 |
| Como se organizam os fundos de ONGs como o Greenpeace? Tais grupos não oferecem a mesma transparência financeira que cobram dos governos. / How these funds are organized by NGOs like Greenpeace? Such groups do not offer the same financial transparency of governments that charge. |
"Perguntinha que não quer calar: qual a origem dos recursos do Greenpeace?"
A. M.
Pois então, vamos
acabar com esta hipocrisia dos ambientalistas se acharem inquestionáveis.
Verdinhas para os verdes
por Joel Mowbray
Depois de um ano sem igual em matéria de manchetes denunciando casos de impropriedade financeira, seria razoável supor que um escândalo em cujo centro estivessem uma importante organização internacional, milhões de dólares e acusações de sonegação fiscal haveria de receber o mesmo destaque. Mas se a referida organização é o famoso grupo ambientalista Greenpeace, a mídia se cala de imediato.
Dois meses atrás, a entidade sem fins
lucrativos Public Interest Watch (PIW), cuja tarefa é fiscalizar o dinheiro
público, denunciou ao Internal Revenue Service [N. da T.: o IRS é o equivalente
americano da Receita Federal] o envolvimento do Greenpeace em vultosas
transações financeiras com seus vários subgrupos, tudo para contornar a lei
fiscal americana. Para explicar o caso, a PIW também lançou um relatório
chamado "Paz Verde, Dinheiro Sujo: Transgressões Fiscais no Mundo das
ONGs", que oferece detalhes de como o grupo ambientalista transferiu, ao
longo de três anos, US$ 24 milhões de contribuições isentas do pagamento de
impostos para despejá-los em atividades sujeitas a tributação.
Muito parecido com a Enron e sua assombrosa
estrutura de organizações de fachada, o Greenpeace possui uma enorme rede de
entidades estabelecidas por todo o mundo, unificadas pelo Greenpeace
International, que em 2000 teve um orçamento operacional de US$ 134
milhões.
Nos Estados Unidos, há dois grupos principais:
Greenpeace Inc. e Greenpeace Fund Inc. Nenhum dos dois paga impostos ao governo
federal, mas há uma diferença importante: as doações para o segundo podem ser
abatidas no imposto de renda, ao passo que as contribuições dadas ao primeiro
não. Nos termos do IRS, isto significa que o dinheiro doado ao Greenpeace Fund
Inc. - conhecido como organização 501(c)(3) (esses números vêm do texto da lei
fiscal correspondente) - pode ser deduzido do imposto de renda de quem
contribui, ao passo que os fundos doados ao Greenpeace Inc., classificado como
entidade 501(c)(4), não podem.
Portanto, claro está que é muito mais difícil levantar fundos para uma empresa do grupo 501(c)(4), já que, neste caso, os doadores não contam com muitas vantagens.
Portanto, claro está que é muito mais difícil levantar fundos para uma empresa do grupo 501(c)(4), já que, neste caso, os doadores não contam com muitas vantagens.
É por isso que o IRS adota regras muito
rigorosas relativamente à maneira como podem ser empregados os donativos
entregues a uma entidade 501(c)(3). Grupos 501(c)(3) limitam-se, basicamente, a
promover atividades de cunho caritativo, religioso ou educacional. Eles até
podem transferir recursos para entidades 501(c)(4), desde que todo o dinheiro
proveniente dessas doações submeta-se às mesma restrições que incidem sobre
todas as atividades das entidades 501(c)(3).
É aí que o verde do Greenpeace começa a virar
geleca: segundo o PIW, quase todo o dinheiro livre de taxas levantado pelo
grupo ambiental é transferido à sua organização irmã que promove todas aquelas
atividades espetaculosas - e tipicamente ilegais - voltadas para a mídia, como
invasão e destruição de propriedade, atividades estas que não nos parecem ter
muito a ver com caridade ou ensino.
De acordo com as declarações de imposto de
renda de 1999 do Greenpeace Inc. e do Greenpeace Fund Inc. – as mais recentes
de que dispomos –, mais de US$ 4 milhões foram transacionados entre os dois
grupos. O Greenpeace Fund Inc., organização 501(c)(3) – que obviamente teve
muito mais facilidade para captar recursos, pelos motivos já expostos – passou
à sua irmã Greenpeace Inc. US$ 4,25 milhões em 1999, o que, grosso modo,
representou 30% do orçamento desta última no mesmo ano.
Segundo dados colhidos pelo PIW em vários
formulários de declaração de impostos e prestação de contas do Greenpeace
referentes ao período 1998/2000, o braço 501(c)(3), Greenpeace Fund Inc.,
transferiu um total de US$ 24 milhões a outros subgrupos do Greenpeace que
também não podem solicitar contribuições passíveis de dedução no imposto de
renda.
Mike Hardimann, presidente do PIW, tem uma
definição muito concisa para os malabarismos contábeis do Greenpeace: "É
uma forma de lavar dinheiro, essa é que é a verdade".
Não é de surpreender que um desfalque de US$ 24 milhões no cofres públicos não desperte nenhum interesse na mídia, e que haja tanta falta de interesse diante da divulgação dos nomes de peso que custeiam o Greenpeace? Empresas bem estabelecidas, de sobrenomes de pedigree como Rockefeller, Merck, Mott, MacArthur, Packard e Turner já contribuíram com somas elevadas, obtendo isenção fiscal e possibilitando ao Greenpeace uma movimentação mais fácil de seus recursos.
Não é de surpreender que um desfalque de US$ 24 milhões no cofres públicos não desperte nenhum interesse na mídia, e que haja tanta falta de interesse diante da divulgação dos nomes de peso que custeiam o Greenpeace? Empresas bem estabelecidas, de sobrenomes de pedigree como Rockefeller, Merck, Mott, MacArthur, Packard e Turner já contribuíram com somas elevadas, obtendo isenção fiscal e possibilitando ao Greenpeace uma movimentação mais fácil de seus recursos.
Por conta dos deveres legais que competem a
tais grupos – isto é, assegurar a utilização devida dos fundos sujeitos a
isenção fiscal –, a quantidade de matérias saborosas que essa bagunça poderia
gerar é coisa nada desprezível. Mas a mídia solta um bocejo coletivo diante de
tudo isso.
Uma rápida busca nos arquivos de notícias Nexis
revela a existência de apenas doze reportagens, contando jornal e televisão,
que têm como assunto a denúncia do PIW sobre o Greenpeace. E a única pessoa que
queimou as pestanas pensando no assunto foi o incansável colunista Deroy
Murdock, na National Review Online.
É possível, claro, que o Greenpeace saia limpo
dessa história. Mas também pode ser que não. O velho jornalismo investigativo
veria aqui o início promissor de uma escavação. É pena que o evidente viés
esquerdista da mídia deixe claro que isso não irá acontecer.
Publicado em Townhall, edição de 21 de
novembro de 2003.
/
Greenbacks for Greenpeace
By: Joel Mowbray / Townhall.com
Friday, November 21, 2003
By: Joel Mowbray / Townhall.com
Friday, November 21, 2003
Is the organization skirting IRS tax laws? The media couldn't care less.
After a year in which financial improprieties gobbled up headlines like never before, it would stand to reason that a brewing scandal involving a major international organization, millions of dollars, and alleged tax evasion would receive similar treatment. But if that major international organization is famed environmental group Greenpeace, the media goes mute.
Two months ago, nonprofit watchdog Public Interest Watch (PIW) filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service alleging that Greenpeace has engaged in massive transfers of money between its many subgroups in order to skirt U.S. tax laws. PIW simultaneously issued a companion report, called “Green Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits,” which details how the environmental group transferred $24 million in tax-exempt contributions over a three-period to fund non-tax-exempt activities.
Much like Enron’s dizzying array of shell organizations and dummy corporations, Greenpeace has a multitude of entities established throughout the world—all unified by Greenpeace International, which in 2000 had an operating budget of $134 million.
In the U.S., there are two primary groups: Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc. Neither has to pay U.S. taxes, but there is one key difference between them: donations to the latter entity are tax-deductible, whereas contributions to the former are not. In IRS-speak, this means that money given to Greenpeace Fund Inc., known as a 501(c)(3) organization (named for the corresponding provision in tax law), can reduce the amount one pays in taxes, whereas funds given to Greenpeace Inc, known as a 501(c)(4) entity, cannot.
Just as common sense would dictate, it is much harder to raise money for a 501(c)(4) group, because donors cannot deduct the contributions from their taxable income.
That’s why the IRS has very strict rules about how tax-exempt donations to a 501(c)(3) entity can be used. 501(c)(3) groups are essentially limited to religious, charitable, or educational activities. Such groups can transfer funds to 501(c)(4) entities, but money from those grants are bound by the same restrictions 501(c)(3) organizations face on all their activities.
Here’s where things get sticky with Greenpeace’s green: almost all the tax-exempt money the environmental group raises, according to PIW, is transferred to its sister organization, a 501(c)(4) group that cannot itself solicit tax-exempt contributions. And it is the sister organization that does all those splashy—and typically illegal—media-driven stunts such as trespassing and destruction of property, activities which would seem to be neither charitable nor educational.
According to the 1999 tax returns for both Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc.—the most recent available—over $4 million changed hands between the groups. The 501(c)(3) Greenpeace Fund Inc.—which obviously had an easier time raising funds because its donors get tax write-offs—gave its 501(c)(4) Greenpeace Inc. sister organization $4.25 million, which constituted roughly 30 percent of the latter group’s 1999 budget.
Based on the data Public Interest Watch collected from various Greenpeace tax and disclosure forms from 1998-2000, the 501(c)(3) arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc., transferred a total of $24 million to other Greenpeace subgroups that cannot solicit tax-exempt contributions.
PIW Chairman Mike Hardiman has a simple description of Greenpeace’s accounting gimmicks: “It’s a form of money laundering, plain and simple.”
That $24 million diverted to non-tax-exempt purposes is of little interest to the media should be surprising. More surprising still, though, is that the media’s interest didn’t perk up given the list of big-name Greenpeace donors. Foundations established by such high-brow last names as Rockefeller, Merck, Mott, MacArthur, Packard, and Turner have all given large sums—tax-exempt—enabling Greenpeace to move its funds around more easily.
But because those groups have a legal duty to make sure that tax-exempt funds are used appropriately, the amount of salivating copy this mess could generate is substantial. Yet the media collectively yawns.
A quick search of news archive Nexis revealed that only a dozen stories—in both print and television—covered PIW’s Greenpeace complaint. And the only thorough rendering was written by tireless columnist Deroy Murdock at National Review Online.
It’s possible, of course, that Greenpeace will be cleared of malfeasance. But maybe it won’t. Old-fashioned investigative journalism would seem to dictate some digging take place. Too bad the media’s evident bias makes clear that won’t happen.
After a year in which financial improprieties gobbled up headlines like never before, it would stand to reason that a brewing scandal involving a major international organization, millions of dollars, and alleged tax evasion would receive similar treatment. But if that major international organization is famed environmental group Greenpeace, the media goes mute.
Two months ago, nonprofit watchdog Public Interest Watch (PIW) filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service alleging that Greenpeace has engaged in massive transfers of money between its many subgroups in order to skirt U.S. tax laws. PIW simultaneously issued a companion report, called “Green Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits,” which details how the environmental group transferred $24 million in tax-exempt contributions over a three-period to fund non-tax-exempt activities.
Much like Enron’s dizzying array of shell organizations and dummy corporations, Greenpeace has a multitude of entities established throughout the world—all unified by Greenpeace International, which in 2000 had an operating budget of $134 million.
In the U.S., there are two primary groups: Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc. Neither has to pay U.S. taxes, but there is one key difference between them: donations to the latter entity are tax-deductible, whereas contributions to the former are not. In IRS-speak, this means that money given to Greenpeace Fund Inc., known as a 501(c)(3) organization (named for the corresponding provision in tax law), can reduce the amount one pays in taxes, whereas funds given to Greenpeace Inc, known as a 501(c)(4) entity, cannot.
Just as common sense would dictate, it is much harder to raise money for a 501(c)(4) group, because donors cannot deduct the contributions from their taxable income.
That’s why the IRS has very strict rules about how tax-exempt donations to a 501(c)(3) entity can be used. 501(c)(3) groups are essentially limited to religious, charitable, or educational activities. Such groups can transfer funds to 501(c)(4) entities, but money from those grants are bound by the same restrictions 501(c)(3) organizations face on all their activities.
Here’s where things get sticky with Greenpeace’s green: almost all the tax-exempt money the environmental group raises, according to PIW, is transferred to its sister organization, a 501(c)(4) group that cannot itself solicit tax-exempt contributions. And it is the sister organization that does all those splashy—and typically illegal—media-driven stunts such as trespassing and destruction of property, activities which would seem to be neither charitable nor educational.
According to the 1999 tax returns for both Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc.—the most recent available—over $4 million changed hands between the groups. The 501(c)(3) Greenpeace Fund Inc.—which obviously had an easier time raising funds because its donors get tax write-offs—gave its 501(c)(4) Greenpeace Inc. sister organization $4.25 million, which constituted roughly 30 percent of the latter group’s 1999 budget.
Based on the data Public Interest Watch collected from various Greenpeace tax and disclosure forms from 1998-2000, the 501(c)(3) arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc., transferred a total of $24 million to other Greenpeace subgroups that cannot solicit tax-exempt contributions.
PIW Chairman Mike Hardiman has a simple description of Greenpeace’s accounting gimmicks: “It’s a form of money laundering, plain and simple.”
That $24 million diverted to non-tax-exempt purposes is of little interest to the media should be surprising. More surprising still, though, is that the media’s interest didn’t perk up given the list of big-name Greenpeace donors. Foundations established by such high-brow last names as Rockefeller, Merck, Mott, MacArthur, Packard, and Turner have all given large sums—tax-exempt—enabling Greenpeace to move its funds around more easily.
But because those groups have a legal duty to make sure that tax-exempt funds are used appropriately, the amount of salivating copy this mess could generate is substantial. Yet the media collectively yawns.
A quick search of news archive Nexis revealed that only a dozen stories—in both print and television—covered PIW’s Greenpeace complaint. And the only thorough rendering was written by tireless columnist Deroy Murdock at National Review Online.
It’s possible, of course, that Greenpeace will be cleared of malfeasance. But maybe it won’t. Old-fashioned investigative journalism would seem to dictate some digging take place. Too bad the media’s evident bias makes clear that won’t happen.
Joel Mowbray is author of Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America’s Security.
Essa notícia é antiga. Sendo assim, o Greenpeace saiu imune da denuncia. Malditos ecoterroristas.
ResponderExcluirUma vez questionei um integrande deste greenpeace, sobre ele fumar e jogar bituca de cigarro na rua e dizer ser AMBIENTALISTA, o cara falou palavrões e nao deu uma explicacão!
ResponderExcluir