? I have been on boards and run businesses, and been reminded by more than one CPA and Attorney to cross Ts and Dot I s regarding Corporate requirements or we would become liable to lawsuits.
THEREFORE, my questions to any Attorneys and CPAs, and the keen minds on this board, are the following;
I have been reading old threads on this site about Watchtower Society irregularities regarding tax filings with State and Federal agencies. Evidently, a number of filings for different years were identical (unlikely if not impossible) or missing.
1. IF these agencies were to conclude tax fraud, or non reporting during an audit, would that hurt non-profit status and open WTBS to effective lawsuits? (Perhaps after a whistleblower suit?).
2 . Would a case like the Menlo Park Ca. Congregation “take-over” show Direct Governing body CONTROL therefore help pierce the corporate veil?
3 . If the veil has been pierced by bogus/non existent non-profit status filings, Could Civil Rights Cases against WTBS on behalf of Child Abuse Victims (Sexual, physical emotional and blood) prevail with a larger financial return? Adult members victimized by shunning, families who loose members by suicide after shunning? Ex and unbelieving parents without custody whose minor children die from lack of Blood? Have these had their constitional rights trampled? (Civil rights lawsuits against the Klu Klux Clan pierced the veil and hit them hard.)
4. With the corporate veil pierced, could a small businessperson who lost a large J.W. clientele, by QUESTIONING ever changing Watchtower theology (not moral turpitude), and was disfellowshipped sue Watchtower directly for Slander, Tortuous interference, and Civil rights violations?
5. What is the Federal Statute of limitations on Civil Rights violations?
This article came up while I was googling the subject today at lunch.
Wisconsin LawyerVol. 79, No. 2, February 2006
Piercing the Corporate Veil
The armor of personal immunity generally shields people doing business as a "corporation" from corporate obligations. But the protection may be pierced, and personal liability imposed, when a controlling shareholder operates the corporation as an "alter ego" for wrongful purposes, or under other certain circumstances.
Corporate shareholders and officers are generally insulated from personal liability for the corporation's debts. This limited liability is metaphorically known as the "corporate veil." But the veil is not an absolute shield. Under certain circumstances, a court may pierce it to hold a shareholder or officer personally liable. Piercing is most commonly done when a corporation is the shareholder's "alter ego" and is a sham or façade used to evade creditors or commit fraud
Powers & Quinn S.C., Racine.
The Prima Facie Elements. The concepts of "veil piercing" and "alter ego" are perhaps clear in theory but sometimes nebulous in application, leading Justice Benjamin Cardozo to comment that the veil piercing doctrine is "enveloped in the mists of metaphor." 16 For almost 60 years after the Wisconsin Supreme Court's pronouncement of the "alter ego" doctrine in Milwaukee Toy , Wisconsin courts continued to apply its somewhat amorphous litmus test but there were no uniformly applied factors to judge whether piercing was warranted in a given case.
In 1988, in Consumer's Co-op of Walworth County v. Olsen , 17 the Wisconsin Supreme Court attempted to clarify the situation by formulating a three-part test. It held that to prevail on a piercing claim premised on the "alter ego" doctrine, a plaintiff must prove: 1) that the defendant shareholder completely dominates the business practice with respect to a subject transaction to the extent that the corporation has "no separate mind, will or existence of its own"; 2) that the defendant shareholder used the control to commit fraud or wrong, to violate a statutory or other legal duty, or to act dishonestly or unjustly; and 3) that there was a causal connection between the first two elements and the harm to the plaintiff. 18
The first prong's focus is on control, not ownership. Thus, the mere fact that one person owns all shares in a corporation will not suffice. 19 In ascertaining whether there has been "complete domination" or control, a court assesses the extent to which an entity follows corporate formalities. 20 For example, has the corporation conducted meetings, maintained corporate records, and filed annual reports with the state? Other factors that a court considers are: nonpayment of dividends, siphoning of corporate funds by the dominant shareholder, commingling of personal and corporate funds, and nonfunctioning of other officers or directors. 21
As for the second prong, one must prove that the control emanating from the corporate informality caused an injustice. Whether a corporation was adequately capitalized when it was formed is a relevant determination with respect to this factor, 22 the idea being that insufficient capital infusion is a red flag that a corporation was started as a sham. There is no specific formula to ascertain whether a company is adequately capitalized. Adequate capitalization is "measured by the nature and magnitude of the corporate undertaking" at the time of the company's formation.
Soooooo what do the keen minds here think? Do these victims have a shot at MEANINGFUL compensation? ?????