US treasury dept makes major changes for trusts, ngo's

[cheka.]

greasing the skids for even more money flowing overseas....to our special friend.....and the spooks/mercs that do their bidding

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nishacharya/2015/09/25/u-s-treasury-announce-major-rule-changes-to-support-global-entrepreneurs-and-impact-investment/

The two rule changes put forward by the U.S. Treasury Department earlier this week remove important barriers that have historically kept even more American capital from being deployed around the world. Until this week, American philanthropy was generally reserved for non-profit organizations that were registered in the United States as public charities.

This kept funding from reaching social entrepreneurs, high-performing foreign NGO’s, social enterprise and triple-bottom line companies outside the United States unless the funder was willing to spend 5-10% of the grant on due-diligence and certification. This is referred to as “global equivalency”. During my time as Executive Director of the Deshpande Foundation, we regularly spent close to 10% of each grant on consultants and staff time to approve foreign grants. We did not pass those costs onto our grantees, although many foundations do.

This Thursday, Treasury has announced that it will make it easier to provide grants to foreign organizations. Specifically, it allows a “good faith determination that a foreign organization is a charitable organization that is not a private foundation, so that grants made to that foreign organization may be qualifying distributions and not taxable expenditure”.

Essentially, foundations will now be able to rely on their own experience, in-house staff and outside experts, to determine if a foreign organization is the equivalent of an American non-profit. In addition, the U.S. Treasury Department may be more flexible on three related issues: the time frame for which these assessments are valid, the definition of a public charity outside the United States, and the amount of grant funding for which an affidavit is required to certify the foreign charity.

In a world full of social innovation like Akshara, social entrepreneurs like Agastya, and social enterprise like Mann Deshi, it is frustrating, expensive and regressive to only allow funding to organizations that have charitable American roots, or to require expensive investigations for each foreign grant. Now, more foundations and philanthropy will bet on those social entrepreneurs and local NGO’s because the fear of penalty has been removed and the cost of compliance has been drastically reduced.

The second regulation change has the potential to unlock greater investment capital worldwide for entrepreneurs and companies seeking profitability and impact. In this case, the rule change announced by the U.S. Treasury will not just be limited to foreign organizations, but will unlock capital for American entrepreneurs as well by making philanthropic capital available for impact investors.

[Glass]

Interesting. Looks like international standardization to me. This is how it is done down here.

This part jumped out at me.


Specifically, it allows a “good faith determination that a foreign organization is a charitable organization that is not a private foundation, so that grants made to that foreign organization may be qualifying distributions and not taxable expenditure”.

Charitable Foundations are required to utilize 5% of their profits toward charitable causes to ensure tax free status. Private Foundation on the other hand do not. They are 100% tax free and are self assessing as to their liability to report financials including tax returns.

[palani]

This Thursday, Treasury has announced that it will make it easier to provide grants to foreign organizations. Specifically, it allows a “good faith determination that a foreign organization is a charitable organization that is not a private foundation, so that grants made to that foreign organization may be qualifying distributions and not taxable expenditure”.

Perhaps this ties in somewhere?

https://adask.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/hillarys-missing-millions/#more-24042


Forbes magazine published an article entitled “The Mystery of Hillary’s Missing Millions”.

(Intriguing title, no? Sounds something like an old Hardy Boys mystery.)

According to that Article,



“Since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in 2001, they have earned more than $230 million.”

That’s about $15 million/year and over $1 million per month.

Note that, although Bill and Hillary left the White House in A.D. 2001, they (that is to say, Hillary) didn’t leave politics.

Hillary served as US Senator from New York from A.D. 2001 to A.D. 2009. During that time the salary paid to a US Senator ranged up to $175,000. During 8 years in the Senate, Hillary might’ve grossed about $1.4 million.

In A.D. 2009, Hillary gave up her seat as Senator to become Secretary of State until A.D. 2013. The annual base salary of US Secretary of State is $186,000. During her five years in the Secretary of State, Hillary might’ve grossed almost $1 million.

Since A.D. 2013, Hillary has been unemployed.

These numbers imply that since Hillary left the White House in A.D. 2001, she’s personally earned about $2.4 million out of the $230 million that she and Bill have reportedly earned altogether. That implies that Bill earned about $238 million during the same time Hillary earned $2.4 million—about 95 times as much as Hillary.

Bill Clinton’s $228 million divided by 15 years averages out to about $15 million/year or about $42,000 per day. Bill has written books and made speeches, but who believes he averaged an honest $42,000 for each and every day of the past 15 years?

It’s apparent that the Clintons had another source of income besides Bill’s books and speeches and Hillary’s salary. What was it? Insofar as the source of all their income is unknown (Bill and Hillary reportedly won’t say), we’re led presume that a major source of their income was based on hidden, and possibly criminal activity.



“But in federal filings the Clintons claim they are worth somewhere between $11 million and $53 million.”

“Somewhere between”? How likely is it that two lawyers as avaricious as Bill and Hillary Clinton don’t really know if they’re worth $11 million or $53 million or somewhere in between?

We’re not simply talking about a difference of $42 million. We’re talking about a difference of 500%. I.e., $53 million is almost five times as much as $11 million.

I understand that very few people can give a precise statement of their net worth. But how many of us are so dumb that we can’t name our new worth within a matter of 50% (maybe I’m worth $100,000; maybe I’m worth $150,000)? You don’t have to be a CPA to come up with an estimate of your net worth that’s more accurate than a 500% variable.



“After layering years of disclosures on top of annual tax returns, Forbes estimates their combined net worth at $45 million. Where did all of the money go? No one seems to know, and the Clintons aren’t offering any answers.

“From 2001 to 2014 the power couple spent $95 million on taxes. Hillary’s 2008 presidential run cost her $13 million. Their two homes cost a combined $5 million, and the Clintons have given away $22 million to charity. All of this is according to FEC filings, property records and years of tax returns. Add it up and you get $135 million. If the Clintons made $230 million, spent $135 million and have just $45 million left over, what happened to the other $50 million?”



A missing $50 million? Gee, that’s a puzzlement, alright.

Clintons’ refusal to explain opens the door for my own speculation.

For example, what if the Clinton’s were supplementing their incomes by taking huge bribes? What if Hillary Clinton, in her capacity as US Senator and/or Secretary of State, was able to deliver significant “favors” to special interests rich enough to pay for her services? What if Bill Clinton worked as the “bagman” who was paid $250,000 for a speech and the $250,000 was actually intended to pay Hillary for delivering a favor? That portion of the Clintons’ income that Bill received would seem lawful, even if it were based on taking bribes earned primarily by Hillary.

If the Clintons live in a world where they can take bribes, you can bet that they also live in a world where they must pay bribes. Could it be that price of collecting $100 million in bribes from inferiors is to pay $50 million in bribes to your superiors? “One hand washes/bribes the other and both hands wash/bribe the face”?



“That’s kind of strange,” says Joe Biden’s accountant, Walter Deyhle.

“It seems unlikely that the Clintons could have spent all of it [the “missing” $50 million]. Over 14 years $50 million averages out to $3.6 million in extra expenses per year, or $9,800 per day.

“Where could that much money have disappeared? The Clintons have been speaking around the world for years, and they count millions in travel expenses under their businesses. It is unclear whether they have paid for additional travel expenses out of their own pockets. It seems unlikely, but they could have given it away overseas: Donations to foreign charities are not deductible and would not be listed on tax returns.

“Billionaires like Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, Lakshimi Mittal of India and Joseph Safra of Brazil have donated to the Clintons’ foundation. Maybe the Clintons are returning the favor?”



If “donations to foreign charities are not deductible” and therefore not listed on tax returns, it sounds as if such “foreign charities” might be an ideal means to “legally” pay bribes that might not attract the attention of the IRS.

For example, suppose a wealthy special interest had set up a “foreign charity”. Could he pay or receive bribes through that “foreign charity” without running afoul of the IRS? After all, “donations to foreign charities” are not only not deductible, they’re also not reportable on income tax returns. Thus, operating a foreign charity might be a way to legally pay and receive bribes without raising IRS investigators’ suspicions.



• More, if “foreign charities” aren’t taxable under US tax laws, are “US charities” also exempt from taxation in some, most or all foreign countries?

If that were true, then if a foreign government or foreign corporation wanted to bribe Secretary of State Clinton to perform some act or if they wanted to bribe her to influence other to perform some act, those foreigners might deposit a “contribution” into a US charity run by the Clintons. Conversely, the Clintons might be able to pay bribes to foreign special interests under the guise of making charitable contributions to a “foreign charity” run by those foreign interests.

Earlier in its article, Forbes alleged that the Clinton’s had “given away $22 million to charity”.

Since donations to foreign charities are not deductible or reportable, I’m going to guess that the $22 million was given to US charities, was reportable and therefore discovered by Forbes.

Implication: The “missing” $50 million might’ve been “donated” to foreign charities. It could be “legally missing” if there is no IRS reporting requirement.

But, before we dive deeper into the “foreign charities,” does make sense to you that the Clinton’s donated $22 million to any charities? $22 million is nearly 10% of the $230 million the Clinton’s reported grossed in the past 15 years. Are the Clintons devout Christians who believe in tithing?

$22 million given to charity equals to 200% of the Clintons’ guesstimated current minimum net worth of $11 million and 40% of their guesstimated maximum net worth of $53 million. Does anyone really believe that the Clinton’s are that “giving”?



• Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how much of the Clintons “donations” to charities was donated to foreign charities?

Wouldn’t it be interesting to see who owned or controlled such foreign charities and figure out which if any of those owners of foreign charities had performed favors for the Clintons and/or for parties the Clinton’s represented?

Wouldn’t it be interesting to consider this whole “foreign charity” concept to see if it was really just a tax loophole to allow the legalized payment of bribes on an international level?



• This is pure speculation, but imagine that I were a rich, American special interest that wanted to bribe another special interest located in, say, France. Let’s suppose that the French special interest had its own “charitable trust” that was “foreign” to the US.

Could I write a check to the Clinton Foundation (a US charitable trust) and deduct it from my income taxes? Presumably, I couldn’t deduct that check if I’d paid it directly to the foreign charitable trust, but I could deduct it from my income taxes if I paid the check to the Clintons’ US charitable foundation. Clintons’ Foundation might have to pay taxes on the amount of that check, but then they could skim a little off for themselves and pay the remainder as a “donation” to the foreign charity and not worry about reporting the transaction to the IRS.

Assuming any of this conjecture were roughly correct, the actual transfer of funds from a US special interest to a foreign charity by means of the Clintons’ foundation would be far more complex than I’ve suggested. Likewise, if some foreign entity wanted to bribe the Clintons by making a donation to the Clintons’ Foundation, it would also be far more complex than I’ve suggested.

And, of course, the Clintons might not be involved in any bribery, whatsoever.

But when Forbes wrote that:



1) $50 million of the Clinton’s income appears to be missing;

2) the Clintons have, so far, refused to explain the loss; and

3) donations to foreign charities are not deductible; and, therefore,

4) donations to foreign charities aren’t reportable to the IRS—



I instantly leapt to the hypothesis that there may be a way to use a system of domestic and foreign charitable foundations to “legally” transfer bribes back and forth on an international level.

Anytime I see an exemption in the Internal Revenue Code that allows some financial transactions to go unreported, I know that there’s a good chance, even a high probability, that I’m seeing the potential basis for a very clever scheme for legally moving criminal profits without reporting those profits to the IRS.



• If anyone does a serious analysis of the Clinton’s “money trail,” I’ll bet they discover that Bill and Hillary have worked together to take (and give) bribes to and from special interests all over the world.

That’s not a fundamentally new allegation.

Larry Nichols may be the Clintons’ arch-enemy. He claimed years ago that when Bill was governor of Arkansas, and the Rose Law Firm represented many of the most powerful special interests in Arkansas, Hillary’s primary job as a Rose Law Firm lawyer was to collect bribes intended for Bill.

Back then, Bill was in a position to perform “favors” but not in a position to easily accept bribes. Therefore, special interests paid money to the Rose Law Firm—which, in turn, paid bribes to Hillary—who, in turn, shared the wealth with Bill. Hillary worked as the “bagman”.

After the Clintons left the White House in A.D. 2001, Bill and Hillary may have reversed roles. Bill lost his former political power to do “favors,” but Hillary gained political clout as US Senator and later Secretary of State. Now, Hillary could perform “favors” while Bill collected the bribes as the family “bagman”. Instead of using the Rose Law Firm as a front to collect bribes, the Clintons could now use the Clinton Foundation (US charity).

Nothin’ new under the sun.



• American special interests could send a check to the Clinton Foundation (a US Charity) and deduct the amount of that check/bribe from their income taxes. Then the Clinton Foundation could send a charitable donation to a foreign charity which is not tax deductible for the Clinton Foundation, but it’s not reportable either.

I can’t prove it, but I’ll bet that a close analysis of the Clintons, their Foundation, and their “charitable contributions” would show that the Clintons are running a substantial bribery and money laundering operation that allows the paying of bribes under the pretext of making charitable contributions.

I’ll bet that Hillary’s “missing” $50 million was “disappeared” by means of contributions to foreign “charities”. If so, we are left to wonder why would the Clintons (the Clintons!) actually donate $50 million (roughly half of their current net worth) to foreign charities. It’s virtually inconceivable that such donations could’ve been made for benign, non-criminal purposes.

[ShortJohnSilver]

Money laundering and fraud made easier.

Meanwhile if I leave the USA on an airplane carrying 10,001 FRNs I am guilty of a Federal crime if I don't declare it.

[Glass]

so do what they do........

[mick silver]

“Billionaires like Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, Lakshimi Mittal of India and Joseph Safra of Brazil have donated to the Clintons’ foundation.

look like the jews own the Clintons asses

[cheka.]

increasing capital controls + taxation for you and i.....but less for the satanist subversives

page 2 of article

For several decades now, foundations have only spent 5% of their endowment for grant-making. The other 95% has been in the hands of professional investment managers. Historically, investment managers and boards have discouraged impact investment on the grounds that foundations would be penalized by the IRS for not taking “ordinary business care and prudence” to maximize returns, or forced to pay an excise tax for grants to organizations that were not charitable. But on Tuesday, the IRS announced that mission-related investments (MRI), and program related investments (PRI) DO NOT jeopardize the financial future of a foundation, and therefore, should not be automatically taxed. As long as foundations are making a “good-faith effort” and showing appropriate prudence in their investment process, the IRS would not judge the investment to be taxable.

All of a sudden, the “other 95%” is now available for impact investors, entrepreneurs and DBL/TBL companies. Indeed, the Kresge Foundation has already announced that it will now put 10% of its endowment – or $350 million, into impact investment. And according to the Center for Effective Philanthropy, 46% of major foundation CEO’s will make mission-related investments in 2015. But the median percentage of impact investments has been low until now – only about 2% of endowments for MRI’s, and less than 0.5% for PRI’s.

The explosive growth of microfinance worldwide validated that impact investing can reduce poverty while reaping strong returns. But the challenges of the microfinance industry, particularly in India, also laid bare the reputational concerns that come with investment in for-profit entities serving the poor, and the vagaries of tax-policy outside the United States.

Proven impact investors like the Calvert Foundation will see a great boost from this ruling, as more foundations invest for impact alongside their grant-making. And entrepreneurs worldwide will have access to the patient capital they need – whether they are creating products for the base of the pyramid internationally; or building a network of charter schools in urban areas of the United States.

With these rule changes, the Obama Administration may have unlocked more private capital for sustainable development than it would have officially allocated for the Sustainable Development Goals. And it won’t matter where that money comes from if we remain focused on solving the problems of global poverty and sustainability

[mick silver]

its called watch the money run to some other country before we go broke

[palani]

watch the money run to some other country before we go broke

Except for one small detail ... THERE IS NO MONEY!!!

[ghost]

Good faith, does that mean if they give it to a "charitable organization" and it ends up with terrorists they get a stay out of jail card?

[Glass]

Good faith, does that mean if they give it to a "charitable organization" and it ends up with terrorists they get a stay out of jail card?

I think it means Good Faith that they are in fact Charitable. Laundering, embezzling or supporting terrorist organizations would come under the regular codes and statutes for that kind of thing.

The difference between Charitable and Private foundations is that Charitable ones need to provide reports and financial statements which means they need to document activities against their charter where as Private Foundations do not need to report at all.

I'd suspect that some of these "Elites" have focused on Charitable Foundations and they probably should have gone for a Private one. They might be trying to get Charitable Foundations more closely aligned with how Private ones work.