ICOCinvestigation.com

(Application for Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status)

HOPE answered "No" to this question, although they were obviously controlled by the church. And lest anyone write it off as to a difference of opinion on the definition of "controlled by", the IRS left no doubt as to what the term means. Note the following instructions for filling out this line:

Line 5. ---If your organization controls or is controlled by another exempt organization or a taxable organization, answer "Yes". "Control" means that:

1. Fifty percent (50%) ore more of the filing organization’s officers, directors, employees are also officers, directors, trustees, or key employees of the second organization being tested for control;
2. The filing organization appoints 50% or more of the officers, directors, trustees, or key employees of the second organization; or
3. Fifty percent (50%) or more of the filing organization’s officers, directors, trustees, or key employees are appointed by the second organization.

Control exists if the 50% test is met by any one group of persons even if collectively the 50% test is not met. Examples of special relationships are common officers and the sharing of office space or employees.

Having noted the rules, the reader should note the Board of Directors given for HOPE worldwide, LTD on March 23, 1992:

Directors
Doug and Joyce Arthur
Al and Gloria Baird
Marty and Chris Fuqua
Scott and Lynne Green
Steve and Lisa Johnson
Frank and Erica Kim
Phil and Donna Lamb
Kip and Elena McKean
Randall and Kay McKean

Officers
Robert F. Gempel, Executive Director and Controller
Patricia A. Gempel, Director of Development.

This Board represents a 100% overlap with the ICOC World Sector Leaders, meaning that HOPE failed the "control" test on counts one and three above. But how could this be? How could HOPE have answered "No" when the truth clearly compelled them to answer "Yes"?

Did they simply fail to read the directions? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that they didn’t consult the actual rules and just answered the question in its natural non-legal sense. How would you answer this question if you were HOPE?

"Does the organization (HOPE) control or is it controlled by any other organization?"

And here is McKean six or seven years later, showing that his view of HOPE’s relationship with ICOC had not changed:

Note that this was clearly a work of "God’s family" and of "The Kingdom" in McKean’s mind. How is it, then, that HOPE could suddenly be not under the control of the ICOC when it came time to fill out the application for the IRS?

HOPE checked the "Yes" box, and gave the following explanation:

HOPE Worldwide, LTD., is affiliated with similar entities around the world, most of which are identified by HOPE in their names. The goal is to establish legally recognized entities in the various countries in which work is being performed in order to facilitate the delivery of goods and services to the poor and needy.

Doesn’t the question above beg information about HOPE’s relationship with the ICOC, with which it clearly had an "interlocking directorate"? Yet no mention of the church is made in the response. HOPE is certainly not an "outgrowth" of the "similar entities", but of the ICOC. Yet again, they defrauded the United States government with their answer.

"Is the organization financially accountable to any other organization?"

HOPE checked the "No" box. But it is highly unlikely that there was no accountability to the ICOC for HOPE’s financial operations and with identical boards of directors, it is impossible to imagine how HOPE’s finances would not be fully known to the ICOC directors.

"If the organization provides benefits, services or products, are the recipients required, or will they be required, to pay for them?

HOPE checked the "No" box. Yet HOPE charged a "management fee" to each of its field projects.

"Does or will the organization limit its benefits, services or products to specific individuals or classes of individuals?

HOPE checked the "No" box. But isn’t it very clear that they were a church? How can a church have an "arm" that is not a church? And if that "arm" is clearly under the control of the church’s leadership, it’s even harder to imagine how it is not a church. Yet this was HOPE’s answer.

Why would they lie? How would it benefit them to defraud the United States government with this answer? Perhaps the answer is to be found in the fact that neither corporations nor governments will give donations and grants to "churches", where they often give millions in grants to "charities".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------