on topic

The Clinton Foundation yesterday announced that it filed amended tax returns for the years 2010 through 2013 and also filed its most recent Form 990 for the Fiscal Year ending 2014.

The foundation has come under increased scrutiny since former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced her run for Democratic presidential nomination this past spring. It was announced in April that tax forms for 2010 through 2012 would be re-filed because of possible errors in reporting contributions from foreign governments, in addition to amended returns for the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) for 2012 and 2013.

In a three-page letter to friends of the Clinton Foundation, President Donna Shalala emphasized that the errors did not require amended returns; there is no change to the assets, liabilities or net assets of the foundation; and, the foundation does not owe any tax. “Despite that, we decided to refile. Our decision was based in large part on the role the Form 990 serves as a public disclosure document for our friends, supporters, partners, and the general public,” she wrote.

The foundation reported total revenue of $177 million for 2014 but consolidated financial statements, which would combined the assorted Clinton initiatives, reported almost $338 million in revenue.

The amendments generally were found in four categories:

Government grants and contributions;
Revenue from speeches;
Changes to Schedule B; and,
Listing of related entities.

For 2010, 2011, and 2012, government grants were included in “All other contributions” but were not separately broken out, with the line for government grants left blank.

Revenue from speeches by Hillary Clinton, as well as former President Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea Clinton, was listed under the statement of revenue as part of other charitable contributions for 2010, 2011 and 2012. The 2013 return classified the fees as “miscellaneous revenue,” which has been amended to break out on a separate line for “speech revenue.” The speeches were a fee-for-service rather than a donation. Hillary Clinton resigned from the foundation’s board in April before announcing her run for president. Her husband and daughter remain on the board.

Errors in the amount of donations and some omissions were found after a review of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors. Some changes led to the listing of additional donors or because speech fees were moved from contributions to other income, decreasing the 2-percent threshold for reporting on Schedule B. Donors now added to Schedule B previously had been disclosed on the foundation’s website.

To serve transparency and disclosure, relationships with related entities should have been included on the initial Forms 990s. When a foundation has activities in certain countries, it is required to work through an entity established in that country. In some cases, the foundation created social enterprises to help fill the gaps in supply and distribution changes and reinvest profits in enterprises.

The amended returns “reflect a commitment to disclosure and thoroughness,” Shalala said. Kathy Keneally, chair of the civil and criminal tax litigation in DLA Piper’s global tax group and the former assistant attorney general for the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, reviewed the returns. She, in turn, engaged a CPA firm, CohnReznick, which previously had not worked with the foundation.

Keneally advised the foundation that it had no legal obligation to file amended returns but if it did, those amended returns should correct any and all errors.

“We found nothing to suggest that the foundation intended to conceal the receipt of government grants, which the foundation reports on its website. Because foundations, like people, make mistakes, and because return preparers may differ on how best to present information, the review identified other items that the foundation has decided to clarify or to correct,” Keneally said.

BKD prepared the original and amended returns for 2010-13 and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) prepared the original and amended returns for 2013 and 2014. PwC also performed the audit of consolidated financial statements for 2014, which includes accounts and activities of the CHAI. The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) was an initiative of the foundation from 2005 to 2009. As part of an agreement between the foundation and Obama Administration, CGI operated as a separate, affiliated nonprofit from 2010 to 2013. It resumed operating as an initiative of the foundation in 2013.

Formerly the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative, CHAI has been incorporated as a separate but affiliate nonprofit since 2010. The foundation is required to consolidate CHAI finances into the audited financial reporting.

The Foundation's Shadiness Shows No Signs Of Slowing Down

TOP TAKEAWAYS

Today, the annual Clinton Global Initiative America will convene in Atlanta.
The Clinton Foundation has already proven to be a big problem for Clinton's 2016 run, posing never-ending ethical and legal questions about the celebrity-infused family charity that Bill and Hillary Clinton started.
Just last week, we learned that the Clinton State Department appointed a Clinton Foundation donor, with no qualifications, to a top government intelligence board.
Team Clinton has been forced to confront questions from her tenure as Secretary of State about inappropriate use of funds, conflicts of interest and transparency gaps that have sent the campaign off message.
As questions swirl, the Clintons refuse to explain what role Bill Clinton would play should she be elected, and if any meaningful safeguards will exist to create a multi-billion dollar slush fund for one of the most ethically challenged duos in American politics.

Today, The Clinton Global Initiative America Meeting Will Convene In Atlanta, GA. "The sixth annual Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) America meeting will be held June 12-14, 2016 in Atlanta, Georgia. CGI is pleased to announce new programming and participants in this year's meeting, including President Jimmy Carter who will join President Bill Clinton in a special one-on-one conversation." (Clinton Global Initiative America, Accessed 6/9/16)
CGI, Specifically, Has Become A "Particularly Thorny Subject For The Clintons"

The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), Which Seeks Commitments From Corporations, "Has Become A Particularly Thorny Subject For The Clintons." "CGI, which seeks commitments from corporations, other non-profits and governments around the world to tackle problems ranging from childhood obesity to Ebola, has become a particularly thorny subject for the Clintons." (Ken Vogel, "Clinton Foundation Of Collision Course With Campaign," Politico, 1/28/16)

CGI Has Come Under Attack For "Accepting Huge Donations From Foreign Governments And Other Entities That Had Business Before The State Department During Hillary Clinton's Tenure As Secretary Of State." "It became a target of GOP attacks for accepting huge donations from foreign governments and other entities that had business before the State Department during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State." (Ken Vogel, "Clinton Foundation Of Collision Course With Campaign," Politico, 1/28/16)

"One Of The Reasons That The Clinton Foundation Has Become Such A Formidable Fund-Raising Machine Is That Donors Appear To Hope To Gain Access To The Corridors Of Political Power With Their Gifts." ("Why The Clinton Foundation Is So Controversial," The Economist, 2/7/16)

The Problem With The Clinton Foundation Is It Appears "Vulnerable To Conflicts Of Interest." "The problem is that a foundation, which is led by an ex-president and someone who hopes to be elected president by the end of the year, can appear vulnerable to conflicts of interest." ("Why The Clinton Foundation Is So Controversial," The Economist, 2/7/16)

THE FOUNDATION HAS ALREADY CAUSED MAJOR HEADACHES FOR CLINTON'S 2016 RUN

The Associated Press Headline: "Hillary Clinton's Family Foundation May Pose Significant Campaign Risks" (Ken Thomas, "Hillary Clinton's Family Foundation May Pose Significant Campaign Risks," The Associated Press , 2/22/15)

The Calculus At The Clinton Foundation "Has Started To Change," As Clinton's Presidential Campaign Moved Forward And GCI "Became Embroiled In Political Controversy." " The calculus has started to change, foundation sources say, as the foundation raised a $250-million endowment to sustain itself during Hillary Clinton's campaign and potential presidency, and as CGI became embroiled in political controversy." (Ken Vogel, "Clinton Foundation Of Collision Course With Campaign," Politico, 1/28/16)
Dragging Her Painfully Off-Message, Clinton Has Repeatedly Been Forced To Answer Questions About Controversies Surrounding The Foundation

In March, Clinton Was Pressed On Whether Or Not The Foundation Should Be "Wound Down" While She Runs For President For "Ethical" Reasons. MSNBC'S RACHEL MADDOW: "Let me ask you one-- last question. Which I'm asking in part because we're here in New York. Which is-- the headquarters of The Clinton Foundation, and The Clinton Global Initiative. Is there a case to be made, an ethical case to be made that The Clinton Foundation and the Global Initiative should essentially be wound down as a family foundation while you run for president? I ask that because I think about the-- the good works, the good charitable works that The Clinton Foundation has done. But the way that some of that work gets done is by soliciting donations from people in this country, from people around the world, from organizations around the world. I think it is not unreasonable to suspect that people may give donations to The Clinton Foundation hoping that they will favorably influence your opinion toward them, as a presidential candidate, or eventually as president if you're elected. Is there an ethical concern there that there should be essentially-- a split between you and your family, (COUGH) and-- and-- and this foundation, that has done good work? But now you're in a different position-- with regard to potential donors." CLINTON: "Well, look, I-- I think that-- the work that it's done has been extraordinary. And I give the credit to my husband and my daughter, because I haven't been involved-- for that long. And, you know, when I look at what they've accomplished, and what they've been able to amplify in terms of saving lives-- by getting the price of drugs for HIV/AIDS down in sub-Saharan Africa. It's quite astonishing. And I would hate to lose that creativity, that imagination, that-- extraordinary flexibility. So, I think the answer is transparency. And there is no doubt that there will be-- complete transparency about-- donations. But when you have hundreds of thousands of people who are donating-- as they do-- I think that-- the best-- answer for that is what we have been doing for the last several years. And that is-- to be transparent about it. And let-- you know, let voters and others make their judgment." (MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show," 3/30/16)

So it doesn't look so squeaky clean

Charity Navigator says on its website that not rating the Clinton Foundation is neither a "condemnation nor an endorsement." It's hardly the only charity not rated by the watchdog. For example, Charity Navigator says it does not rate the Rockefeller or Gates Foundations, because those organizations get their primary funding from the families that started them.

The Clinton Foundation does receive ratings from other charity evaluators. For example, Charity Watch rates the Clinton Foundation an "A" while Guidestar gives it a gold-level rating for transparency.

Charity Navigator put the Clinton Foundation on its "watchlist" in March 2015, after press reports raised questions about foreign donations to the Foundation while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. It removed the Clinton Foundation from the watchlist 9 months later, after the Foundation refiled four years of tax information and pledged other transparency measures.

Whether a Charity Navigator rating is significant is an open question. Professor Brian Mittendorf, Professor of Accounting at Ohio State University and an expert in philanthropy, puts it this way:

"A Charity Navigator rating would be something that supporters and/or critics would fixate on to support their pre-existing views of the organization or its founders, but wouldn't really provide new information."

Clinton Foundation takes steps to be rated by charity watchdog - May. 12, 2016

As required by US copyright law, and TOTV rules, please give credit for your cut and paste, and I believe TOTV requires a bit more from the poster than a complete cut and paste

:agree:...:thumbup:

You must know by now that our resident Clinton defenders, have no defense for her multiple violations of the law so their only recourse is to attack Trump for little things like his hair, or his wife. Changing the subject of the whole thread is their M.O.

I wonder how they are going to feel when Trump wins by a landslide in Nov.

Please permit me to reply for that poster in a manner more suited to your standard of intelligence:

Why nobody could make this stuff up.

you question something take a piece of the article and search google.

that's your homework for today

We do contribute to Judicial Watch. They really are getting into the corruption that other liberals will not investigate, they are a real blessing to the USA.

:thumbup: