To Help Future Proper Use Of Church Funds...

[Grundelwalken]

You have no supporting financial document to back up your claim, other than hearsay.

You have no supporting financial document to back up your claim other than conjecture and imagination. MW

[JCNowandForever]

5000 temporary and 2500 permenant jobs, a nbew home for the LDS business college, office space for the church and a thriving retail space in the heart of SLC. Imaging the amount of fast offering funds now flowing out of SLC into the world as opposed to the other way around.

I work for a Property Management companies for very a long time as Accounting Manager. I know Taubman who is third-party that currently manages this new Mall in SLC. I've seen property management agreements. Much of it stipulate that the net income from the operations of the malls are to re-directed back to the Mall, not to the Church, unless specified in their management agreement that net profit and (NET LOSS) are to be distributed back to the Church. So, in general the net monies generated, if any, are kept by the mall owner/entity (in this case the commercial development of the Church) , not the Church itself. How this commercial development arm of the church got funded is very obvious. Money don't grow on trees!!

Oh and by the way, by virtue of this being managed by an outside third-party management company (Taubman), their property management agreement also calls for Management fees, development fees, Tenant Improvement fees and other fees associated in management of the building which ranges from 5-10% of Rental Revenues. It'll be interesting to see the Financial records that Taubman generates in managing this particular mall.

Edited August 22, 2012 by JCNowandForever

[KevinG]

You didn't look up the word fungible yet did you? You also didn't read the Mall thread you chose to post your comments on AGAIN.

The church has a lot of power I didn't even imagine if they can confiscate the profits of their lessees and the salaries of lessees employees.

This is just getting into ridiculous speculation territory on your part.

Edited August 22, 2012 by KevinG

[rpn]

My guess is that all of the philanthropic donations to the Church, BYU or their various entities can be conditional (though that would challenge tax status and one major reason for contribution is to spend money in ways that avoid government confiscation thereof). The problem is that tithing isn't a charitable donation. You're either in or you're out. You can't sort of pay tithing.

And I always laugh at the alumni donations appeals. There are always a bunch of choices and then one that lets the institution decide where to spend it (on the theory that no one knows better than it, which area needs the funds). And in my organizational experience all those specific donations do is prompt the org to move other funds around so that the amount spent on that item is the same as they originally intended to spend there. Yes they meet the conditional demands of donors, but that doesn't mean that what donors want gets more than its overall value to the org.

[KevinG]

And in my organizational experience all those specific donations do is prompt the org to move other funds around so that the amount spent on that item is the same as they originally intended to spend there. Yes they meet the conditional demands of donors, but that doesn't mean that what donors want gets more than its overall value to the org.

Darn. And I wanted JCNAF to do his/her own homework and look up fungible. Thanks anyway i guess.

[JCNowandForever]

You are only scratching at the surface of a very complex tax issue of which you exhibit a dangerous ignorance. WARNING DANGEROUS: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME BY YOURSELF GET THE ADVICE OF A TAX SPECIALIST.

[thesometimesaint]

You have no supporting financial document to back up your claim, other than hearsay.

We have the main legal principals stating that no tithing funds were involved, and they have a legal obligation to know. Either they are knowingly lying or they are telling the truth, but it is not hearsay. The closest analogy is an Expert Witness in court proceedings.

Further I have so much more invested in the Church than my few dollars represent. That it isn't even worth discussing.

[ERayR]

My guess is that all of the philanthropic donations to the Church, BYU or their various entities can be conditional (though that would challenge tax status and one major reason for contribution is to spend money in ways that avoid government confiscation thereof). The problem is that tithing isn't a charitable donation. You're either in or you're out. You can't sort of pay tithing.

And I always laugh at the alumni donations appeals. There are always a bunch of choices and then one that lets the institution decide where to spend it (on the theory that no one knows better than it, which area needs the funds). And in my organizational experience all those specific donations do is prompt the org to move other funds around so that the amount spent on that item is the same as they originally intended to spend there. Yes they meet the conditional demands of donors, but that doesn't mean that what donors want gets more than its overall value to the org.

This is one thing we can agree on. Just to note JC******reads one small IRS brochure and thinks he understands a very complex issue in tax law. Isn't going to happen.

[KevinG]

This is one thing we can agree on. Just to note JC******reads one small IRS brochure and thinks he understands a very complex issue in tax law. Isn't going to happen.

Don't forget he was an accountant in a property management office so he's a commercial real estate expert too.

[ERayR]

I am waiting for an answer to my CFR

[USU78]

You have no supporting financial document to back up your claim, other than hearsay.

Are you calling GBH a liar? If so, you'd better have some pretty good evidence to support the proposition.

[JCNowandForever]

We have the main legal principals stating that no tithing funds were involved, and they have a legal obligation to know.

In the world of Accounting Auditing, when an entity claims that no tithing funds were involved, the auditors, to pass the thresholds of auditing standards, usually ask for financial documents such bank statements and General ledgers and they compare the General Ledger against banks statements to test the claim proposed by the entity. I'm pretty sure that Taubman would employ outside auditors to audit the books of the Mall in compliance with SOX. That will be interesting to see if the development funds to construct the Mall really didn't come from the Commercial Development arm of the Church through the Church's general tithing fund.

[why me]

And you have supporting financial documents that tithes were not funneled into this $2Billion dollar investment (the Mall alone)? $5 Billion in the next five or 10 yrs for the whole revitalization purpose? How did this investment companies came to be funded? Let's see $7Billion (est. annual tithe), compute the interest income derived from a typical CD investment at 1% APR with maturity of 10 years using straight-line accounting method = 7 Billion x .01 x 10 yrs = 700 million. There's a short-fall of $4.3 Billion. Where is that coming from, in this simplified rough estimate calculation? Microsoft stock? they were down since the last dot com bubble? From a Google stock? You see where I'm coming from? Unless full-disclosure is made on these investment companies, we can just surmise that tithing was involve. I'm just speaking from an LDS perspective of only wanting to know the truth. Label it Anti or Rebellious whatever, doesn't matter. Truth will come out nonetheless. And Money speaks! So I suggest Conditional Donations from now on, until transparency is resolved. Don't worry about the tithing label. Your 10% conditional donation to Fast Offering is tithing to the Lord. Period.

It is still my understanding that tithing money was not used. And it was discussed on this board before. We have been down the Mall road several times. Here is what I think: I think that you may be a disgruntled member who has a beef about tithing funds. And you want the church to be a church of JCNowlandForever. But it isn't your church. The church is made up of a collective of individuals which stretches over the world. If you want to make your tithing conditional that is your responsibility. I have no problem with the Mall. I consider it a wonderful usage of church funds. It provides work during a recession, it gives people a place to eat or shop and it gives salt lake a vitalized look. I certainly don't want salt lake to look like Newark or Detroit or any other city that is falling apart. So I give a well done to the Mall. Also, I think that the lord is blessing the lds church. It is a rich church with only 14 million members. We have no idea what the future will bring but at this moment, the church is doing something right.

[why me]

We have the main legal principals stating that no tithing funds were involved, and they have a legal obligation to know. Either they are knowingly lying or they are telling the truth, but it is not hearsay. The closest analogy is an Expert Witness in court proceedings.

Further I have so much more invested in the Church than my few dollars represent. That it isn't even worth discussing.

To be honest, I can the poster's point if the church was in the red and poorly managed. But I see no proof of this. In fact, just the opposite. The church is certainly prepared for the last days and I am sure that their investments reflect this. I no of any poor mormons who would not receive church support. Mormons are fed, clothed, rents are paid, bills are paid if needed. And humanitarian is second to none. I think that the OP is rather disgruntled and it gives the poster a beef to concentrate on. But I think that the issue is much bigger.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you calling GBH a liar? If so, you'd better have some pretty good evidence to support the proposition.

I agree. What evidence does JC have that GBH was not telling the truth? Seen this claim a bunch of times that "I would not be surprised to see that tithing money was used". I have seen no evidence that tithing money was used.

[KevinG]

The commercial arm of the church "The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" has been around in one form or another since the early days of the church in Utah. If any tithing funds were used and then not returned to the church from enterprises like ZCMI then there is a small chance that tithing funds were the basis for the investments that were eventually split off as the commercial wing of the church. I suspect over time those funds were returned to charitable and operational needs of the church hundreds if not millions of times over.

The commercial wing of the church is a way for us to invest our funds for a rainy day in a safe way. It is probably now supporting many Saints the world over who are in financial trouble by supplementing fast offerings.

Not being in the Presiding Bishopric, First Presidency or local Bishopric I cannot tell you for sure. When I was in a Bishopric we were asked not to run a deficit on fast offerings but when it did happen we were made whole by Church headquarters so we could continue to serve our needy.

Standard accounting practices and outside auditors are used locally and world wide with the church. The only beef critics have is that they personally do not have the ability to audit the books. Given the fiscal health of the LDS Church and the vast number of members and non-members the investments and donations have benefited, coupled with the absolute lack of any reports of impropriety or misuse of funds I'm not to worried about the disposition of funds.

[thesometimesaint]

Why me:

There have been a couple of times when the Church was financially broke. However in anything approaching our time the Church has invested/spent its monies very wisely.

The Gospel is true regardless of the Church's financial status.

[cinepro]

Why me:

There have been a couple of times when the Church was financially broke. However in anything approaching our time the Church has invested/spent its monies very wisely.

The Gospel is true regardless of the Church's financial status.

How are you defining "our time"? If I recall, the Church was last in dire financial straits in the 1960's.

[DH]

This is not really correct. A Bishop may determine that you are not a full tithe payer or that you are unworthy for a Temple Recommend as a judge in Israel.

In my experience, the bishop asks you if you are a full tithe payer. If you tell him 'yes,' end of story. Other than taking your word for it, the only way a bishop could determine whether or not you're a full tithe payer is to examine your financial records, and that is not standard procedure.

Then there's the question of defining what a full tithe is. Is it on gross income? Net income? Gross income plus the value of all your benefits? Gifts? The Church does not dictate which of these (or any other) is the "correct" definition of "full tithe," but leaves it up to the tithepayer. I'm not sure a bishop could impose his definition on members of his ward, but I could be wrong.

[ERayR]

In my experience, the bishop asks you if you are a full tithe payer. If you tell him 'yes,' end of story. Other than taking your word for it, the only way a bishop could determine whether or not you're a full tithe payer is to examine your financial records, and that is not standard procedure.

Then there's the question of defining what a full tithe is. Is it on gross income? Net income? Gross income plus the value of all your benefits? Gifts? The Church does not dictate which of these (or any other) is the "correct" definition of "full tithe," but leaves it up to the tithepayer. I'm not sure a bishop could impose his definition on members of his ward, but I could be wrong.

If a member does not attend a tithing settlement and declare their tithing status the bishop must use his judgement to declare their tithing status.

[JCNowandForever]

Standard accounting practices and outside auditors are used locally and world wide with the church.

I agree.

However, where's the full-disclosure and complete transparency responsibilities of the Church towards its members? It stopped in "1953" as one poster said. No auditing reports are every given out to members to account for the funds. Transparency is lacking. You expect member to take theirs words for it when it comes to financial activities? I'm we can do that. But that's not being responsible. Other non-profit organization have disclosed their financial statements online for the public to see, not because they are beholden to the public but that they are being transparent and show good governance. So yes, t's an issue of transparency and accountability!

So I suggested what I suggested in this thread of CONDITIONAL DONATION. So let's focus on that topic and leave it out the doors the ad-hominem and straw-man comments, it ain't going to detract from the current issue. The Mall thing is just given as an example.

[CASteinman]

In my experience, the bishop asks you if you are a full tithe payer. If you tell him 'yes,' end of story.

That may be your experience simply because there was no reason for the Bishop to question the answer. But the Bishop does have the authority to judge the answer.

[KevinG]

Bishops are instructed to answer questions about tithing with the scriptures that say "tithe in your increase" which is understood to be income. I have asked myself when I had questions about unemployment insurance, etc and I was told to pray about it.

A Bishop who teaching anything but that is overstepping some pretty clear guidelines from the church.

[robuchan]

Sure. Here's a link to the IRS Website on Charitable contributions under the label "Conditional Gifts". (http://www.irs.gov/p...blink1000229799) which says:

Conditional gift. If your contribution is a conditional gift that depends on a future act or event that may not take place, you cannot take a deduction. But if there is only a negligible chance that the act or event will not take place, you can take a deduction.

Here we know that Fast Offering takes place due to the fact of that there is a bishop storehouses. So the chance of this conditional act not happening is negligible and so It's tax deductible. If we contribute a conditional donation, say for example, for upkeep and maintenance of church bldgs, we know this event will take place because there are church bldgs all over. The chance of this not happening is nil. So it's tax deductible.

I'm not an accountant, but I don't think you're interpreting this right. I believe that clause is if you are giving your money to a non-charity as a gift with the intention that it be used by that non-charitable entity as a charitable donation. The church is a charitable organization. Your donations to the church are 100% deductible with no worry how the church will use it.

Also, I think I heard the church is changing donation slips to say that even though you mark certain categories, the church is free to use the money however it wants.

[DH]

I propose Conditional Donations. Missionary Fund is a type of conditional donations where the funds are restricted solely for that purpose (missionary expenditures) and for no other purpose. So instead of filling out the Tithing/Offering boxes of the Contribution receipt, there's a blank box that is provided where a written purpose can be noted on the contribution. For example, members have used that blank box to pay for "Food Storage" items it purchased thru the Church. Something specific can be written that will restrict that funds to a specific purpose, such as "Print Book of Mormons, or "Upkeep and Maintenance of Church Buildings", etc, instead of giving a sorta "blank check" to the Church.

This also allows for a right to refund if the specific purpose was not met by the Church.

What do you think?

Isn't that pretty much what they were doing until the recent change? They had multiple options, along with an 'Other' option you could fill in, no?

I understand the Church's desire to have flexibility as to how it spends funds, but if they're getting too many donations for one purpose and too few for another purpose, couldn't they just ask members to contribute differently, or to donate to a general fund?

It would also be good if the Church made available regular financial statements so we could see how monies are spent. Sure you can say 'trust the leaders,' but if they are spending the money well, there's no reason to hide it, right?

Edited August 22, 2012 by DH