Trossamfund og ejendomshandel
Det er en kendt sag, at trossamfund får udstrakt skattefrihed, samt at donationer til trossamfund oftest ikke beskattes.
Reglerne i forskellige lande er dog ikke ens. F.eks. kan trossamfund i Mexico ikke eje egen ejendom. Grunden var, man ville modgå den katolske kirkes ejendomspekulation, hvor den katolske kirke gennem donationer erhvervede sig meget store landområder.
Så hvad bør formålet med donationerne være?
Hvilke etiske standarder bør være på plads, når det gælder trossamfund og skattefrie donationer?
Lad os tage et eksempel fra Jehovas Vidners verden som udgangspunkt.
I Californien ligger en vingård som er blevet erhvervet af familien Tamayo. Salgsværdien af vingården er i år 2000/2001 omkring $800.000, men Tamayo vælger meget gavmildt at forære vingården til Vagttårnsselskabet.
En simpel, men meget gavmild donation? Prøv at bedøm selv:
Historik:
09/19/1996:
TILTON,SHIRLEY C sælger til TILTON TRUST for $0.00 (egen fond for skattefordele)
02/13/1997
TILTON TRUST sælger til TAMAYO,JEFFERY & SARA L for $400.000
01/19/2000
Tamayo(reparationesværksted) og Lehrer(elektrikerværksted) på 325 TOWNCENTRE TER A og D, CA.
04/19/2000
TAMAYO,JEFFERY & SARA L sælger til TAMAYO TRUST for $0.00
12/28/2000
TAMAYO TRUST sælger til WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT for $0.00
02/23/2001
WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT sælger til LEHRER,RON & CAROL for $300.000
($46.160 under vurderingsprisen. Reelt var priserne i området på dette tidspunkt fordoblet siden 1997.)
MCCABE,JAMES (Vagttårnsselskabets advokat) indsættes som medejer.
WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT opsættes som kreditgiver.
Lån gives på $270.000 (pantebrev, ingen rentesats angivet)
(Lehrer/McCabe betaler selv $30.000)
Lehrer (elektriker) har nu erhvervet sig en vingård, der på tidspunktet i området var op til $800.000 værd i salgsværdi, for max. $30.000 i indskud. (pantebrev på $270.00 til Vagttårnsselskabet)
Samtidig er Vagttårnsselskabets advokat, McCabe, indsat som medejer af vingården.
En kommentar fra http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/619 77/2/NOW-What-is-the-Watchtower-up-to
Howdy,
First, to anwer your questions, I don't think it is possible to obtain either the signed waiver or the side agreement--assuming that these exist in the first place, because MaCabe can always raise attorney-client privilege with respect to these documents. These documents wouldn't even be discoverable in a lawsuit against the parties.
One more note about the questionable ethics involved here that occurred to me last night that I failed to mention in my earlier post is that "on paper" McCabe is an owner of the property. Property that has a 270K mortgage by the WTBTS. Thus in reality this is a LOAN to the Lehrers and now MCCABE. It is extremely unusual (not to say usually unethical) to take a LOAN of money from your client. Nothing compromises your legal judgement faster than owing your client money!
Of course this appears to not be a usual situation. I think that reading between the lines here, we can all see that McCabe in reality isn't trying to benefit in some way or to really exercise some ownership over the property FOR HIMSELF. Thus the reality is that this whole transaction is probably not SELF-DEALING in the normal sense.
As I stated previously, what it appears is that McCabe was added to the ownership simultaneously with the Lehrers obtaining the property in order to insure that the WTBTS acting through McCabe will have some say about the property.
To reiterate normally the Lehrers would just be the owners and the Lender would hold the mortgage. Let's say they wanted to convert the orchard (vineyard) into a wheatfield or even just burn all the property and let it grow wild. They could do that as sole owners and the normal lender could care less so long as mortgage payments are made. But in setting up McCabe as a co-owner, he (acting for the WTBTS) has some say in what they do with the property and if there is either WASTE or AMELIORATIVE WASTE the Lehrers can be responsible to McCabe (WTBTS). That is one point.
But the larger point, I think has to do with potential profits. As I mentioned in my earlier post, in a normal situation should the purchaser later sell the property they've bought for a huge profit then of course all the Lender gets is their loan amount back from the deal. But in this situaton McCabe would also benefit from a later sale. Most likely, the arrangement he has with the Society is for him to turn around and make a DONATION to the Society of such profits. In this way the WTBTS doesn't pay any taxes on such profits like it would if it had remained an OWNER directly, AND on top of that McCabe would get to take the donation as a deduction on his own personal taxes for his trouble!
This is truly a brilliant business arrangement since on top of the above the Society is further protected in the event of default of the mortgage since the Lehrer's would have difficulty filing for bankruptcy and getting the property included since McCabe is an owner also!
Really the beauty of this deal is amazing!
With respect to why the Lehrers would go for this, most likely this was the only way they were going to get the property. Evidently they had 30 grand of their own and needed the rest of the purchase price in the form of a mortgage from a Lender. The Society is there with probably very favourable terms. I wonder what status the Lehrers hold there but I bet they are considered "rocks" of the congregation.
With respect to the Tamayos I think it is not a coincidence that they transferred the property to the SOCIETY only a few days before the end of the year (12/28/2000). This allowed them to take a huge tax deduction of the Fair Market Value of the property (probably the appraised value). OF course if the Tamayos had sold the property directly to the Lehrers (assuming the Lehrers could get financing) then the Tamayos would not be able to take the tax deduction.
All of the parties probably knew each other and worked the whole thing out, probably they contacted the Society and the Society brought in McCabe to handle the deal in their standard fashion. (It would not surprise me in the least if there were similar arrangements around the country and even the world.)
With regard to the Society's attorneys getting compensated. Naturally the attorneys at the headquarters and branch headquarters are likely not compensated and thus "volunteers" for their work they do for the Society, however, for these representatives in the different jurisdiction it is probable that a number of different arrangements are in place. This probably depends upon whether the Attorney in question has PARTNERS of the firm and whether these partners are JWs themselves or not. You see Partners and even associates get to share the profits of the firm, so unless the firm just considers such WTBTS work as part of its PRO BONO contribution to the world (that is a vague ethical obligation of all attorneys that has gotten a lot of push lately), I imagine that some compensation arrangement is in place. It may be at reduced fees or for all I know the Society might pay extremely well. I wouldn't know and doubt I ever will!
take care,
Eduardo
Reglerne i forskellige lande er dog ikke ens. F.eks. kan trossamfund i Mexico ikke eje egen ejendom. Grunden var, man ville modgå den katolske kirkes ejendomspekulation, hvor den katolske kirke gennem donationer erhvervede sig meget store landområder.
Så hvad bør formålet med donationerne være?
Hvilke etiske standarder bør være på plads, når det gælder trossamfund og skattefrie donationer?
Lad os tage et eksempel fra Jehovas Vidners verden som udgangspunkt.
I Californien ligger en vingård som er blevet erhvervet af familien Tamayo. Salgsværdien af vingården er i år 2000/2001 omkring $800.000, men Tamayo vælger meget gavmildt at forære vingården til Vagttårnsselskabet.
En simpel, men meget gavmild donation? Prøv at bedøm selv:
Historik:
09/19/1996:
TILTON,SHIRLEY C sælger til TILTON TRUST for $0.00 (egen fond for skattefordele)
02/13/1997
TILTON TRUST sælger til TAMAYO,JEFFERY & SARA L for $400.000
01/19/2000
Tamayo(reparationesværksted) og Lehrer(elektrikerværksted) på 325 TOWNCENTRE TER A og D, CA.
04/19/2000
TAMAYO,JEFFERY & SARA L sælger til TAMAYO TRUST for $0.00
12/28/2000
TAMAYO TRUST sælger til WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT for $0.00
02/23/2001
WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT sælger til LEHRER,RON & CAROL for $300.000
($46.160 under vurderingsprisen. Reelt var priserne i området på dette tidspunkt fordoblet siden 1997.)
MCCABE,JAMES (Vagttårnsselskabets advokat) indsættes som medejer.
WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT opsættes som kreditgiver.
Lån gives på $270.000 (pantebrev, ingen rentesats angivet)
(Lehrer/McCabe betaler selv $30.000)
Lehrer (elektriker) har nu erhvervet sig en vingård, der på tidspunktet i området var op til $800.000 værd i salgsværdi, for max. $30.000 i indskud. (pantebrev på $270.00 til Vagttårnsselskabet)
Samtidig er Vagttårnsselskabets advokat, McCabe, indsat som medejer af vingården.
En kommentar fra http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/619 77/2/NOW-What-is-the-Watchtower-up-to
Howdy,
First, to anwer your questions, I don't think it is possible to obtain either the signed waiver or the side agreement--assuming that these exist in the first place, because MaCabe can always raise attorney-client privilege with respect to these documents. These documents wouldn't even be discoverable in a lawsuit against the parties.
One more note about the questionable ethics involved here that occurred to me last night that I failed to mention in my earlier post is that "on paper" McCabe is an owner of the property. Property that has a 270K mortgage by the WTBTS. Thus in reality this is a LOAN to the Lehrers and now MCCABE. It is extremely unusual (not to say usually unethical) to take a LOAN of money from your client. Nothing compromises your legal judgement faster than owing your client money!
Of course this appears to not be a usual situation. I think that reading between the lines here, we can all see that McCabe in reality isn't trying to benefit in some way or to really exercise some ownership over the property FOR HIMSELF. Thus the reality is that this whole transaction is probably not SELF-DEALING in the normal sense.
As I stated previously, what it appears is that McCabe was added to the ownership simultaneously with the Lehrers obtaining the property in order to insure that the WTBTS acting through McCabe will have some say about the property.
To reiterate normally the Lehrers would just be the owners and the Lender would hold the mortgage. Let's say they wanted to convert the orchard (vineyard) into a wheatfield or even just burn all the property and let it grow wild. They could do that as sole owners and the normal lender could care less so long as mortgage payments are made. But in setting up McCabe as a co-owner, he (acting for the WTBTS) has some say in what they do with the property and if there is either WASTE or AMELIORATIVE WASTE the Lehrers can be responsible to McCabe (WTBTS). That is one point.
But the larger point, I think has to do with potential profits. As I mentioned in my earlier post, in a normal situation should the purchaser later sell the property they've bought for a huge profit then of course all the Lender gets is their loan amount back from the deal. But in this situaton McCabe would also benefit from a later sale. Most likely, the arrangement he has with the Society is for him to turn around and make a DONATION to the Society of such profits. In this way the WTBTS doesn't pay any taxes on such profits like it would if it had remained an OWNER directly, AND on top of that McCabe would get to take the donation as a deduction on his own personal taxes for his trouble!
This is truly a brilliant business arrangement since on top of the above the Society is further protected in the event of default of the mortgage since the Lehrer's would have difficulty filing for bankruptcy and getting the property included since McCabe is an owner also!
Really the beauty of this deal is amazing!
With respect to why the Lehrers would go for this, most likely this was the only way they were going to get the property. Evidently they had 30 grand of their own and needed the rest of the purchase price in the form of a mortgage from a Lender. The Society is there with probably very favourable terms. I wonder what status the Lehrers hold there but I bet they are considered "rocks" of the congregation.
With respect to the Tamayos I think it is not a coincidence that they transferred the property to the SOCIETY only a few days before the end of the year (12/28/2000). This allowed them to take a huge tax deduction of the Fair Market Value of the property (probably the appraised value). OF course if the Tamayos had sold the property directly to the Lehrers (assuming the Lehrers could get financing) then the Tamayos would not be able to take the tax deduction.
All of the parties probably knew each other and worked the whole thing out, probably they contacted the Society and the Society brought in McCabe to handle the deal in their standard fashion. (It would not surprise me in the least if there were similar arrangements around the country and even the world.)
With regard to the Society's attorneys getting compensated. Naturally the attorneys at the headquarters and branch headquarters are likely not compensated and thus "volunteers" for their work they do for the Society, however, for these representatives in the different jurisdiction it is probable that a number of different arrangements are in place. This probably depends upon whether the Attorney in question has PARTNERS of the firm and whether these partners are JWs themselves or not. You see Partners and even associates get to share the profits of the firm, so unless the firm just considers such WTBTS work as part of its PRO BONO contribution to the world (that is a vague ethical obligation of all attorneys that has gotten a lot of push lately), I imagine that some compensation arrangement is in place. It may be at reduced fees or for all I know the Society might pay extremely well. I wouldn't know and doubt I ever will!
take care,
Eduardo