Posts Tagged ‘“Consider Entity change over time — look for earliest tax returns.”’
Got a Campaign, a Cause, an Advocate You Want (Me, Us, Others) to Promote, Support, Publicize or Volunteer For? FIRST, Understand “Entity” and Find Which One You’re Promoting. Investopedia, Defining “Accounting Entity” Shows The Risks of Failure to Comprehend the Concept. [Draft, Oct. 26, 2021, Publ. May 18, 2022: at 27K words…].
This is what’s going on: I’m in housing transition: I’ll be out of this place within the next 24 hours, literally, and still not exactly sure how to reach the next (safe place) destination about one state away. I know it will represent a blogging pause, so I went through my most recent drafts, looked for some which were most helpful, and least embarrassing in format. Three or four qualified, but I chose this one. The most embarrassing aspect is its obnoxious length. On the other hand, within the contents is plenty of useful information; people who may follow my writing will understand better. It’s focused on a key concept and I think illustrates it at length (literally…). It was drafted eight months ago — that’s a long time, but this is still a worthwhile post for the patient readers, or those who understand it may work better read in installments (some today, some tomorrow…).
Parts of it apply to different situations: for example, (not its main focus, but) I see on scrolling through it today (5/18/2022), I’d shown the tax returns of what’s now called “Evident Change” but was then “National Council on Crime and Delinquency,” (inc. 1907 and I’d said, may just have been the model AFCC was following, only with family courts, not juvenile…) NCCD began with associations of probation officers, definitely a focus on the juvenile (age group), which I’d just Tweeted on yesterday. NCCD’s California Registry of Charitable Trusts “RRF” filings also show which governments — this usually shows which USA governments or government agencies — it was taking grants from. I still remember the shock of discovering, it was taking grants from a whole selection of governments OUTside the USA. From yesterday’s Tweet, I recall (possibly post http://wp.me/psBXH-2KW, but check Twitter) I’d written in 2014 but (another long blogging pause, that time for family court aftermath litigation) only posted in 2017. These delays happen at times, especially when your out put doesn’t keep up with your own research, which never stops… NCCD (Evident Change) has an office not far from AFCC’s office in Madison, Wisconsin (by “not far” I mean, when I last looked, a very short WALK away, around the block). I would say that’s an entity to watch although it’s not much in the news. Learn who it’s been and what it wants to do: this link will redirect: https://NCCDGlobal.org
I may never get around to splitting or further developing the material on this post. I can’t see that far into my own future, but I hope its serious topic resonates with gut instinct that there HAS to be a better way to categorize and keep track of advocacy groups, and governments. Before 2022, VAWA Reauthorization and other media “events” and campaigns, this was where my blog was going: to revisit and re-emphasize the concept of “Entity.” (Without the entity you can’t track the money…Looking for them is its own set of lessons). Another example: I see I had a link to the California Secretary of State Business Entities Search site. This will redirect — the appearance and function of that state has since migrated into a whole new format; at some levels it has more functions, but in display, in many ways less, making communications on findings among (normal people) harder… Government (and private) databases migrating platforms and undergoing format changes will happen, but still important to notice as it happens. “ENJOY…” //LGH May 18, 2022.
From California: (Businesssearch.sos.ca.gov website delineates what types can and cannot be searched on its main database, and how to find the other types of ENTITIES.
Post Title and Shortlink:
Got a Cause? Want to Promote an Advocate? Or Donate or Volunteer? Fine, but FIRST, Understand “Entity.” Investopedia Defines “Accounting Entity” and Why You Need to Get the Concept. (Oct. 26, 2021, Draft), Publ. ay 18, 2022 at 27K words. short-link ends -d2d even if this title may vary before I publish!
Let’s Talk “ENTITIES.” Let’s speak “entity” and have some idea what one is — and isn’t. This illustrates when someone or group of individuals, in self-descriptions (on-line) want to be seen as though “it” were.
Why Not Speak “Entity”? It’s the language of business, and government, of business doing business with government and/or with other businesses; it’s the language of governments doing business with other governments, and so forth, and it specifically deals with accounting.
That means, relevance to accountability. And on this blog, we’re talking “family courts” which come under governments: that means accountability TO the public for use of things taken FROM the public, by consent or by force.
It just so happens that both businesses and governments are in the business of (are always) selling things: goods & services, and especially policies which sustain goods and services, and legitimacy.
The less most of us know about the language of entities, the easier such sales and the harder getting accountability will be. “A sucker [that is, a fool] is born every minute.” [Quote Investigator.com].
Why not talk entities when seeking policy change, or campaign funding for any righteous cause — like justice, instead of being foolishly “sucked in” by propaganda, i.e., accountability illiteracy or sloth (failure or stubborn refusal to fact-check presence or absence of alleged entity, or its profile indicators)?
Most times, basically, a business search IS a business entity search. Within the United States, Search websites in state after state make this clear. The above example (image) is from California…. Search for (Google) “business entity search _______” and fill in the name of a state: or a country. A variety of websites will surface; some search sties are run by private businesses, others government. Check the URL formats). Either one could be charging fees to search, but most government sites don’t, at least for the very basic information.
On the other hand the types of data shown at least on initial level, changes over time and sometimes disappears from viewing and many state (and, generally, the IRS’s) entities’ search websites “summary results” are often NOT in formats conducive to taking screenprints to discuss with others in looking at or looking into who’s doing business where. In other words, functions may be added, while actual search fields are subtracted. These changes are rarely explained or announced in advance: just show up the next time you visit the site. Another reason I say, better to start looking before more data and data fields disappear or are buried even further from public access.
But for now, databases do exist, and can and should be regularly searched for those concerned about any cause — because those causes will have driving entities promoting it, there will be some existing market niche (for most public policies) unless new ones are being carved out or spun off existing ones.
For California, (currently the search website is: BusinessSearch.sos.ca.gov), the word “entity” appears on both Business Search fields (and searchers, as in California, must choose which type of entity they are looking for) and in the search results, and on the Registry of Charitable Trusts ‘Verification Page.” One is run by the Secretary of State, (“SOS”) the other by the Office of Attorney General.
Remember: these (state-level) government websites are not listing government entities but business ones, to monitor and control who does business or solicits funds/functions tax-exempt in a category which must register, within the state. It’s not a field to minimize or ignore.
To identify what government entities or authorities are in operation (at least USA), and knowing the which political jurisdictions define “USA”. Per Wikipedia, the United States is organized into:
…50 states, a federal district, five major unincorporated territories, 326 Indian reservations, and some minor possessions.[h]
Read the “minor possessions” link which further details incorporated territories and there are some helpful visuals. Rights vary among the parts that make up the whole called “U.S.A.”
When it comes to identifying “government entities (and their sub-parts),” for incorporated territories, all states, and presumably also the federal district (i.e., D.C.), there would be lists and organizational charts on each one’s annual “CAFR” (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report”) which is to be audited and posted for the public every year. This awareness is helpful in any attempts to track finances or accountability among government and business entities. There are also authorities (JPAs) etc. that cover more than one jurisdiction, i.e. government ENTITIES regionalized across state lines. Example: The Tennessee Valley Authority.
The word “entity” recurs throughout the financial statements (CAFRs) of the U.S. federal government, and on the Advanced Search (user interface) website TAGGS.HHS.Gov on which one may search for HHS grants, at least from after about 1995 forward (HHS has existed under that name since 1980).
It’s a common word within businesses, especially ones doing business with governments.
Yet so many entities doing major, ongoing business with government in public-facing websites, and even government public-facing websites themselves (exception: on their own audited financial statements) use words interchangeably and inconsistently to the point of meaninglessness and to conflate non-entities with entities, public with private lists of the same, and to call non-entities in some lists ‘partners’ or “members” when by definition, they can’t be both at the same time.
And that’s a shell game!
Thus anyone hoping to make sense of which is which on such public-facing websites, couldn’t figure it out by deduction. The only way seems to be to have basic definitions going in, and then individually check out — for each name or label in a list — which and what it is. Such an unnecessary burden IF there was a collective will for the public to tell its favorite charity (entity) from (a hole in the ground)!
SHARE THIS POST on...
Size Still Matters — So, How to Assess Who’s Got the Biggest (Most) Assets, Where Are They Stored, Who Manages the Most of OTHERs’ Assets (AUM), How Much are Americans Bankrolling Both, or Should We Be Measuring Something Else? [Started 8/24, Published 10/8/2017.]
Post title: Size Still Matters — So, Who’s Got the Biggest (Most) Assets, Who Manages the Most of OTHERs’ Assets (AUM), How Much are Americans Bankrolling Both, or Should We Be Measuring Something Else, like Donations? [Started 8/24, Published 10/8/2017] (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7up”)
This short, informative, and I admit at times flippant post still makes its points about distinguishing size of entities and ones that seek to present themselves as smaller (or larger) than they actually are. I also was going through some of the definitions of “syndicate” in reference to topics I was more focused on in August, 2017 (Tobacco-RICO-related), than I have been in September 2017. Those comments are on: Basic Definitions and Etymology (Roots) of the word ~syndicate. Syndicates can be formed for legal OR illegal purposes. Know the Difference! (8/26/2017, published Oct. 3) [short-link ends “-7vi”]
Still, with persistence, I find that topics covered in one context tend to come up in others, too. Some of these revelations (to me at least) continue to astound as to the casual tossing around of millions, or sometimes billions, of dollars from a given entity towards the cause, and from there to subcontractors, grantees, while being retained — or lost — as reflected on the corresponding huge and sometimes rapidly fluctuating, but always illuminating balance sheets of each entity.
Take for example the American Legacy Foundation later renamed “Truth Initiative Foundation(™).”
The post title, and this post, came from my feeling I should qualify the statement that the American Legacy Foundation (total gross assets around one billion, only formed in 1999, too) as being “monster-sized.” Obviously, with Robert Wood Johnson Foundation being ten times its size (and involved in some of the same projects) — or a center under the CDC which involved a tobacco-cessation nonprofit I was writing about (because it was among the USDOJ Intervenors in the RICO Case against Phillip Morris et. al…) which referenced this nonprofit — that center’s 2016 budget was $1.17 Billion, I learned — size is still “all relative” (only meaningful in comparison to other entities or some outside standard). (where it started, ca. August 29, 2017)
After publishing the post, on reviewing it more, I saw and decided to label its three basic sections, which may help people understand why those particular organizations. American Legacy Foundation (first section) relates to the ongoing recent blog themes re: big tobacco litigations as it intersects with HHS and agencies under it. The second and third sections below are:
- 2nd section: CENIC (Corp. for Educ. Network in Calif.) & CITY OF HOPE
- For non-Californians: other states surely have parallel organizations, and City of Hope typifies what comprises a major healthcare operation, with its component parts as shown on their financial statements. The takeaway here is, ALWAYS check for tax returns, but realize because of the networking, individual tax returns are rarely the whole story.
- 3rd section: Forbes’ 50 Largest Foundations 2016 and its #2 Charity: The Task Force for Global Health & Related /Similar Orgs. associated w/ Emory University in Georgia.
- Take-away here includes the tendency of organizations that get big — often from public funds but not always — to form spinoff entities in later years, often on the exact same website.
- Emory University anchoring both Task Force for Global Health and (see that section) the famous “Carter Center” (named after former President Jimmy Carter and his wife) in effect clouds the types of in-kind medication donations, and in the latter case, millions every year targeted specifically to sub-Saharan Africa through the spin-off entity.
- Not reported here — but I will post: I found through looking at board members, another small but still “iffy” set of nonprofits run by an Emory University business (not Public Health) professor. From what the tax returns are telling me, this is a legitimate professor using tax-exemption for illegitimate purposes (i.e., simply paying less taxes, write-offs, etc.). That’s not what academic privileges are for, and has me even more curious about what else is going on in Georgia, and at this institution.
- Organizations also tend to copy each other’s behavior.
I believe all the topics are interesting in their own right, but as usual and as ever, am still promoting individual initiatives to look up and look at foundations, charities, and of course the direction of government programming (especially under HHS) over time. I found that even turning away for just a period — a year, a half year, two years — major developments that are NOT typically referenced in the mainstream media, OR the “alternate” media supposedly correcting mainstream (“alt-right” or “far left,” “progressive”), although once you start looking some of the big ones up, the connection to MSM and headline news will become more and more regular.
AMERICAN LEGACY FOUNDATION SECTION:
American Legacy Foundation funds as I recall came from the MSA Tobacco Litigation settlements, a process which had been driven by some of the organizations mentioned in the (see next link) post, which in part was also pushing for major HHS/NIH (Nat’l Institutes of Health) expansion especially for biomedical research, also for cancer.
My August 5, 2017 post (ca 15,500 words) has many details, images and documentations. I was studying some of the background of key organizations and of the related (driven by some of the same major players in this field) NIH funding expansions…because Congress appropriates the HHS (NIH is under HHS) funds, when I say “driven by,” I’m talking here about the ability of well-connected people and their well-funded organizations to influence Congress and specifically here regarding smoking cessation efforts on the basis of smoking causing cancer.
An Alternate Viewpoint on the Anti-Smoking / Smoking Causes Cancer! Campaign and its Syndicated (?) Backers incl. the Whiteheads, the Laskers, the NIH and the U.S. Congress (from SmokersHistory.com and Other Sources. See also Tobacco Lawsuits and 1998 MSA Settlement Funds ~~} American Legacy Foundation, now the so-called Truth Initiative®) (post started 7/31, published 8/5/2017) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7na”
(Check out the closing paragraphs on the “Alternate Viewpoint” post…)
For a general “size” point of reference, I showed that back in 2002, the “ALF” managed to lose $35M by selling over $8B of securities — but then again, it also earned $54M** $16M from dividends and interest the same year. Then again, it spent $91.7M on “Other expenses” per its tax returns, of which (says the Form 990 detail) most ($87M) went to “Contract Services”.” The other major chunk of expenses that year were $32M of grants, the delegation of most ($27M) of them being presented at least as uploaded to the databse which gets them from the IRS, in virtually illegible form. Of another $4.2M (of those $32M) grants under the “sponsorship” category, the largest chunk went, unsurprisingly given the subject matter, straight to UCSF ($3.3M as I recall). Here’s that tax return, all of it, in pdf format:
**correction — double-checking the $54M quote, I see that referred to “unrealized gains” part of the return, not shown on Page 1 summary. This would’ve been shown in the financial statements. On the other hand, $54M of the $91M (“Other expenses) that year was shown going to a single contractor in Boston “Arnold Communications.”
Three images from within the FY2002 return and one from FY2003 showing a $46.8M gain from sale of securities.. Which securities, one wonders! Who is donating $8B worth of securities over such a short period (or possibly even within a single year).
ALF 2002 details some of the “sponsorship” grants — showing ca. ¾ ($3.3M of $4.2M) went to UCSF.
ALF FY2002 detail from a listing of $27M grants to others had been shrunk to below visibility, in explicably… and the entity is at this point only a few years old…
ALF FY2002, $87M in “Contract Services” is major “Other Expense” of $91M total.
American Legacy Fndtn FY2003, prior yr lost $35M selling over 8B assets; this year somehow they profited $46M. Where that many assets came from, I still don’t see reflected on tax returns.
The numbers we are dealing with over time are, by a normal person’s standards (supporting self, family, maybe contribution to charities, or saving for retirement, helping/hoping to send children to a decent college) are phenomenal — millions, hundreds of millions (regularly) and billions. Plural.
But within these there are still degrees of relative size, there are types of donations (for example, in one example below — actually two — among the $100M+donations (or close to it some years) of donations, were in-kind donations of drugs, medications and related inventories for use in, (Carter Center Collaborative, Inc.) primarily sub-Saharan Africa.
Another issue that came up as I looked for some of the “50 largest foundations” on different lists, besides how they were categorized, is what are actually membership dues (contributions, technically speaking) are classified on the Form 990s as “Program service Revenues” in one place, and contributions (same organization) in another. Also, in looking for “the largest” for some list — for example, Forbes had one — this often doesn’t take into account related organizations, which consideration of the tax returns would quickly show.
Here’s “American Legacy Foundation” (“Truth Initiative”) tax returns from that post:
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Legacy Foundation | DC | 2016 | 990 | 65 | $957,381,718.00 | 91-1956621 |
| American Legacy Foundation | DC | 2015 | 990 | 92 | $1,096,789,302.00 | 91-1956621 |
| American Legacy Foundation | DC | 2014 | 990 | 97 | $1,151,506,314.00 | 91-1956621 |
It’s hovering around $1B assets (Gross) now — but it had its hands on much more a dozen-plus years ago. See also my post published 8/19/2017 (continuation of this one) which may have more detail. I looked at this again recently, took more “screenprints” and am considering posting a separate page just on that year’s return, to emphasize — what’s really going on there? Why should the public be funding such an operation?
Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 