The concept of “inurement” is one that most nonprofit organization board members should be familiar with. In common language, “inurement” is a concept that means a board member, donor, or employee can’t benefit excessively from the organization’s funds.

Basic Definition of Inurement

This simple legal provision is meant to stop somebody from forming their own charity, paying themselves any salary they like, and thereby avoid paying taxes on income, no matter where it comes from.

In practice, it means a nonprofit can’t take a donation, then turn around and buy a building or land for that same amount, and let the donor use the building or land: whether or not they pay rent.

In this case, it’s all about the limes. Previously covered: Coffee.

A nonprofit organization can’t take a donation from one organization:

Firmenich Contributed $250,000 and also paid for a speech

And turn around and give the money back.

This is a record of payments FROM, not to Clinton Foundation. Note #5 — the same amount as was “donated” by Firmenich. You will also note Tiger Woods. Whatever.

Employees should not receive excess benefit transactions from related businesses.

This global “investment business” declares a loss every year — no taxes ever paid.

Compensation should not be excessive; nontaxable benefits appear to be a “housing allowance.” This is usually considered “taxable income.” Note the “bonus and incentive payment” for Employee 11.

Unrelated business income or UBI is considered taxable. The Clinton Foundation has only once declared it had any business profits, and that amount was less than the UBIT exemption level. All other years, their businesses declare a loss.

Fondo Acceso lost money on this schedule, but paid $1.2 million TO the Foundation as noted above.

I already had determined that the Tukula Farming Company, which forms the basis of the Foundation’s public claims that it is “helping” more than 50,000 “smallholder farmers” in Malawi, was a for-profit company seeking foreign direct investment. It is both a money-earning and losing company as per the Clinton Foundation tax returns.

This schedule shows the farming earned $512K

The front page of the tax return shows the farming lost more than $776K (no taxes owed on such a loss)

This would be easily accomplished by the farming company making a cash transfer to the Foundation.

The Clinton Foundation believes that if they just type bigger numbers, they will receive acclamation.

I guess.

As previously noted, this isn’t an active field, it’s a posed picture. In 2015, they were “partnering” with 56,000 neighboring farmers.

Just one year later, they have doubled the number of farmers to over 100,000. They’re not partnering with them any longer, they are “providing access” to approx. 1% of Malawi’s estimated 11 million “smallholder farmers.”

I just learned there are 80,000 child tobacco workers in Malawi. The Tukula Farming Company operates on five contiguous former tobacco farms. The child tobacco workers are often poisoned — it is called “green tobacco sickness.”