On another thread a poster provided a link to the Mission Presidents Handbook. I thought TSCC couldn't shock me anymore than it has. I was wrong.

Apparently besides being given a nice place to stay and a maid, the president of the mission and his wife are given an account they can fully access by debit card or checks. Included in the approved expenditures is undergraduate tuition at any accredited college or university (not just church schools).

These expenses and others are called reimbursements in the Handbook. How are these even considered reimbursements? They were not paid for from the president's personal bank account and then actually reimbursed from TSCC funds. They just came straight out of a church-funded account. Mission presidents are told not to discuss these reimbursements with anyone, including missionaries, other mission presidents (no comparing notes), and get this...family members!

They are told NOT to open up any personal bank accounts that would jeopardize their tax exempt status during this time. They are specifically told that they are religious volunteers and not employees and that this money is not considered income and therefore should NOT be reported to the government. No tax is withheld.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2014 06:14PM by Susan I/S.

Do we have any accountants, tax lawyers, or IRS people here?

If so, does this pass the smell test?

Anyway about it, this should be pasted all over the internet so nonmembers will understand how this fraud is happening.

This needs sunlight.

Over and over as I read, I kept asking myself...how are they getting away with this? Is it any wonder why TSCC has such a fit when wiki leaks or anyone else tries to publish these handbooks?

I guess the thing that shocked me the most was the don't tell your family, don't tell the government. I wonder if this handbook has been revised since then to make TSCC appear less culpable. Wish I could get my hands on the 2014 version.

Depending upon the schools chosen by the presidents' kids, we're talking about tens of thousands of tithing here. Am I wrong?

Unindoctrinated Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Depending upon the schools chosen by the presidents' kids, we're talking about tens of thousands of tithing here. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. According to the handbook, the kids can go to a church college (BYU) and pay no tuition, OR they can go to any college they would like but the church will only reimburse them UP TO the amount of a church college tuition. Anything above that is their responsibility. The kids can't go to an Ivy League school and have the church pay their entire tuition.

Your post is a little misleading. They are not "given" a maid, it is an OPTION to have a part-time housekeeper (no more than 20 hours per week). Big deal. Hell, my missionary son had a housekeeper.

You also make it sound like they have an open account that can be accessed at any time for any amount. This too is not true. An account IS opened in their name but the church does not deposit any of it's money into it. Once the Mission Prez presents the church with receipts for approved expenditures (dollars the MP has paid out), the reimbursement dollars of those expenditures are deposited into the account (instead of a reimbursement check being sent out) from which the MP can draw on.

Thanks for the clarification Mr. Happy. So, they are actually reimbursed from church funds (how do you know this?) So, they pay exactly what from their own money, and then that exact amount from the receipt is deposited into their church account? You seem to know a lot about this, so how is this receipt submitted?

Your other two points are shaky. Ok they're OFFERED a maid (only 20 hours mind you), not "given" a maid (no I wasn't implying slavery). And, what in the hell difference does it make whether president's kids are offered (not given) tuition up to the amount of a church school? They're still receiving paid tuition, and the president is paying no taxes on anything paid by church funds, even if the benefit is purely personal. My question remains...are these perks (wish I could afford a 20 hour a week maid!) paid through contributions from members who have no idea their money's going toward mission perks, because there's no public church financial accountability?

And, why are presidents specifically told in the handbook not to discuss this with anyone...family members included, or the government. Nit-picking the particulars doesn't address the larger issue, which is why are these tax exempt?

Did you read the handbook? There is a whole section on Family Finances and Accounting for Reimbursements.

You want a maid?? Get your ass back to church and campaign to be a Mission President. LOL!!! Yeah...I didn't think so. I think being a MP would suck. To me it doesn't appear that a MP makes any money off of the church, the church just tries to mitigate things so that they don't LOSE money. I really don't see what a MP receives in living expenses and perks as being out of line to what a low level corporate executive might receive.

As far as where does the money come from to support the MP's? Who knows? If I were to guess I would say tithing, missionary funds, donations, for profit ventures, etc. Do the members really care where their donations/contributions are spent? No. They view donations/contributions as "giving back to the lord" or "building up of the kingdom here on earth". If they did care, you would see a groundswell of members demanding an accounting. Have you seen that lately? Didn't think so. Members see the blessings in parting with their money, not where it ends up. Hell, by the time my father's estate has dried up, close to $5 MILLION will have gone to the church. Once it was out of his hands he wouldn't have given a flying fuck where the church spent it. My point being that the church brings in a BOATLOAD of cash/property from other sources than just "member's tithing".

Why are presidents specifically told in the handbook not to discuss this with anyone...family members included, or the government? My guess is that what the church provides for the MP's is not considered "income". By declaring it as such would only draw attention from some agency like the IRS. If you have ever had any dealings with a scrutinizing IRS, then what the church is advocating makes perfect sense.

Does the whole thing smell like roses? No. But it is not that far out of line either.

Here is another interesting link for you - http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2013/01/how-much-does-a-mormon-apostle-make/

You are so wrong about the IRS. The Handbook tells the MP not to tell the family, so word doesn't get out; and it tells the MP not to tell the government because it's tax evasion, pure and simple. The OP's right. Tax free reimbursement of an MP's kid up to ANY amount is tax evasion. There is no charitable, religious purpose for TSCC to pay the tuition of an employee's child. The MP is an employee, regardless whether the MP's earning less than he could earn in some other employment. The "reimbursement" is income, and should be counted as such. All of the payments for personal expenses made to the MP are personal income, regardless of the carelessness of the members about being fleeced and calling it a blessing.

To clarify, a religious volunteer gets a straight-line charitable deduction--depending on income vs. deductions--for out-of-pocket expenses paid to further the charity's work. If the charity pays a reimbursement, it's net zero, depending on the recipient's ability to use the deduction. But it's all REPORTABLE!

I agree. It should be reported but it is encouraged to not be reported. It's probably 100%. We don't say anything, LD$ Inc doesn't say anything. The Lord will bless you. Obey, Obey and do it some more.

I'm sorry, but any benefit in kind must be reported. If both parties don't report on the other then it is as if it didn't happen....and yet it did.


I don't think you are very sure that the church only gives up to the amount of what a BYU tutuion cost would be for an alternative cost. Unless you have an MP friend willing to say otherwise your words mean nothing.

It is tax evasion and the UK HMRC and other countries Revenue Authorities have been contacted about it.

Eventually action will be taken against the church. In the UK there is real commotion over tax avoidance schemes (legal) by famous entertainers and sports stars. Even the Prime Minister has spoken against it.

What the church does, however, is not avoidance (legal) but tax evasion (illegal). Far more serious matter.

Tom

Do you know if the church parks billions of dollars in offshore accounts like the Caymans Islands, Belize, Luxembourg etc. ?

The church certainly uses offshore accounts when there is an advantage. At one time they sent millions to the UK when I had arranged a church bank account that paid a higher interest rate than they could get elsewhere in the world.

Mentioning Cayman Islands etc. usually involves hiding money from the tax authorities or drug money. They don't need to do that because, as a US church and corporate sole, they can hide their money by not disclosing it, and also taking advantage of tax exempt status.

Just one small addition to anointedones comments on HMRC and LDS tax evasion.

Serious abuse of the Gift Aid scheme by the LDS amounting to millions of pounds has also been reported to HMRC. As I understand it this is being investigated alongside the tax evasion issue that, after 18 months, should be close to completion.

I'll be anxiously awaiting (as I'm sure others here will be as well) the findings of HMRC. If this stinks as much as it appears to and that is revealed, I wonder if the UK will be a catalyst for an investigation by the U.S. Hit TSCC where they live and breathe so to speak and spend most of their money?

Why nothing in the U.S? Although the missions are all over the world, funding is clearly coming straight from Salt Lake. I'm assuming tuition and other perks are paid from tithing funds. The church doesn't receive the benefit of the tuition, the individual mission president does. How can this not be taxable in the U.S.? I'm thinking that much of the tuition is spent on schools in the U.S. as well. I don't understand why this isn't being investigated here.

As I understand it a church is sacrosanct and therefore untouchable in the US. Perhaps if more were made of the fact that the LDS is in reality a corporation masquerading as a church, (much like the new 'Truth will Prevail' initiative does) then possibly more would or could be done.

In the US, what were talking about doesn't implicate TSCC so much, it's conspiracy, but the real problem is for the MP. TSCC pays money out, tells the MP not to report it to the IRS, but it's the MP that takes the risk of following that direction, and failing to report or pay taxes. The income that's supposed to be taxed is the MP's income. Even if the MP's taking valid deductions, the MP's got to report the payments. TSCC should withhold taxes, but it gets around the requirement by paying the MP as a contractor. There's so much abuse in this form of payment that the US is cracking down; but most of the crack-down results from employers using the form to avoid labor laws. So, in the grand scheme of US taxation, it's one more charity evading taxes, of which TSCC is not the only MLM masquerading as a church; and, as per usual, TSCC pushes as much risk as it can onto the individual, in this case, the MP.

You may be correct about US tax and the IRS that the responsibility for reporting lies with the MP. However, I doubt that, given full disclosure, the IRS would agree that MPs are independent contractors. If, as I suspect, they are employees then their employer is responsible for withholding taxes and payroll tax, based on gross. That would be tax evasion by the church but I am not well versed in US tax law.

However, in the UK and other countries MPs are unambiguously "employees" and the church is obliged to withhold tax from the gross equivalent salaries and taxable benefits and also payroll taxes will be due (National Insurance or Social Security). Employers NIC in the UK is 13.8% of gross. In other countries it can be 50%.

The only reason these taxes are not paid is that the payments to MPs is hidden from the tax authorities, as COMMANDED by the church in the MP Handbook.

That folks is tax evasion, a crime in most countries.

Right. But what I'm saying, from the standpoint of the church, is that reimbursements aren't salary so payroll taxes don't apply, generally. Claiming the MP's a contractor makes withholding the responsibility of the MP, that fixes whatever problems "reimbursement" vs "wage," would create. I don't doubt, though, that if actually examined under US law, an MP would be found to be an employee not a contractor. The question for me is whether the MP could still be a volunteer, and not an employee, even with a generous reimbursement package. If so, the MP bears the risk because the payout is deductible to TSSC in any event. The only question is whether TSSC's got to withhold, and I don't see that as being earth-shattering.

Loans giving out to the top 15 are not reported by the individuals or claimed by the church as bad debt.

Even if the church is sacrosanct, the people profiting from this tax scam are not.

We need the consultants, contractors, mission presidents, and the leaders who finance them to do the perp walk in handcuffs.

Are there any other links to other church handbooks. I would like to see the one the bishop or stake president sees.

Give this a try - http://ge.tt/5OcBdKQ/v/0

Thanks, Friend!

In the US, don't you get taxed an any type of compensation if it has a dollar amount with it?

Most companies pay for employees' life insurance but that amount is reported and taxed.

Don't know if it is different for a church, such as a house is provided and utilities paid for, but the types of things the morg pays for is beyond the basics.

My sister is a minister, I will ask her about church taxable compensation.

This smells like a big f-ing MORG RAT!

US tax law for churches and their employees is very complex, and it's own specialty. Sounds like LDS Inc is playing all the angles, and they would just as soon not have the IRS looking too closely at what they do.

From the Book of Mormon, the most correct book on earth, and the keystone of our religion--

32 Now Alma said unto him: Thou knowest that we do not glut
ourselves upon the labors of this people; for behold I have
labored even from the commencement of the reign of the judges
until now, with mine own hands for my support, notwithstanding
my many travels round about the land to declare the word of God
unto my people.

33 And notwithstanding the many labors which I have performed
in the church, I have never received so much as even one senine
for my labor; neither has any of my brethren, save it were in
the judgment-seat; and then we have received only according to
law for our time.

34 And now, if we do not receive anything for our labors in
the church, what doth it profit us to labor in the church save
it were to declare the truth, that we may have rejoicings in
the joy of our brethren?

35 Then why sayest thou that we preach unto this people to get
gain, when thou, of thyself, knowest that we receive no gain? . . .

--Alma 30:32-35

No mission presidents have received any senines. Technically they are not going against their book. LOL!

Mr Happy, you're talking rubbish.

In the UK, if you are an unpaid volunteer yet you receive a car to use, a house, college tuition for your kids, medical, gifts, a maid, all of these things are known as 'benefit in kind' and must by law be declared for tax purposes as in the UK they are taxable.

The reason they are taxable is to prevent corporations reducing their tax bill by paying their staff in kind rather than in cash directly.

The MPHB instructs the MP not to ever declaration or mention any of these benefits. But in the UK failure to declare is a crime.

But you probably sense this since you yourself noted that they get this package like a low level corporate exec. This is supposed to be voluntary work not a job as a sales director.

In the UK other charities pay their staff a salary but it is declared and is taxable. Their company cars and phones are taxable. The churches attempt to avoid this very clearly falls into the category of tax evasion. Any UK accountant could tell them that, so you can see why it appears to me that they have intentionally chosen to ignore the law of the land.

There is a news story here. Multi level mormonism - how evading UK taxes builds mormon leaders mega malls in the US.

A photo of city creek mall with the leaders cutting the tape, explaining how they instruct mission presidents to purposely hide taxable incomes and deny it exists. How UK tithing and charitable donations have built an empire yet in 30 years less than 2% has gone to charitable causes whilst the execs fly first class and get to put their kids through college all paid for out of donations.

This would be factual and pretty hard to explain. On a roll it could get national media coverage which the church would struggle to explain. Expenses such as the mall vs charitable uses of funds would suprise many members too.

email me lilburne if you want to help with this effort tomphillips@romneysfaith.com

Tom, we discussed this on email yesterday. I replied to your email about my visibility and truth prevails. I'll send you an update on the above.

ok,apologies for forgetting who lilburne was, especially as you had so kindly explained to me some time ago the reason you selected this moniker.

Agreed - this is potentially very big, newsworthy story at a time in the UK where there is a real focus on tax evasion. I wonder if anyone has already contacted the press with info?

Yes, one of our (Truth Will Prevail Ltd.) board members has.

My older brother in CA (who knows the truth but still goes to church) mentioned the Mormon leaders are VERY worried about financial "issues".

He is not one to mince words either. It's a question of when not if when the media reports on the church and their crooked financial shenanigans.

Be patient, and enjoy the cult twitching as the news gets out. (Fuck you Mormon leaders!)

+1000

although many LDS execs do not fly first class, they fly in the Huntsman jet.

Not sure whether they are snorting cocaine off hookers asses inflight.

Would like to post a picture of my MP's home in Shreveport, Louisiana, in 1975.

Search free image hosting to find solutions to posting the the mission pres house.

Anyone know if an investigation has officially started or a tentative date for completion is known. Why hasn't this investigation started within the first month that the mission pres manual was leaked for UK tax evasion.

This is entirely too easy to shake off as an active member--

"But...but...but of COURSE they should have these benefits. Think of all the good they're doing. They're serving the LORD!"

It's only upsetting once you start to realize that some things don't quite add up, and that something might be slightly rotten in the state of Denmark. And the rest of the world.

There is nothing in principle wrong in paying MPs. The issues are:-

1. Tax evasion - that is a crime.

2. Lying about 'no paid ministry' when MPs and GAs are paid well.

Tom has any source you know of ever provided a knowledgable and trustworthy estimate of what general authorities are paid? What about mission presidents?

I understand the ramifications of tax evasion, but for most members, they would be best served by just a simple dollar figure. Not only from the perspective of the "no paid clergy" fallacy, but from a pure economic transfer standpoint ("I'm giving 10 plus percent of my gross income so these men can make how much?).

The prophet of the church receives $
First presidency counselors receive $
Apostles receive $
First quorum seventy presidents receive $
First quorum seventy members receive $
Second quorum seventy members receive $
Mission presidents receive an average of $



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2014 12:32PM by Doubting Thomas.

24 years ago I knew the figures for 4 of those 7 groups.

Today, I can give a good guess but that is not "hard evidence".

Would you please provide some numbers? Low-ball it if need be, but members have to have some indication to begin the process of analyzing the opportunity cost of full tithe payment.

"Mr Happy"(who would be named after a trouser snake?) wrote: "Do the members really care where their donations/contributions are spent? No."

He is wrong. Some of us did care and asked about it.
Lack of financial accounting/accountability is a sure indication something is wrong. It gives the strong impression one is hiding something. This is why real charitable organizations have to reveal their finances.

The mormon bunch is nothing more than a Real Estate Corporation hiding behind the front of a religion.

Yep!