple ceremonies. Next time you meet a Mormon, ask them to clearly draw a line to what they do in the temple regularly and why that’s what Jesus wants them to do. You’ll see them hit the cognitive dissonance wall.
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#219- $5 million in fines, for - 22 years of willful reporting violations - using 13 shell companies - to conceal ownership of a $32 billion portfolio I'm sure they're gutted by this ~0.016% fine.
Why would the fine be higher? Presumably it's proportionate to the harm caused, not by the size of the fund.
The issue for me here is the willfulness and scale of the deception. I'm not so surprised to discover that the Church has a ~$37 billion portfolio; I'm not sufficiently interested to pay close attention to them, but but it was apparent to any but the mot casual observer that the Church was a very wealthy entity. As a religious organization, it's benefits from tax exemption; it seems to me that part of the price for that special treatment is greater transparency - notwithstanding that this isn't a tax liability case.
BTW I'm referring to 'the Church' throughout as Ensign Peak is a wholly owned entity of the Church and no management fees change hands. Further, Ensign Peak wasn't authorized to file 13Fs on its own initiative (per the order); it effectively has zero independence of its parent. I'm not sure why they set it up so that Ensign Peak pays $4m to the SEC and the Church itself $1m, but I'm going to guess because it looks better that way in press coverage and on their next form 990 filing.
What I mean about willfulness and scale is that from the outset, these shell companies were created to conceal the fact of the Church's portfolio from the public, other investors, and to a large extent their own membership. As detailed in the order, this concealment stretched over nearly 2 decades and eventually grew to encompass 13 shell companies, with new ones being set up when managers determined that business intelligence/the press were becoming aware of the arrangements. Indeed, when a public website figured out the network of reporting entities and made the facts public in 2018, 2 of the business managers of the shell companies (who were based in Salt Lake City, though the entities were registered in Delaware) resigned, expressing concern about what they had been asked to do. Rather than the network of shell companies being shut down, the troubled managers were just replaced, and the arrangement continued until the SEC got involved.
All told, this involved about 100 different acts of deception (in terms of the misleading 13f filings; I have no idea how many private or public statements might have ensued). So the settlement here works out at about $50,000 per false filing. I doubt that that did much more than cover the SEC's legal and administrative costs on the investigation and preparation for trial. The number and long timescale of the deceptions in my view demonstrates impunity; this wasn't a single negligent or reckless decision, but a long-running practice that only unravelled because third party observers connected the dots independently.
You wrote elsewhere in the thread about how we don't arrest a Ferrari driver who makes a right turn at a red light just to deter other rich assholes, while also commenting that if you serially break the traffic laws, eventually your license will get suspended. Well, they serially broke the reporting laws, and every time outside observers or some of their own staff called foul, they escalated rather than abandoned their deceptive practices.
It seems, by the way, that this might be the tip of a larger iceberg. Two former Ensign Peak managers (who may be the ones who resigned previously) have alleged that the Church has around $100 billion in assets and and has violated its nonprofit status by not distributing any of it, but instead holding it in reserve for the 'second coming of Christ'. The link below includes a recent filing with the US Senate Finance Committee.
https://religionunplugged.com/news/2023/2/8/former-employee-...
Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that mysterious. The Church has "paying a full tithe" as a basic practice of "full membership". Members can use a DAF to pay tithes in stock and save on taxes by not incurring a sale. I know this because I'm an active, tithe-paying member and this was advice that I received from other members. Anyone can set up their own DAF and donate money or securities to it then have the DAF submit the donation to the Ch…
Sure, never said it was mysterious, was just giving an interesting observation. As an aside, the first time I heard much about Mormons was reading the biography of Jon Huntsman, the late billionaire industrialist, whom I really liked. After that, I checked up on some other well-known Mormon entrepreneurs, luminaries, et al., and had some interesting observations. 1) You guys do have a lot of kids. One founder of a we…
2. The church was in a very bad financial position until the early 1900s because of persecution by several states and the federal government. There's a strong, strong cultural sense of preparedness and self determination to make sure that we're never in that position again. Apple in the modern era is a good comparison - better to save and have the resources on hand rather than need them and not have them.
3. Thank you, we work hard at it :)
4. There's also a strong entrepreneurial culture, both out of necessity from starting new settlements several times in the early church history, and intentionally cultivated starting after the relocation to Utah, so that the community would be more independent (see also #2).