x-4-h-1
I.R.S.
INTRODUCTION
February 21, 1978, Peoples Temple received a letter from the Internal Revenue Service, Acting District Director. It stated that the Temple was to submit certain documents, such as organizational articles, consolidated financial statements, payroll tax returns, and permits to operate any commercial activities. It was to be decided, on basis of the Temple’s response, whether an examination of church records would be deemed necessary.
Further communication between Temple attorney Marshall Bentzman and representatives of the I.R.S both on the local level and in Washington, D.C., it became clear that the reason for the inquiry was either media publicity over the past year or an “inside informer” of some sort. It was deemed by the attorneys to be highly unlikely that just a “random check” would have led to such a request for audit of a church’s books.
Included in this section are a series of letters exchanged between Temple attorneys and the I.R.S. The Temple chose not to comply with the I.R.S. request for submission of records on basis of the fact that we believe it was one more in a series of intentional governmental harassments of our progressive church.
We have sent several letters stating the background of harassment and to date have heard nothing further from the I.R.S.
—–
x-4-h-2
[Letterhead of Internal Revenue Service, San Francisco]
Feb 21 1978
Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ
P.O. Box 15023
San Francisco, Calif. 94115
Gentlemen:
An examination of your organization is being considered to determine whether it is organized and operated as provided by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and to determine if it receives income from any activity which may be subject to income tax as provided by Section 511 of the Internal Revenue Code.
To determine whether an examination is warranted, we are requesting for our review, the following preliminary data from your books and records:
1) A copy of your organizational documents – articles of incorporation, articles of association, by-laws, or any other written instrument by which your organization was created.
2) A copy of your most recent consolidated financial statement including a balance sheet and a statement of revenue and expenses.
3) Copies of payroll tax returns. Forms 941 and 940 filed for the year 1977.
4) Copies of application for license or permit to operate a commercial activity of any kind in any city, county, or state.
Your cooperation in mailing this data to the address shown above within the next ten days will be appreciated.
—–
x-4-h-3
Please he advised that if an examination is deemed necessary, you will be so notified in writing and such examination will be conducted within the purview of Section 7605(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and the Regulations thereunder.
Sincerely,
[illegible signature]
District Director
—–
x-4-h-4
[Letterhead of Internal Revenue Service, San Francisco]
APR 13 1978
Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ
P.O. Box 15023
San Francisco, CA 91415
Gentlemen:
This letter is in regards to our letter of February 21, 1978, wherein we requested your cooperation in submitting for our review, within ten days, certain data from your books and records, So date, we have had no response from you.
Por your information, we repeat the data requested in our original letter of February 21, 1978.
1) A copy of your organization documents – Articles of Incorporation, Articles of Association, by-laws, or any other written instrument by which your organization was created.
2) A copy of your most recent consolidated financial statement including a balance sheet and a statement of revenue and expenses. .
3) Copies of payroll tax returns. Form 941 and 940 filed for the year 1977.
4) Copies of application for license or permit to operate a commercial activity of any kind in any city, county, or state.
—–
x-4-h-5
If we do not hear from you within a reasonable period of time, we may be forced to conclude that an audit is necessary to determine whether your organization is organized end operated as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mike Sossi
District Director
[Handwritten notation: “4/19, 12:30. Called & left message. 4/21. Publicity surrounding church & political dealings & other mediums”]
—–
x-4-h-6
[Letterhead of law offices of Marshall R. Bentzman, San Francisco]
April 10, 1978
District Director, IRS
450 Golden Gate Avenue
P.O. Box 36020
S.F., CA 94102
Re: People’s Temple of the Disciples of Christ
Dear Sir:
In response to your letter of February 21, 1978, please be informed that:
1) People’s Temple did not file Forms 941 and 940 for the calendar year 1977 due to the fact that they had no employees during that time,
2) As of this date, there are no copies of applications for a license or permit to operate a commercial activity of any kind since no commercial activities were in fact operated. We are still checking our records to verify if we have missed any applications for licenses or permits as of this date, and if any are discovered, they will be forwarded to your office.
Your requests #1 and #2 in your February 21, 1978 letter will be supplied sometime this month as we are gathering that information for forwarding to your office.
I hereby request a conference with your office to determine the scope of this examination as to why it is being conducted and what is expected to be found other that a church operating completely within the purview of Section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Yours truly,
/s/ Marshall R. Bentzman
Marshall R. Bentzman
—–
x-4-h-7
[Letterhead of law offices of Marshall R. Bentzman, San Francisco]
May 5, 1978
Internal Revenue Service
450 Golden Gate Avenue
P.O. Box 36020
San Francisco, California 94102
Attn: Tak Fukuchi EP/EO: E0-1
Dear Mr. Fukuchi:
Your letter of April 13, 1978 repeats the requests of the letter of February 21, 1978 from the District Director.
That letter of February 21, 1978 from the District Director had no symbols for reference, no telephone number, and no person was indicated as a “person to contact”.
I responded to the February 21, 1978 letter by my letter of March 3, 1978 and enclosed a Power of Attorney (Form 2848) with my letter.
My letter of March 3, 1978 pointed out that:
- your letter of February 21, 1978 was not received by my clients until March 2, 1978,
- the Power of Attorney directed all correspondence to be directed to my office address, and
- I needed 30 days to respond to the four requests.
My letter of April 10, 1978 responded to requests S3 and #4. That letter also indicated further data would be supplied subsequently. In addition, a conference was requested to determine:
- the scope of the examination,
- reason for it being conducted, and
- what is expected to be found.
—–
x-4-h-8
-2-
Your letter of April 13, 1978 completely ignored my two previous letters and my Power of Attorney and was mailed to my clients instead of my office.
I called your office on April 19, 1978 and left a message as you were not in the office. On April 21, 1978 you returned that call, and we talked on the telephone. I explained to you about my prior communications and your office’s lack of responsiveness.
Your letter of April 13, 1978 was not responsive to either of my two letters, and you explained that you weren’t aware of either letter as they had not been associated with your file. Yet my letter of March 3, 1978 and attached Power of Attorney had been in the possession of your offices for over 30 days.
And your letter of April 13, 1978 sets forth that an audit may be necessary if we are not heard from soon. I told you that “I am disregarding your letter,” since it has no basis for being written as we have been in fact responsive to your earlier letter of February 21, 1978.
I further pointed out that this last letter was just another in a series of letters by your office to get my clients in a position where a request for audit can be made on the Regional level of IRS.
Further, when I asked you why was my client being audited, you eventually told me that it was due to adverse publicity surrounding the church in the newspaper and other such media. However, you had previously in our conversation stated that there was nothing in your file of this nature, and that the audit was not motivated by any such publicity. I indicated to you that I really consider this a form of harassment by your office.
I frankly wonder whether bad publicity with a large church such as Episcopalian, Baptist, Catholic, Jewish, etc. would give rise to an audit. .
In light of the preceding discussion, my letters, my client’s continual subjection to harassment, eavesdropping, arson, robbery of its business records, and “adverse publicity,” my client, with my approval, has decided to refrain from responding to your “request” as set forth in your letters of February 21 and April 13, 1978. We feel that this is just a fishing expedition and will not serve to answer any valid questions, as to their being a viable church, which they are.
—–
x-4-h-9
-3-
However, in order to protect my clients’ interest, their rights are going to be exercised under the Freedom of Information Act before any further data is made available to any office of the Internal Revenue Service.
Furthermore, there will be a series of letters to your office for your files documenting the history of harassment, arson, robbery, and responding to the “adverse publicity” in the media.
Yours truly,
/s/ Marshall R. Bentzman
Marshall R. Bentzman
—–
x-4-h-10
[Letterhead of law offices of Marshall R. Bentzman, San Francisco]
June 12, 1978
Internal Revenue Service
450 Golden Gate Avenue
P.O. Box 36020
San Francisco, California 94102
Attn: Tak Fukuchi EP/EO: EO-1
Re: Dennis Banks
American Indian Movement
Dear Mr. Fukuchi:
This letter is intended to document a meeting between Dennis Banks, leader and co-founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM) and Mr. David Conn sometime around May, 1977.
Mr. Conn first came to the attention of the Peoples Temple about seven years ago when he attended one of their religious services. Apparently he did not like the service as he never returned to another one.
The next time Peoples Temple heard of Mr. Conn was when he approached Dennis Banks and asked him to sign a statement against Peoples Temple. That was in May, 1977, and a copy of Dennis Banks’ declaration is enclosed with this letter.
As stated by Dennis Banks in his declaration in paragraph five, David “Conn said that he was working with the U.S. Treasury Department, with an IRS agent, * * *”.
In the same paragraph 5, Dennis Banks states that David Conn asked Banks “to make a public denunciation of Jim Jones.” David Conn then stated that if Banks “made such a denunciation, the rulings on my (Banks) extradition would go in my (Banks) favor.” See paragraph 5. ,
In paragraph 7, Conn “said that Treasury agents had already talked to Grace Stoen.” Conn, further states in paragraph 7 “that besides working with Treasury agents and other government agents, that he (Conn) was already working with ex-members of Peoples Temple, such as Grace Stoen * * *”.
—–
x-4-h-11
– 2 –
In paragraph 8 Banks states that “Conn pressed hard for me (Banks) to meet a U.S. Treasury Department agent alone that very night.”
And in paragraphs” 9 and 10, Banks states that Conn refers to meeting with a Treasury agent and preparing “a public statement against Jim Jones * * *”.
In paragraph 12, on page 3 of the declaration. Banks talks about Conn telephoning him the very next night, asking Banks to “meet with the Treasury agent that very night, alone.”
In light of Mr. Dennis Banks’ declaration, it would seem that the Internal Revenue Service should investigate David Conn and this meeting rather than audit the Peoples Temple.
The Peoples Temple has evidence that Mr. Conn is investigating them, such as talking to former members in order to gather data about the church, being associated with people who are against and attacking the church, making his name (Conn) and telephone number available to the public through media as a source of information on the Peoples Temple, etc.
Other former members of Peoples Temple have been contacted by people who hold themselves out as Treasury “agents or working for the Treasury Department. These people have asked for information about Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple.
I am also enclosing a copy of an article in the February 28, 1976 S.F. Examiner which explains the relationship between Jim Jones, Pastor, Peoples Temple, and Dennis Banks.
Again, this is another example of government harassment, spying, subterfuge, etc. and until all these matters are fully explained to the satisfaction of my client, they will not respond to any request for data by the IRS.
Another letter will be sent next month to further document government interference with my client’s activities as a church.
Yours truly,
/s/ Marshall R. Bentzman
Marshall R. Bentzman
—–
x-4-h-12
[Newspaper article, “Indian leader regains his family,” San Francisco Examiner, February 28, 1976]
By James Schermerhorn
American Indian Movement leader Dennis Banks stood for a long moment before the Disciples of Christ Church. In his arms was his 4-month-old daughter he had not seen until his family arrived by plane last night.
His wife, Ka-mook, freed on bail from a federal charge, in Oregon with $20,000 of the church’s money, stood beside him. In her arms was an older daughter, 18- month-old Tasina.
When he finally found words, Banks said softly, “A week ago my wife was behind an iron door, my children were in Oklahoma. You in your love, have moved the iron door.”
The Rev. Jim Jones, pastor of the Peoples Temple here, led more than 4000 men and women in the crowded church in singing, “We Shall Overcome.”
Then in his strong voice, Jones affirmed his congregation’s support of Banks and declared, “We shall not settle for anything less than his liberty!”
At the moment that seems difficult to achieve.
Banks is wanted in South Dakota, where he was convicted last July of possessing arms in a riot and assault with a dangerous weapon “without intent to kill.”
In the trial, defense witnesses said they would not testify because they were threatened by the prosecutor, the state’s attorney general, and in mid-trial, Banks’ counsel withdrew for the same reason, leaving him to defend himself alone. His appeal for a mistrial was denied.
He and his wife also face charges of possessing destructive devices in Oregon.
Extradition to South Dakota, he declares, will mean his certain death, and be has appealed to Gov. Brown to deny extradition.
Jones said he asked the church board and congregation last week to take the action.
—–
x-4-h-13
[This document also appears at B-2-b-4 and at x-4-b-48.]
DECLARATION OF DENNIS BANKS
I, Dennis Banks, ___________, declare that I am a citizen of the United States, and that I am [Handwritten addition: “44”] years old.
Several months ago, in May 1977, my friend Leighman [Handwritten correction: “Lehman”] Brightman was contacted on the phone by a man named George Coker. He wanted Lee to set up a meeting between myself and a man named David Conn, concerning the question of my extradition to South Dakota. Naturally I was concerned about this when I was notified of the call. In the next couple of days there were other calls. Lee called David Conn and asked him for some more information about my extradition. Conn told Lee that he wanted to talk to me about Peoples Temple and Jim Jones.
Lee asked Conn what Jim Jones had to do with my extradition. Conn wouldn’t tell him. He said it was strictly confidential and that he would only talk about it with him and me personally.
So Lee set up a meeting between myself and David Conn at Lee’s house in El Cerrito for that night.
At the meeting, Conn showed up with a folder of papers. He read notes from the papers. I noticed the paper was stationery from the Standard Oil Company of California. Conn said that he was working with the U.S. Treasury Department, with an IRS agent, and with two men from the San Francisco Police Department. He told me the first name of the Treasury agent [Handwritten insertion: “(Jim)”] he was working with. But Conn did not talk about my extradition problem. He read material that was disparaging to Jim Jones. He went on for some time. Finally I interrupted Conn. I asked him what all this stuff about Jim Jones had to do with my extradition. Conn asked me, “Well, you took money from the church, didn’t you?” He said that my association with Peoples Temple could reflect very badly on my extradition. He then asked me to make a
—–
x-4-h-14
Statement of Dennis Banks
page 2
public denunciation of Jim Jones. He assured me that if I made such a denunciation, the rulings on my extradition would go in my favor. I asked him why a statement against Jim Jones could help my extradition.
Conn said that such a statement would be a determining factor with people like the Governor and other government agencies making decisions about my extradition. He said that if I came out with a statement against Jim Jones that a decision against my extradition could well be forthcoming.
Conn was obviously making a deal with me, and I was being blackmailed. Conn let me know that besides working with the Treasury agents and other government agents, that he was already working with ex-members of Peoples Temple, such as Grace Stoen, and that he had other people who would talk against Jim Jones. He said that the Treasury agents had already talked with Grace Stoen.
Conn pressed hard for me to meet with a U.S. Treasury Department agent alone that very night.
Conn also said – and he was very emphatic about this – THAT HE IN NO WAY WANTED THIS INFORMATION REVEALED FOR FEAR THAT IT WOULD “BLOW THEIR COVER” AND RUIN ANY POSSIBLE MEETING BETWEEN ME AND THE TREASURY AGENT.
I was further pressured to meet with the agent from the Treasury Department. The deal was to meet with the agent and to prepare a public statement against Jim Jones in return for some kind of immunity against my being extradited. I refused to talk with any Treasury agent without my attorney, Dennis Roberts. Conn insisted that I had to do it alone.
At this point, Lehman Brightman asked Conn to leave the house.
—–
x-4-h-15
Statement of Dennis Banks
page 3
The next night I was called at D.Q. University by Conn. Conn told me that it was very urgent that I meet with the Treasury agent that very night, alone. I said to Conn that I had already told him I wouldn’t meet with the Treasury agent without my attorney.
These agents all knew that I had a lot hanging over me. Besides the extradition (which to me is certainly a life and death matter), I also had a case in Federal Court in which the Treasury Department was involved. I have often made it clear that if I am extradited to South Dakota, that is like a sentence of death, because I am certain that I will be killed there.
So this was definitely a deal that I was being offered. Because it was not just a matter of Conn indicating that it would go well with me if I co-operated, but the implication was that if I didn’t co-operate, it would go badly for me. This was to me a threat, and obvious blackmail.
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that all of the foregoing is true and correct, executed this _6_ day of September, 1977 at Davis, California.
(Signed) Dennis J. Banks
Dennis Banks
—–
x-4-h-16
[Letterhead of Internal Revenue Service, Los Angeles]
Aug 11 1977
Jean F. Brown
Peoples Temple of The Disciples of Christ
P.O. Box 15023
San Francisco, CA. 94115
Dear Ms. Brown:
In reply to your letter of May 7, 1977, we find that we need additional information from you before considering your request for access to certain Internal Revenue Service files and records.
In order for us to act on your request, please mail us an official listing of the Organization’s Board of Directors (or other similar governing body) and principal officers.
Section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that the application for exemption together with papers supporting such application, and any letter or other document issued by the Internal Revenue Service with respect to such an application (re: a-501 (c) organization) shall be open to public inspection. Therefore, without benefit of the additional document(s) indicated in paragraph two, we would only be able to comply with your request to the extent of Section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code.
If you have any questions or desire further information please contact the individual noted above.
Sincerely,
/s/ J. W. Brannan
J. W. Brannan
District Disclosure Office
Los Angeles District
—–
x-4-h-17
[Letterhead of Peoples Temple, San Francisco]
September 29, 1977
Mr. J. W. Brannan
District Disclosure Officer
Los Angeles District
Internal Revenue Service
P.O. Box 231
Los Angeles, California 90053
Re: 400:D0:JWB
Dear Mr. Brannan:
In reply to your letter of August 11, 1977, following is a current official listing of the Board of Directors of Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ:
Carol A. Stahl
Linda S. Amos
Alice Inghram
Jean F. Brown
Lee Ingram
June B. Crym
Donald Beck
Further, following is a current official listing of the Officers of said corporation:
President: Carol A. Stahl
Vice President: Lee Ingram
Financial Secretary/Treasurer: June B. Crym
Recording Secretary: Linda S. Amos
Assistant Secretary: Jean F. Brown
Assistant Secretary: Anita Kelley
Assistant Treasurer: Andrew Silver
We assume this information complies with your request.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Jean F. Brown
Jean F. Brown
—–
x-4-h-18
[Letterhead of Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, Washington DC]
Jan 9, 1976
Professor Richard D. Tropp
Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ
Post Office Box 214
Redwood Valley, California 95470
Dear Professor Tropp:
Thanks for your letter of October 18, 1975. I greatly appreciate your thoughtfulness in writing.
The problems I am encountering are partly a product of the times: suspicion or mistrust of those in public office and a few investigative reporters letting their bloodlust outdistance their integrity. While I thought and still think that the Internal Revenue Service is a fine agency doing a difficult job well, certain reforms and controls are necessary to curb past practices, on the part of a few, which are no longer acceptable. In this respect, the Internal Revenue Service is now installing controls over its use of informants, for example, which are not as stringent as those as the FBI has had all along.
Some of the law enforcement community (including a handful of Congressional staffers) see these controls and these curbs on certain excessive actions as motivated by evil designs. They are unable or unwilling to understand philosophical differences, to understand that the law enforcer cannot be the law violator. Accordingly, these few people in the law enforcement community have joined with a few investigative reporters in an effort to do all they can to drive me from office.
This isn’t working. One of the false allegations made about me has already been laid to rest, and I am convinced the investigations currently underway – if conducted with any degree of impartiality – will soon lay the others to rest. Moreover, I am convinced that the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury will do their utmost to see to it that these investigations are properly conducted and promptly concluded.
Thanks again and best wishes,
Sincerely,
/s/ Donald C. Alexander
Donald C. Alexander
—–
x-4-h-19
[Letterhead of Internal Revenue Service, San Francisco]
June 20, 1977
People’s Temple of the Disciples of Christ
P. O. Box 15157
San Francisco, CA 94115
Attn: Michael Prokes, Assistant Pastor
525 Market St., San Francisco, Ca. 94115
Dear Reverend Prokes:
This is in response to inquiries this office has received concerning possible investigation of the People’s Temple of the Disciples of Christ by the Internal Revenue Service.
Ai this time the People’s Temple of the Disciples of Christ is not the subject of an IRS investigation.
if you have any further questions, please contact me at 556-3765.
Sincerely,
/s/ Pete White
Pete White
Problem Resolution Officer
—–
x-4-h-20
[Letterhead of Internal Revenue Service, San Francisco]
Mar 2, 1978
Rev. James W. Jones Jr.
c/o Garry, Dreyfus, et al
1256 Market Street at Civic Center
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Request for Access to Internal
Revenue Service Records
Dear Rev. Jones:
This refers to your undated letters addressed to the Director, Disclosure Division and the Assistant to the Commissioner (Public Affairs), which were transferred to this office, and to our interim reply.
Although your letter is headed “Privacy Act Request” it also cites the Freedom of Information Act. Unfortunately, it does not qualify as a valid request under either of the Acts. Our records are normally limited to Federal income tax returns and related documents pertaining to the income tax liability of the taxpayer. Income tax case files are specifically exempt under the Privacy Act. Your letter requests copies of all files this agency has indexed under your name or which contain your name. This is a very broad request since you do not indicate the type of documents sought, the years involved, or where they might be located. Under the Treasury Regulations pertaining to the Freedom of Information Act there are certain requirements to be met for a valid request, one of which is that the records must be reasonably described. In addition, requests for Federal income tax case files should be directed to the District Director who has jurisdiction over the area from which they were filed.
As a service to you, however, we have checked the microfilm records currently available to this office. Federal income tax returns and related information would be indexed under your name and social security number and we found a listing of returns for eight taxable years filed under the name and social security number furnished (James W. Jones – SSN 303-32-5942). The microfilm record indicates they were filed jointly with Marceline M. Jones.
There has been no audit action to date on these income tax returns. A search of our Intelligence Division’s files disclosed an index card under your name indicating receipt of an information item in 1972; however no investigative action was taken. The information item, which is believed to have been a newspaper article, cannot be located and we regret our inability to furnish it.
—–
x-4-h-21
-2-
Rev. James W. Jones Jr.
Although furnishing an individual with information and/or copies of records from his .or her personal Federal income tax case file would not he considered as a benefit to the general public, the cost of the search conducted in this instance is within the limit we are authorized to waive, Therefore, no charge is being made.
We hope the above information is helpful.
Very Truly yours
/s/Fred Bolding
Fred Bolding
Disclosure Officer