Nonprofit Watchdog Files IRS Complaint Against Greenpeace, Seeks Federal Probe

PipeLineNews.org ^ | September 22,2003 | PipeLineNews.org

[johnqueuepublic]

Nonprofit Watchdog Files IRS Complaint Against Greenpeace, Seeks Federal Probe - Greenpeace Violates Tax Laws

PipeLineNews.org - A nonprofit watchdog group today filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against Greenpeace on Monday, urging the agency to investigate the environmental organization.

In a report entitled ``Green-Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits,'' Public Interest Watch detailed how Greenpeace -- one of the nation's most recognizable and visible non-profits -- is knowingly and systematically violating U.S. tax laws.

At the heart of the matter is the way in which Greenpeace's complex corporate structure masks its misuse of tax-exempt contributions, said Mike Hardiman, executive director of Public Interest Watch (PIW).

``American tax law very clearly differentiates between taxable and tax-exempt contributions, and the ways in which they can be used,'' Hardiman said. ``Greenpeace has devised a system for diverting tax-exempt funds and using them for non-exempt -- and oftentimes illegal -- purposes. It's a form of money laundering, plain and simple.''

The report details how during a three-year span, one Greenpeace entity diverted over $24 million in tax-exempt contributions. Such contributions are supposed to be used for ``educational'' programs, but instead funded non-exempt activities, the report showed.

A review of IRS filings and annual reports for tax years 1998, 1999, and 2000 showed that Greenpeace Fund, Inc., funneled tax-exempt contributions to non-exempt programs in the amounts of:

-- $3.8 million to Greenpeace, Inc., 1998

-- $4 million to Greenpeace International and other affiliates in 1998

-- $4.25 million to Greenpeace, Inc., in 1999

-- $3.8 million to Greenpeace International and other affiliates in 1999

-- $4.5 million to Greenpeace, Inc., in 1999

-- $3.7 million to Greenpeace International in 2000

-- $0.8 million to Greenpeace affiliates in foreign countries in 2000

Examples of non-exempt activities undertaken by the recipient organizations include:

-- Blockading a naval base in protest of the war in Iraq;

-- Boarding an oil tanker for a ``banner hang'';

-- Breaking into the central control building of a nuclear power station; and

-- Padlocking the gates of a government research facility.

``The law says that tax-exempt contributions must be spent on tax-exempt programs. Greenpeace is spending tax-exempt contributions on non-exempt -- and oftentimes illegal -- programs,'' Hardiman said. ``This is a clear violation of the law.''

Because Greenpeace receives significant donations from large entities, such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Turner Foundation, the report also calls into question the accountability of these donors.

``Foundations that make tax-exempt contributions are responsible for verifying that their funds are used appropriately,'' Hardiman said. ``In this case, the funds clearly are not being used appropriately, which means one of two things: Either the foundations have no idea how their money is being spent, or the foundations are knowingly helping Greenpeace break the law.''

In addition to the IRS investigation, the report calls for a series of remedies, including:

-- Greater oversight on the part of grant-making foundations;

-- Regulatory and legislative investigations of Greenpeace on federal and state levels; and

-- Action under California law governing non-profits.

``What these organizations are doing, pure and simple, is cheating the government. They're funding their operations with tax-deductible contributions, costing the government and taxpayers millions of dollars every year,'' Hardiman said. ``Yet they're ignoring the conditions imposed by law to ensure that such taxpayer-funded groups are truly serving the public interest.''

Hardiman also said PIW was considering filing a lawsuit under provisions set forth in a section of California's Business & Professions Code, commonly referred as a 17200 lawsuit.

``The state of California has a series of statutes designed to protect the public from impropriety on the part of non-profits,'' Hardiman, said.'' And in the case of Greenpeace, it's clear violations of the law mean that the state's Attorney General should take action. And if the state's Attorney General proves unwilling, we would encourage him to grant PIW 'relator status' so that we can.''

``Relator status'' can be granted by the Attorney General to an individual or entity to pursue legal claims under 17200 law in the name of the People of the State of California.

[b4its2late]

Really? Learn something new everyday. Thanks for the info. It's the best defense against lying liberals....

[blackie]

Hang 'Em High!

[snopercod]

Complaint with the IRS? BFD. They will spend years (if not decades) going through the IRS appeals process before they ever see the inside of a federal court.

Thankfully, though, Larry Klayman is not involved...

[johnqueuepublic]

Wrongo dgani

501c3 are expressley barred from overt political action

[johnqueuepublic]

and what is your alternative, doing nothing????

[johnqueuepublic]

Looks like we all have the same opinion of Clayman, sheeesh what a time waster.

[Alamo-Girl]

Bump!

[weegee]

I went to Rock The Vote's "non-partisan" website and saw that they were listed as a non-profit although the site did not elaborate.

This article on Wired from 1996 says that they are prohibited from taking a political stance with the non-profit status (never identified as 501c3):

Lite Rock

Rock the Vote was established as a nonprofit, meaning that it can't take partisan political stances without running the risk of having its tax-exempt status yanked. But now that status appears to rest on a razor's edge. In this week's issue, the conservative Weekly Standard presents a harsh indictment of what it sees as RTV's leftist political bias.

Here is the current thread on the bias of Rock the Vote:

Rock the Vote Betrays 'Non-Partisan' Label

And here is the illegal advocacy banner ad that I saw on their site. They are prohibited from telling visitors to vote Yes/No on any ballot initiative or for/against any candidate:

Someone needs to report this to the IRS if it can be shown just what their non-profit and tax exempt status is (from what I can find online, they were still tax exempt in 2000).

[johnqueuepublic]

Most of the lefty 501c3s are in violation, we should get them all.

[johnqueuepublic]

Its pretty easy to tell how they are set up, if they are a 501c3 they will say contributions are tax deductible, if they are a 501c4 they are not.

[Imal]

Greenpeace receives significant donations from large entities, such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Turner Foundation

Just another tentacle of the Global Octopus.

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is a philanthropic organization working to promote social change that contributes to a more just, sustainable and peaceful world.

Turner Foundation, Inc.

"Founder Ted Turner and the Board of Trustees, including his five adult children and Jane Fonda, have firmly stated their commitment to the Foundation and their intent to remain a strong and innovative force in the philanthropic community for years to come."

Social justice for the masses.

[weegee]

It's a violation of the law whereas "fairness doctrine" is not.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

I saw an interview with RTV's 32? yr old president. Not too bright. Stayed on point with all DNC talking points. Said outright that Bush had to go.

[infowarrior]

...they seem more like an organized crime racket or terrorist group than anything else...

You mean they aren't? I had always assumeed that that was exactly what they were...

the infowarrior

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Its about time they stared going after these lefty phony 501c3's, next they should attack Jessie's Operation Push front group and the Sierra Club's legal arm.

The ACLU is a terrorist front group as far as I am concerned.

Mandatory drug testing in the IRS Code as a condition for non-profit status would have these things drying upand blowing away like aging dung...