double standard

enoughisenough

I was thinking about the Henrietta ?? trust that the Org has with the questionable stock in warfare, entertainment, and tobacco among others. Why wouldn't they get rid of all of that? Think about it. If a witness had an antique pagan relic or maybe even an expensive "cross" necklace, they would be expected to destroy it and not even sell it although valuable. The org condemns many of the things they have stock in and yet keeps the stock for the dividends. What hypocrites!

JeffT

Retired accountant here. I thought I was done explaining the Henrietta O'Reilly trust but I guess not.

The US tax code, enforced by the IRS has a lot of rules regarding trusts. First of all the beneficiary (in this case the Watchtower) has no say in how the trust is managed, subject to what is written in the trust document. Additionally if the beneficiary does not want to accept the trust, he has a limited time to do so, after that they're stuck with it.

My guess is that O'Reilly set up the trust which started sending money to the Watchtower, which didn't pay much attention to where it came from. Now they can't divest the trust.

I'm on the road, my ability to get on this board may be limited. If somebody wants more information on trusts I'll dig it out for you when I get home.

enoughisenough

JeffT...thanks for that explanation.

JeffT

You're welcome.

Fisherman

Thanks for the info, Jeff.

NotFormer

Isn't the trust controlled by the trustee? While a beneficiary has no say in how the trust is run, unless they are also the trustee (that's possible under Australian trust law - not sure if the same is the case in the USA), there's nothing to stop a beneficiary making specific requests to the trustee. The trustee could very well decide to humour the beneficiary, if the request is reasonable.

If you have any more insight into this matter, I'd be very interested to know, Jeff!

NotFormer

Just had a look at the most recently uploaded tax return for the trust. Substantial for the average person, but chicken feed to the WT. $3m in assets only yields about $50k after administration expenses. As Jeff has said in another thread about this, there are bigger smoking guns to worry about than this matter, albeit a very interesting situation.

smiddy3

Can`t they, the WT, just resign , knowing it? It ,doesn`t sit well with me, how about you ?

double standard

Share this