Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 232 posts

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#221

Post by wrycoder »

mikeyouse wrote: post #170
wrycoder wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paywall, not resolved by archive.org

> The rule in the US is roughly that if you are an institution — a pension fund, an endowment, an investment firm, a bank, etc. — and you own more than $100 million worth of stocks, you have to disclose your stock holdings every quarter. You file Form 13F with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, and it is publicly available and everyone can see what stocks you own. > If you don’t like this, there are reasonabl…

Thank you. That was very interesting and answered all my questions.

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#222

Post by open-paren »

boeingUH60 wrote: post #182
open-paren wrote: post #169

Earlier 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 common opinion is that it's a rainy day fund. The church has a lot of expenses, including lots of real estate and fancy buildings worldwide. If there was a drop in tithing or a major economic recession, they want to be able to weather it for an indefinite period.

4) Nothing major has been done. Last year, there was a church policy update that states

> ...using friendship or a position of trust to take financial advantage of another is “a shameful betrayal of trust and confidence. Its perpetrators may be subject to criminal prosecution. Church members who commit affinity fraud may also face membership restrictions or withdrawal. … Members may not state or imply that their business dealings are sponsored by, endorsed by, or represent the Church or its leaders.”

(https://www.thechurchnews.com/2021/3/31/23216752/updates-gen...)

But that's the whole of it. No recent major sermons call out MLMs and their ilk.

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#223

Post by anigbrowl »

tptacek wrote: post #138
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you support with evidence the idea that Ensign Peak is just going to blow off the fine and pay 5MM every few years instead of filing 13Fs? The parent comment very clearly said “other perpetrators”. I agree: Such a small fine is basically encouragement for other groups to commit the same violations. When the downsides are so negligible small, there is basically no risk for duplicating the bad behavior. If you ge…

I understand. But if the offense is itself marginal, it doesn't make sense to inflict disproportionate punishment on one offender; the penalty still needs to bear some relationship to the offense! We don't, like, arrest Ferrari drivers for violating a no-turn-on-red sign so as to prevent other rich assholes from ignoring the sign. They get the same ticket everyone else does, and if they keep doing it, eventually we s…

These guys (at Ensign Peak) kept doing it for ~20 years, and when they were worried about discovery by third parties their response was not to clean up their act but to iterate upon it.

I don't understand why you are equating a single enforcement action with a single offense. We don't just suspect they did it more often, we know. And they knew that it was wrong. Settling for future compliance as sufficient just incentivizes others to lie in the future.

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#224

Post by yieldcrv »

burkaman wrote: post #100
tptacek wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you support with evidence the idea that Ensign Peak is just going to blow off the fine and pay 5MM every few years instead of filing 13Fs? Because if they start reliably filing 13Fs, they've refuted this argument. If there's a distinctive harm that we can draw out from the LDS Church failure to file 13Fs, I'm all ears about scaling up the penalties accordingly. But otherwise, the logic we're using applies to lite…

The risk is not that Ensign Peak will keep doing this, it's that other people who are committing the same violation as we speak will now continue to do it until they're caught because they know there will be no noticeable penalty. If it's easier to understand, just consider how much the SEC had to spend litigating this for 4 years. Now every time they come across this particular crime they'll have to spend at least t…

so what? the SEC can easily fuck around and get their entire charter invalidated by Congress or the court if they go after the wrong organization, nearly every creature of the New Deal got the same fate and the SEC operates right at the edge of its authority and constitutional rationality already.

and its not even clear if 13F filings are that important, aside from "its mandated by the SEC", Ensign Peak didn't challenge this, they got a tap on the shoulders after their lawyer's solution was questioned, and they changed their tactics. Leave it up to someone else to actually challenge it.

A tiny settlement is best. Its a joke, I agree with that, but it is also rational.

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#226

Post by aliasxneo »

ok_dad wrote: post #201
aliasxneo wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I also think Christians have precedence to be afraid of government persecution. So, it's a fine line that our forefathers tried to draw.

Christian and many other individuals have been persecuted in the past, but it isn't persecuting an organization by punishing them for breaking the law or acting in contravention to it unless that law is specifically targeted towards them. In this case, it seems there was a "slap on the wrist" punishment, but no true accountability for their actions. It is pointless to even argue for the straw-man that "Christians in…

It's the same principle applied to any entity fighting for freedom. I never posited that Christians in America are under imminent threat of being persecuted by the government. I'm just reinforcing that Christians should scrutinize Church/state interactions and be leery of overreach (on either side for that matter). I should clarify that when I say 'government' I mean all forms of it, just not in America.

In this case, I would agree the punishment wasn't severe enough.

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#227

Post by bbatha »

skissane wrote: post #184
bbatha wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Its pretty clear that OP just wants them to register as 501c3's or similar not force them to pay taxes in general

If OP just wants religions “to register as 501c3’s”, then I believe they already have almost what they want. From what I understand, the principal tax exemption available to religious groups under US federal income tax law is 501(c)(3) It is true that religious groups get their 501(c)(3) status automatically without having to apply for it to the IRS - but changing that rule wouldn’t lead to them paying any more tax,…

They are automatically treated like 501(c)(3)s however the application and annual filing process is waived ie your average 501(c)(3) has the IRS in its books a lot more actively than the average church. Its pretty plain that many churches are not playing by the rules even if most are. Why should they be special?

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-integrate...

Re: SEC charges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

#228

Post by irrational »

mulmen wrote: post #36
boeingUH60 wrote: post #20

Here's a related random fact: Fidelity, the well-known investment firm, runs donor-advised charitable funds for rich clients that in aggregate constitute America's charity [1]. The three largest recipients from those funds? Harvard University, Stanford University, and the Mormon Church...organizations that aren't in any way hurting for money. I guess people fund what they are familiar with and for prestige. 1- https:…

I’m confused. Does this mean my retirement savings somehow benefits or is related to the LDS?

Only if you choose to do so, otherwise, no.
Post reply on HN