Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[consiglieri]

What would I title your posts in this thread?

“Allegations Without Evidence”?

“Do You Want to Build a Strawman “?

The mind reels with possibilities.

[jpatterson]

Except, of course, inurement refers to passing through the net profits on a nonprofit to an insider. The inurement prohibition doesn't prevent paying salaries to insiders. And that's exactly what Dehlin did -- take a salary. Now, if the salary was excessive, the IRS could withdraw the 501(c)(3) status. And the IRS advises nonprofits to have an independent committee to set salaraies. But it's not required.

So, was it excessive? Let's look at his salary history as stated by you:

Again, if you had read the tax code you would know simply looking at salaries is a dumb way to determine if pay was excessive or not.

It might be helpful to, you know, examine it the way the IRS examines it. They use a three-fold test to determine whether insider salaries are reasonable. It's actually an incredibly low bar to meet, which is why it's even more hilarious that John couldn't manage to do even that.

1) The organization used an independent committee to determine the salary (such as a finance committee that doesn't include anyone who's getting paid by the organization)
2) This independent committee relied on appropriate data (such as a fair market value comparison of salaries of similar positions in the same geographic area); and
3) The committee adequately and in a timely fashion documented their determination in making the salary decision.

Number one above simply wasn't possible during 2013-2016 because everyone on the board was cashing regular checks from Open Stories Foundation. So that's out the window.

In a podcast episode from a few years ago, John and his finance guy (in response to these allegations) mentioned how they had just recently done a fair market evaluation of his salary, as if that was some new exercise they'd never done before. I'd be shocked if they did it for any of the years between 2010 and 2016 and I'd be shocked if they kept adequate records because...well...John. So that knocks out 2 and 3.

So essentially, they were winging John's salary until very very recently. And I have almost no doubt in my mind John was simply paying himself enough to not raise suspicion for several years when it was only him, Natasha and Dan W. on the board. I know for a fact he misrepresented to me privately how much he was taking home.

There's also the fact that John's contract at one point explicitly stated he would get 100% of donations to Mormon Stories Podcast. You simply don't get to do that. It's not how non-profits work.

[Res Ipsa]

Except, of course, inurement refers to passing through the net profits on a nonprofit to an insider. The inurement prohibition doesn't prevent paying salaries to insiders. And that's exactly what Dehlin did -- take a salary. Now, if the salary was excessive, the IRS could withdraw the 501(c)(3) status. And the IRS advises nonprofits to have an independent committee to set salaraies. But it's not required.

So, was it excessive? Let's look at his salary history as stated by you:

Again, if you had read the tax code you would know simply looking at salaries is a dumb way to determine if pay was excessive or not.

It might be helpful to, you know, examine it the way the IRS examines it. They use a three-fold test to determine whether insider salaries are reasonable. It's actually an incredibly low bar to meet, which is why it's even more hilarious that John couldn't manage to do even that.

1) The organization used an independent committee to determine the salary (such as a finance committee that doesn't include anyone who's getting paid by the organization)
2) This independent committee relied on appropriate data (such as a fair market value comparison of salaries of similar positions in the same geographic area); and
3) The committee adequately and in a timely fashion documented their determination in making the salary decision.

Number one above simply wasn't possible during 2013-2016 because everyone on the board was cashing regular checks from Open Stories Foundation. So that's out the window.

In a podcast episode from a few years ago, John and his finance guy (in response to these allegations) mentioned how they had just recently done a fair market evaluation of his salary, as if that was some new exercise they'd never done before. I'd be shocked if they did it for any of the years between 2010 and 2016 and I'd be shocked if they kept adequate records because...well...John. So that knocks out 2 and 3.

So essentially, they were winging John's salary until very very recently. And I have almost no doubt in my mind John was simply paying himself enough to not raise suspicion for several years when it was only him, Natasha and Dan W. on the board. I know for a fact he misrepresented to me privately how much he was taking home.

There's also the fact that John's contract at one point explicitly stated he would get 100% of donations to Mormon Stories Podcast. You simply don't get to do that. It's not how non-profits work.

I’ve read all that. But the bottom line is whether he was receiving excessive compensation. You haven’t shown that. The fact that the independent committee doubled rather than cut his salary is pretty good evidence that he hasn’t been receiving excess compensation.

Do you have this contract? When was it signed? How long was it in effect for?

[drumdude]

“Do You Want to Build a Strawman “?

lmao

[dastardly stem]

Except, of course, inurement refers to passing through the net profits on a nonprofit to an insider. The inurement prohibition doesn't prevent paying salaries to insiders. And that's exactly what Dehlin did -- take a salary. Now, if the salary was excessive, the IRS could withdraw the 501(c)(3) status. And the IRS advises nonprofits to have an independent committee to set salaraies. But it's not required.

So, was it excessive? Let's look at his salary history as stated by you:

Again, if you had read the tax code you would know simply looking at salaries is a dumb way to determine if pay was excessive or not.

It might be helpful to, you know, examine it the way the IRS examines it. They use a three-fold test to determine whether insider salaries are reasonable. It's actually an incredibly low bar to meet, which is why it's even more hilarious that John couldn't manage to do even that.

1) The organization used an independent committee to determine the salary (such as a finance committee that doesn't include anyone who's getting paid by the organization)
2) This independent committee relied on appropriate data (such as a fair market value comparison of salaries of similar positions in the same geographic area); and
3) The committee adequately and in a timely fashion documented their determination in making the salary decision.

Number one above simply wasn't possible during 2013-2016 because everyone on the board was cashing regular checks from Open Stories Foundation. So that's out the window.

In a podcast episode from a few years ago, John and his finance guy (in response to these allegations) mentioned how they had just recently done a fair market evaluation of his salary, as if that was some new exercise they'd never done before. I'd be shocked if they did it for any of the years between 2010 and 2016 and I'd be shocked if they kept adequate records because...well...John. So that knocks out 2 and 3.

So essentially, they were winging John's salary until very very recently. And I have almost no doubt in my mind John was simply paying himself enough to not raise suspicion for several years when it was only him, Natasha and Dan W. on the board. I know for a fact he misrepresented to me privately how much he was taking home.

There's also the fact that John's contract at one point explicitly stated he would get 100% of donations to Mormon Stories Podcast. You simply don't get to do that. It's not how non-profits work.

Pointing out a pile of possible problems because you just know he did something isn't how this should work. You're repeating your tactics you used to complain about the affair. This is very a desperate sounding complaint. You have a solid complaint with good reason? Present it. Stop hiding behind "well I know for a fact..." and "paying himself enough to not raise suspicion..." and "...the fact that John's contract at one point explicitly stated..." Do you research on all of these points...see if you can actually find something. Everyone would be ears if you do that.

[Dr Exiled]

JPatterson:

I agree with Stem. No one here is in love with Dehlin and probably everyone acknowledges that if he falls, someone would almost immediately take his place. So, out with whatever you have and let's discuss hard facts, facts that have a basis in reality, not in wishful thinking.

[malkie]

Listen, good folks - I implore you!!!

This board is now in serious jeopardy of losing its reputation as a Peterson-obsessed swamp.

But it's not too l ate to turn this thing around.

Can we do it?

[cue dramatic music]
Tune in again in 10 minutes or so to find out.

[Aristotle Smith]

--

[master_dc]

James,

You said you have reams of communications and evidence but during rosebud’s interview, she claims most correspondence vanished into the ether... was she able to retrieve it?

[consiglieri]

Of course she was.

James just isn’t able to share it with you.