ALarson Posted February 11, 2014 Author Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) In an attempt to get the thread backin track....Its late here in the UK and I've only quickly read through the post Michelle d referred to from another board so won't comment in detail. A small portion of it is correct. Much is speculation,misunderstanding and misrepresentation. The most egregious thing is the persistence in treating it as a lawsuit. This is a criminal prosecution against one man, not the church. Any sentence will be on the man only. A court on sentencing can make no orders against the church eg freezing assets. And as it is a criminal prosecution, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Pres Monson does not have to prove his honesty or the truthfulness of the allegations.The tax thing is also a red herring. I do not know of any organisation that suggests when you gift aid you can get money back or that you should pay 20percent less because the taxman will be paying the difference! It is advertised as use gift aid so that your gift is worth even more to the charity. I'm not convinced that you can get money back either.I love the law. I love practicing it and reading it. I am of the belief that a strong and independent legal system is essential to ensure freedom. I know that means allowing for mistakes and for excess. But I grow more and more appalled that someone should abuse the right to prosecute by such a grandstanding action whose aim seems to be to gleefully destroy the Church without apparent thought for the consequences for everyone not just the LDS.I agree. And, thanks for your response, Sheila. Any insight into the whole mission president tax accusations? I've read that this may be a whole separate case (if at all as it seems just as crazy)? Or is it included here with this criminal case? Thanks again. Edited February 11, 2014 by ALarson
sheilauk Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 The mission president tax question isn't included in the summons though it would seem that Mr Phillips' supporters certainly conflates them. I don't know enough about the tax regime to know if there's a problem. It's true that in the UK tax avoidance is currently being equated with tax evasion in the press and resentment is being stirred up about it and the HMRC is being expected to tighten up on loopholes. 2
ALarson Posted February 11, 2014 Author Posted February 11, 2014 The mission president tax question isn't included in the summons though it would seem that Mr Phillips' supporters certainly conflates them. I don't know enough about the tax regime to know if there's a problem. It's true that in the UK tax avoidance is currently being equated with tax evasion in the press and resentment is being stirred up about it and the HMRC is being expected to tighten up on loopholes.Sheila, thanks again. I look forward to anything else you can add after you have more time to read through the information posted.
Abulafia Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Sheilauk, this link suggests that you should be informed that you can receive tax relief on charitable donations. I think I am reading it right.http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/gift_aid/declarations.htm
MichelleD Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 In an attempt to get the thread backin track.... Its late here in the UK and I've only quickly read through the post Michelle d referred to from another board so won't comment in detail. A small portion of it is correct. Much is speculation,misunderstanding and misrepresentation. The most egregious thing is the persistence in treating it as a lawsuit. This is a criminal prosecution against one man, not the church. Any sentence will be on the man only. A court on sentencing can make no orders against the church eg freezing assets. And as it is a criminal prosecution, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Pres Monson does not have to prove his honesty or the truthfulness of the allegations. The tax thing is also a red herring. I do not know of any organisation that suggests when you gift aid you can get money back or that you should pay 20percent less because the taxman will be paying the difference! It is advertised as use gift aid so that your gift is worth even more to the charity. I'm not convinced that you can get money back either. I love the law. I love practicing it and reading it. I am of the belief that a strong and independent legal system is essential to ensure freedom. I know that means allowing for mistakes and for excess. But I grow more and more appalled that someone should abuse the right to prosecute by such a grandstanding action whose aim seems to be to gleefully destroy the Church without apparent thought for the consequences for everyone not just the LDS.Thanks so much Sheila! I am grateful you'd take the time to post and help us out. So, this is not a lawsuit against the church but criminal charges against President Monson? I guess I didn't realize that and I'm glad I'm aware of this now. Shameful!
halconero Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Get saemo to stop pushing her theories and insinuations in this thread, and I'll stop responding to her here.Just point her the "military martyrs" of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. She might like to study up on Saint Demetrios of Thessaloniki. He was a Christian solider of a senatorial family....killed while resisting Emperor Diocletian's legal persecutions of Christians.Now back to our regularly scheduled thread. Edited February 12, 2014 by halconero 2
halconero Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Sheilauk, this link suggests that you should be informed that you can receive tax relief on charitable donations. I think I am reading it right.http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/gift_aid/declarations.htm"The declaration must contain certain information about the donor. Your charity or CASC must also have advised the donor that they will need to pay at least as much UK Income Tax and/or Capital Gains Tax for the year of donation as your charity or CASC, and any other charities and CASCs they donate to, will reclaim on their donation. The easiest way to do this is to include the explanation in the declaration. Remember that donors should be made aware that HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) may recover unpaid tax from them."I'm not a UK tax expert, but I read this more as the church needs to explain to tithe payers that she should make sure their taxes are paid in full for Gift Aid to work, and that any unpayed tax may be reclaimed.
Calm Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 http://tech.lds.org/wiki/Gift_AidGift Aid is a tax relief that enables tax-effective giving by individuals to charities in the United Kingdom. The Church is registered with the Charity Commission meaning that individuals who are subject to UK income tax can allow the Church to claim back the tax paid on their donations.To do this individuals need to complete a simple, short declaration which states that:-"I confirm I have paid or will pay an amount of Income tax and/or Capital Gains Tax for each tax year (6 April to 5 April) that is at least equal to the amount of tax that all the charities or Community Amateur Sports Clubs (CASCs) that I donate to will reclaim on my gifts for that tax year. I understand that other taxes such as VAT and Council Tax do not quality. I understand the charity will reclaim 25p of tax on every £1 that I give on or after 6 April 2009."Any donations that the taxpayer makes to the Church after making a declaration are treated as being made after the deduction of income tax, and the Church can reclaim the income tax paid on the donation from HMRC.Please contact the UK Gift Aid department for more details giftaid@ldschurch.orgOr call 0207-838-1995 (UK national rate phone number).Note that to use Gift Aid you must first have completed and submitted a Gift Aid Declaration form, which you get from giftaid@ldschurch.orgPlease also note that for legal and tax purposes all Gift Aid donations go into a different bank account than the one normally used by wards and branches in the UK. Please only get the latest version of the official forms from the Gift Aid Department to ensure that the correct bank account details are used, and is also used as your bank/customer reference.If you choose to donate using Gift Aid you need to quote your membership record number (MRN) in full as your reference e.g. if your MRN is 008-1234-1234, it is represented on the Gift Aid forms and on any standing orders as: 008-1234-1234.A Gift Aid worksheet has been prepared that helps calculate the value of the donation taking into account the tax rebate that will be credited to tithing.Contents [hide] 1 Rate2 See also2.1 NOTE3 External linksRateGift Aid is claimed at the basic rate of tax, currently 20% for the 2012/2013 tax year.See alsoTithing Calculator for Gift Aid.NOTEPlease do not amend or change this page. If you need to amend this page, please email us at giftaid@ldschurch.orgExternal linksGiving to charity through Gift Aid, HM Revenue & CustomsPractical example, Wikipedia
Calm Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Summary with lots of interesting details of what the Church is doing in the UK. I am assuming this kind of statement is required for UK charities:http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends51%5C0000242451_ac_20111231_e_c.pdfIncludes a statement from the auditor.Skimming through the tax statement I don't see any specific reference to mission presidents. I believe there are 6 missions in the UK. Looking at the total amount being spent, I think it would be insane to risk their good standing as a charity due to tax fraud over what likely amounts to pocket change in what might be saved in giving the 6 MPs a stipend rather than a salary. I would not be surprised if the benefit was primarily for the MPs as being given a stipend by the US Government rather than a salary through the Fulbright program made it possible for us to have a comfortable time in Russia rather than ending up having to provide additional funds out of our savings..which would have meant we would not have been able to go over in the first place. Edited February 12, 2014 by calmoriah
JulieM Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 http://tech.lds.org/wiki/Gift_AidGift Aid is a tax relief that enables tax-effective giving by individuals to charities in the United Kingdom. The Church is registered with the Charity Commission meaning that individuals who are subject to UK income tax can allow the Church to claim back the tax paid on their donations.What does that part mean exactly? The church is able to claim the taxes paid? Thanks for any help as it know nothing about this!
Skylla Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 He was in jail awaiting a hearing. I'm fairly certain an inmate, who is there for any reason, isn't given a firearm. Ever. Don't believe me? Try giving a firearm to anyone in a jail, see what happens.This conversation is derailing the thread. Please start a new one if you want to continue. Skylla
Kenngo1969 Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 In the U.S., after Tithing Settlement is completed and donations are reconciled for the year, donors are given a year-end statement for tax purposes listing all donations made, along with the dates on which they were made, which is signed by the bishop. I wonder if donors to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the U.K. get a similar statement and, if so, what it says. I would be surprised, if U.K. donors do receive such a statement, that it says nothing about gift aid. (I wonder, when was the last time Phillips, et al, went to Tithing Settlement.
MichelleD Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 In the U.S., after Tithing Settlement is completed and donations are reconciled for the year, donors are given a year-end statement for tax purposes listing all donations made, along with the dates on which they were made, which is signed by the bishop. I wonder if donors to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the U.K. get a similar statement and, if so, what it says. I would be surprised, if U.K. donors do receive such a statement, that it says nothing about gift aid. (I wonder, when was the last time Phillips, et al, went to Tithing Settlement.IIRC, I think he's been inactive for 7 or 8 years but he was a Bishop & Stake President, so he should be familiar with this unless it's changed.
Calm Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Maybe this can help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_Aid
Kenngo1969 Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Dan Peterson posted this on his blog. (The comments also are interesting.) http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/02/the-folks-apparently-behind-the-british-law-suit-against-president-monson.html#disqus_thread
MichelleD Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Dan Peterson posted this on his blog. (The comments also are interesting.) http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/02/the-folks-apparently-behind-the-british-law-suit-against-president-monson.html#disqus_threadDo you seriously believe anyone who visited Mormon Think ever thought it was a neutral site? That's nothing new. They weren't fooling anyone even before this happened.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Do you seriously believe anyone who visited Mormon Think ever thought it was a neutral site? That's nothing new. They weren't fooling anyone even before this happened.Well, they're definitely not, now!
MichelleD Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Well, they're definitely not, now! Exactly!!
Five Solas Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 You've essentially called the man a coward without using the word, Erik. Since you didn't actually use the word, I gave you the benefit of a minimal doubt by calling it a veiled insult. You can keep trying to pee on our legs and tell us it's raining, if you like, but I'm not buying it. ... As Halconero has pointed out so ably, I'm not suggesting President Monson lacks moral agency. He certainly could do what you have suggested (or at least, he could try to do so). As I've pointed out in another reply, though, if he did so, opposing counsel would immediately object, whereupon the judge would sustain the objection, would warn President Monson that he would be held in contempt if he continued, would have him carted off to jail if he did continue, and newspapers everywhere would have front-page, above-the-fold, 72-point headlines about the "Bat Crap Crazy" Mormon President the next day (and some headlines would use that exact phrase, except, perhaps, for substituting a stronger word for the second one). That would serve no one's purposes except yours and your like-minded fellows', Erik.I'm not calling your president/prophet a coward, Kenngo. As I endeavored to make clear ( post # 512 ), I've never met the man and am unfamiliar with any of his published work (has he actually published anything that articulates his worldview/theology?). And regardless, I certainly haven't come here to insult him or accuse him of cowardice, fraud or anything else. Your ongoing insistence that you know otherwise is just plain silly. It's not like the man is cuffed in the back of a squad car, having been read his Miranda Rights and had better shut his mouth--or else. He has a wide array of options should he wish to communicate ("boldly and clearly") to the public at large on the "7 Points." Influential people do this all the time when faced with legal challenges. Just last week we were all treated to a missive by Woody Allen published in the New York Times, endeavoring to refute charges of criminal activity. (No--I'm not comparing Thomas Monson to Woody Allen--DON'T GO THERE--I'm pointing out that influential people, of whom Monson is certainly one, have many options to make their case to the public--should they actually desire to make such communication.) Hopefully that helps --Erik
Robert F. Smith Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 "I don't believe God ever chose any man to hold an office in His Church, that he might shine for his own sake, or because he was any better, in a general way, than his brethren around him. I believe there are just as good men down in the ranks as those who hold high positions. There are men serving as bishops, as high counselors, as stake presidents, who would honor the apostleship if called to it. The Lord does not give men and women high office because they are His pets or favorites, or because He wishes to honor them or their families above the rest of the people. Rather is it because He can use them in those places better than anywhere else, for the general good. He needs bishops as well as apostles. He needs good, strong men out on the frontier as presidents of stakes. All cannot be in the same place; where a man is needed, there is his proper place, and we must go where we are sent, and come when we are called." Elder Orson F. Whitney, Oct. 1910 GC, pg 100-101This is off topic, but Eric Hoffer said very much the same thing in a secular context about the day laborers and farm workers he met back in the 30s. He felt that all the talent necessary to the running of a nation was present among the seemingly ordinary bums he knew in hobo camps of that era. Jesus, I think, was also able to find great leaders among some very ordinary men. A lot of potential goes unrecognized and unused, but it is there just the same. 1
Calm Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Do you seriously believe anyone who visited Mormon Think ever thought it was a neutral site? That's nothing new. They weren't fooling anyone even before this happened.I have heard a number of investigators and questioning members who said they had the impression it was balanced. I have no reason to believe they were lying though I was amazed they didn't see the bias I did.
Calm Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) , I've never met the man and am unfamiliar with any of his published work (has he actually published anything that articulates his worldview.....http://history.lds.org/article/thomas-s-monson-testimony?lang=enghttp://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/controllers/potcController.jsp?leader=16&topic=resources Edited February 12, 2014 by calmoriah
why me Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Do you seriously believe anyone who visited Mormon Think ever thought it was a neutral site? That's nothing new. They weren't fooling anyone even before this happened.I think that at least one good thing that will come from this case is that MT will not be able to claim a neutral site status as it has been doing. Everyone on this board knew that it was not neutral but many of the critics would claim so. But now, no one with a straight face could claim so. In that, we need to thank Tom. And many members were led to believe that it was neutral site when they went to the site from the billboard campaign that MT had.
why me Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 So: this is the "President Monsoon Summonsed to British Court For Smuggling A Pistol to Joseph Smith In Carthage Illinois" thread?Is this for real?In a way it is. A part of the claim is that the church lies about its history. So, much is up for grabs in that statement. And this is the problem.
Recommended Posts