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

91–100 of 232 posts

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

#91

Post by tarotuser »

tombert wrote: post #24

Nearly every Baptist church/preacher I have seen explicitly endorsed Donald Trump in 2020, and calls Joe Biden an election thief (or one of a dozen other conspiracies). My understanding is that this is in direct violation of their tax-free status [1]. Maybe we should actually start enforcing this. [1] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics EDIT: I couldn't remember the name of the thing that sta…

That may be the law, but I'm aware of plenty of church leaders publicly saying a whole bunch of "vote for X candidate" (lets be fair; trump), with absolutely no repercussions.

I also found no evidence of any church losing its non-profit status for electioneering in this manner.

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

#92

Post by svachalek »

enraged_camel wrote: post #68
tptacek wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the fine be higher? Presumably it's proportionate to the harm caused, not by the size of the fund.

It should be proportionate to the size of the fund, because one of the reasons fines exist is for the deterrence effect. Ideally you want other potential perpetrators to think twice. Do you think this small fine has that effect?

This is how things work in the world of big money. "I dare say, old chap, that was hardly sporting of you. Harumph, harumph. Well, I'll see you at the club on Tuesday."

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

#93

Post by tptacek »

komali2 wrote: post #81
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…

I feel like if BP got deleted by fines after one oil spill this argument would hold. As it stands it appears companies treat fines the expected way: just cost of doing business.

Right, so if failing to file 25 years worth of correct 13Fs for subsidiaries is equivalent to a BP oil spill, I'll agree with you that the fine should be much higher. Is it?

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

#94

Post by ESTheComposer »

lvl102 wrote: post #37
willk wrote: post #5

I think we really should be looking at the tax-exempt status of religious organizations have that subsidiaries that are doing their taxes and setting up shell companies to hide where money is coming/going.

I would go one step further and say that donations to religious organizations should not be tax deductible. They are not charities in 99% of the cases.

Citation for that 99% figure? If it's anecdotal then I will give you my anecdote as a non Christian that I see 99% of churches doing charitable works.

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

#95

Post by mrguyorama »

bigtex wrote: post #59
tombert wrote: post #24

Nearly every Baptist church/preacher I have seen explicitly endorsed Donald Trump in 2020, and calls Joe Biden an election thief (or one of a dozen other conspiracies). My understanding is that this is in direct violation of their tax-free status [1]. Maybe we should actually start enforcing this. [1] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics EDIT: I couldn't remember the name of the thing that sta…

I assume this also applies to the churches who had Raphel Warnock on stage and told the congregants to vote for him. FYI, he is a democrat.

I would be giddy if everyone who did something bad regardless of political affiliation would get justice.

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

#96

Post by guelo »

tptacek wrote: post #70
shadowgovt wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually a settlement, not a fine, which is probably pinned closer to the "This is the amount we think we'd have to pay lawyers to argue the case" value than the "This is how much we would owe if we were found guilty of breaking the law" value.

Right, either way, I'm looking for an intuition about how much an infraction like this should cost. Presumably, the settlement also includes the LDS church's consent to start filing reliable 13F's. I'm not saying I think 5MM is the right number; I'm just saying I have no intuition for what the number should be, and the rationale I see on the thread seems to be "they're big". If I get pulled over in a Bentley with an…

For personal tax returns the typical penalty is 20% of the underpayment + interest.

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

#97

Post by OrvalWintermute »

shadowgovt wrote: post #83
mistrial9 wrote: post #48

anti-Church pitchforks come out pretty fast here? it shows that some people simply want to eliminate Church itself, and use bad news to propel that point of view. why not address the actions themselves, specifically; plenty of crooks in the investment game, some of them use Church money it seems.

That's not what the SEC alleged. The SEC alleged that with the direction of the LDS leadership (i.e. "with the Church’s knowledge and approval"), Ensign Peak shell-companied the Church's funds. Best-case scenario is that this was an attempt to hide information for the simple sake of hiding information (as nonprofits, churches are pretty heavily scrutinized relative to other institutions). Worse case, it was an attemp…

While I support religious faiths in general, religious leaders shouldn't be in the game of hiding financial data from the civil authorities.

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

#98

Post by lern_too_spel »

fnimick wrote: post #7
anigbrowl wrote: post #2

- $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.

For context, 0.016% of 22 years is 1.25 days. They got fined effectively 1.25 days out of 22 years of profit.

They did not make $32 billion in profit over 22 years.

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

#99

Post by shadowgovt »

tptacek wrote: post #70
shadowgovt wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually a settlement, not a fine, which is probably pinned closer to the "This is the amount we think we'd have to pay lawyers to argue the case" value than the "This is how much we would owe if we were found guilty of breaking the law" value.

Right, either way, I'm looking for an intuition about how much an infraction like this should cost. Presumably, the settlement also includes the LDS church's consent to start filing reliable 13F's. I'm not saying I think 5MM is the right number; I'm just saying I have no intuition for what the number should be, and the rationale I see on the thread seems to be "they're big". If I get pulled over in a Bentley with an…

> If I get pulled over in a Bentley with an expired sticker, I pay the same price as someone in a Kia.

That meets an intuitive definition of fairness, but the realpolitik story there is you don't have a lot of power to make trouble for the municipality by tying them up in court for a half-decade arguing how your Bentley was actually operated legally because the definitions of "sticker" and "driving" and "expired" are very flexible (on account of them being not very flexible).

The probability a case heads towards settlement hinges on the ambiguity of the charges and the plaintiff's ability to prove said charges. Securities is way murkier than traffic operation.

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

#100

Post by burkaman »

tptacek wrote: post #72
enraged_camel wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be proportionate to the size of the fund, because one of the reasons fines exist is for the deterrence effect. Ideally you want other potential perpetrators to think twice. Do you think this small fine has that effect?

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 that much, because the perpetrators will know there is no risk in fighting them, and nobody will preemptively stop before an investigation.

Post reply on HN