Was Tithing Used to Fund City Creek?

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, tulip said:

There are malls in Salt Lake City.  

If I own a mall, and Walmart is my anchor tenant, I'm probably not catering to the same clientele who patronizes Tiffany's, et cetera, at City Creek.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Hinckley is absolutely right in this. The Church of Jesus Christ is not a tax-supported entity. Its financials are not the business of those who do not make donations. If you don’t trust the Church to use the money properly, don’t donate. Very simple.

As a taxpayer, I believe I have the right to know that a tax exempt organization is conducting itself appropriately.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Thinking said:

As a taxpayer, I believe I have the right to know that a tax exempt organization is conducting itself appropriately.

Do you know of any case law that has found that a taxpayer has standing to demand the financials of a tax-exempt organization because the taxpayer wants to know if that organization "is conducting itself appropriately?"

Do you have any evidence that the LDS Church is not "conducting itself appropriately?"  Any investigations by the IRS?  Any adverse findings?  

Have you read D. Michael Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power (discussed at some length here), which provides quite a bit of information about the Church's finances?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If I own a mall, and Walmart is my anchor tenant, I'm probably not catering to the same clientele who patronizes Tiffany's, et cetera, at City Creek.

True. What kind of client do you think the City Creek Mall, adjacent to Temple Square, is trying to attract?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

As a taxpayer, I believe I have the right to know that a tax exempt organization is conducting itself appropriately.

Did you take any income tax deductions for last year? If so, as a taxpayer I am entitled to view your financials so I can determine if you claimed the deductions appropriately. Please send me your tax return for last year. PM me and I’ll give you an address where you can send it. 

[Thinking]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you know of any case law that has found that a taxpayer has standing to demand the financials of a tax-exempt organization because the taxpayer wants to know if that organization "is conducting itself appropriately?"

No. However, I still believe that I should have a right to that knowledge.

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you have any evidence that the LDS Church is not "conducting itself appropriately?"  Any investigations by the IRS?  Any adverse findings?

No, but you know as well as any poster on this board that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Have you read D. Michael Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power (discussed at some length here), which provides quite a bit of information about the Church's finances?

No.

 

[Thinking]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did you take any income tax deductions for last year? If so, as a taxpayer I am entitled to view your financials so I can determine if you claimed the deductions appropriately. Please send me your tax return for last year. PM me and I’ll give you an address where you can send it. 

Apples & Oranges

First, I am an individual and the Church is a corporation (by its own admission).

Second, being exempt from paying taxes is quite different from taking a deduction on a personal income tax return.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

That's fine, you don't have to answer.  I think it's axiomatic that a church of all organizations should publicly disclose what it is doing with the Lord's money so all can see the Lord's servants in action and learn therefrom.  What a blessing it would be to see the inner workings of the Lord's church and how the Lord runs his finances.  I'm sure it would be faith-promoting.

The anointed prophets and apostles are accountable to the Lord for the expenditure of His money, not to you. 

And call me skeptical,  but I’m not in the least persuaded by your pronouncements about what a blessing and how faith promoting it would be for you if the Church were to open its financials to you and other hostile critics. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Apples & Oranges

First, I am an individual and the Church is a corporation (by its own admission).

Second, being exempt from paying taxes is quite different from taking a deduction on a personal income tax return.

I think your reasoning, to the extent it is valid, applies in both instances. 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Thinking said:

No. However, I still believe that I should have a right to that knowledge.

No, but you know as well as any poster on this board that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

 

When an accusation is made, there is a presumption of innocence. The burden is thus on the accuser. Our legal system is based on that concept. 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Quote

Do you know of any case law that has found that a taxpayer has standing to demand the financials of a tax-exempt organization because the taxpayer wants to know if that organization "is conducting itself appropriately?"

No. However, I still believe that I should have a right to that knowledge.

Could you explain the source of this "right?"  Is it a constitutional right?  A federal statute or case law?  A state statute or case law?  Common law?

You are invoking a legal argument (that your status as a taxpayer gives you a "right"), so I'm curious as to what law you have in mind.

Quote

Quote

Do you have any evidence that the LDS Church is not "conducting itself appropriately?"  Any investigations by the IRS?  Any adverse findings?

No, but you know as well as any poster on this board that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Then what are your thoughts about such concepts as "presumed innocent?"  "Benefit of the doubt?"

You admit that you have no evidence of wrongdoing, yet you presume that wrongdoing is afoot.  That seems to be . . . prejudiced.

Imagine a store manager stopping a black man from leaving and asking him to empty his pockets.  "Why?" the man asks.  "As an employee of this store, I believe I have a right to determine if you have shoplifted anything from this store," the manger responds.  "But why are you making this demand of me?  Do you have any evidence or reasonable suspicion that I have shoplifted?"  "No," the manager admits, "but you know as well as any other black person shopping in this store that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  So let's see what you've got."

Can you understand why this shopper might be justified in opposing the manager's request (particularly since it's a request founded in the law)?

I'm trying to be respectful here, but can you see how your request is prejudiced, or at least looks an awful lot like it?

Quote

Quote

Have you read D. Michael Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power (discussed at some length here), which provides quite a bit of information about the Church's finances?

No.

May I ask why not?  You claim you want to know if the Church "is conducting itself appropriately," yet you haven't even bothered to read an extensive book on the subject that was published many months ago.

-Smac

Edited May 25, 2018 by smac97

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The anointed prophets and apostles are accountable to the Lord for the expenditure of His money, not to you. 

And call me skeptical,  but I’m not in the least persuaded by your pronouncements about what a blessing and how faith promoting it would be for you if the Church were to open its financials to you and other hostile critics. 

I don't expect you to admit this but if there is nothing to hide, then there is nothing to worry about, regardless of how vile and underhanded (conveniently) you may think critics are.  Also, this is a church we are talking about and should be treated differently on this subject.  But, I confess that I don't have the trusting attitude you have and don't assume trustworthiness until proven.  A lack of disclosure in this area raises suspicions for me but obviously not for you and others here.

[Exiled]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When an accusation is made, there is a presumption of innocence. The burden is thus on the accuser. Our legal system is based on that concept. 

Our legal system also allows discovery, except in this case, as the law protects the non-disclosure of church finances. 

Maybe I should take the advice of the gipper when he was dealing with the USSR back in the day?  He said "trust but verify."  So, let's give the church the benefit of the doubt as we work through their financial records and see how wrong the critics obviously are?  However, without verification, the criticisms unfortunately remain.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

we work through their financial records

We sure do seem to be taking a lot upon us.

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

We sure do seem to be taking a lot upon us.

It's all part of the plan, my brother, part of the plan.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Our legal system also allows discovery, except in this case, as the law protects the non-disclosure of church finances. 

Yes.  But our legal system does not allow for "fishing expeditions."

“[D]iscovery is not allowed when the party opposing the motion for summary judgment is merely on a fishing expedition.”  Grand County v. Rogers, 2000 WL 33250071, *2 (Utah App., 2000).

“[A] complaint alleging fraud should be filed only after a wrong is reasonably believed to have occurred; it should serve to seek redress for a wrong, not to find one.” Segal v. Gordon, 467 F.2d 602, 607–08 (2d Cir.1972); cf. Downtown Athletic Club v. Horman, 740 P.2d 275, 278 (Utah Ct.App.1987) (explaining that in determining whether to grant an extension to permit discovery prior to hearing a motion for summary judgment, the trial court should consider whether the facts sought through discovery are merely speculative). 

And then there's the whole "standing" issue.

Quote

Maybe I should take the advice of the gipper when he was dealing with the USSR back in the day?  He said "trust but verify."  So, let's give the church the benefit of the doubt as we work through their financial records and see how wrong the critics obviously are?  However, without verification, the criticisms unfortunately remain.

You first.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but still insist that you upload your financials.

Unless, of course, I lack standing to present such a demand.  In which case "trust, but verify" falls apart.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 25, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It's all part of the plan, my brother, part of the plan.

Are you willing to pay the expenses associated with accommodating your request for "work through their financial records?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  But our legal system does not allow for "fishing expeditions."

“[D]iscovery is not allowed when the party opposing the motion for summary judgment is merely on a fishing expedition.”  Grand County v. Rogers, 2000 WL 33250071, *2 (Utah App., 2000).

“[A] complaint alleging fraud should be filed only after a wrong is reasonably believed to have occurred; it should serve to seek redress for a wrong, not to find one.” Segal v. Gordon, 467 F.2d 602, 607–08 (2d Cir.1972); cf. Downtown Athletic Club v. Horman, 740 P.2d 275, 278 (Utah Ct.App.1987) (explaining that in determining whether to grant an extension to permit discovery prior to hearing a motion for summary judgment, the trial court should consider whether *1086 the facts sought through discovery are merely speculative). 

And then there's the whole "standing" issue.

You first.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but still insist that you upload your financials.

Unless, of course, I lack standing to present such a demand.  In which case "trust, but verify" falls apart.

Thanks,

-Smac

Churches that proclaim to be in God's service are different than you and me, especially when they get tax breaks and still don't have to disclose.

[The Mean Farmer]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Is that an opinion, or a statement of fact based on a knowledge of the financial records of the Church? If the latter, CFR.

 

Goodness,  listen to the arguement.

TCOJCOLDS is likely a multi-billion dollar entity.  And you want me to back up a claim that they didn't use my childrens pennies and destitute widows donations to build a CCM?   Really?  

 

Why in the world WOULD they these or other current, reserve,  or held tithing funds...when there is money in non-tithing entities pay for it all.  Or at least the revenue stream of non-tithing entities allowed them to pay or finance it WITHOUT tithing funds.   

That possibility is insanely more likely than the theory that the Church wanted an extravagant building next door to HQ and were willing to spend current donations to get it.  President Hinckley was that one who stopped Church employees from spending on their own credit cards and being reimbursed because he didn't like the idea of people getting travel points or cash back based on how sacred he viewed the tithing funds.

 

Keep gnawing at the bone.  My opinion is the theory doesn't have much merit.

 

 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Churches that proclaim to be in God's service are different than you and me, especially when they get tax breaks and still don't have to disclose.

And the "transparency for thee, but not for me" train trudges ever onward!

"Churches ... are different than you and me."  Well no.  You get tax breaks for charitable contributions, yet that doesn't mean that I have standing to demand that you disclose your financials to me.

So which is it?  Are you going to present your financials at the demand of someone who has no basis for his demand, and no standing to present his demand?  Or are you going to continue to add a garage and mother-in-law apartment onto that great big Double Standard mansion you've been building?

-Smac

Edited May 25, 2018 by smac97

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you willing to pay the expenses associated with accommodating your request for "work through their financial records?"

Thanks,

-Smac

If I had a case against the church and punitive damages were at issue, I would start the process of financial discovery and would expect a greater chance at a nice settlement offer should the judge grant my motion to compel, especially if a protective order didn't accompany the order granting my motion to compel.  haha.

In any event, have the church pay an independent accounting firm to do the auditing and make the audit public.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

I don't expect you to admit this but if there is nothing to hide, then there is nothing to worry about,

If you are going to stick with this argument, you'll need to upload all of your financials.  After all, "if there is nothing to hide..."

Quote

Also, this is a church we are talking about and should be treated differently on this subject. 

No, it shouldn't.

Boy, trading unsubstantiated, because-I-say-so assertions is fun!

Quote

But, I confess that I don't have the trusting attitude you have and don't assume trustworthiness until proven. 

If you are going to stick with this argument, you'll need to upload all of your financials.  After all, we should not "assume trustworthiness until proven."

So prove it.

Quote

A lack of disclosure in this area raises suspicions for me but obviously not for you and others here.

If you are going to stick with this argument, you'll need to upload all of your financials.  Your lack of disclosure raises suspicions for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 25, 2018 by smac97

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And the "transparency for thee, but not for me" train trudges ever onward!

"Churches ... are different than you and me."  Well no.  You get tax breaks for charitable contributions, yet that doesn't mean that I have standing to demand that you disclose your financials to me.

So which is it?  Are you going to present your financials at the demand of someone who has no basis for his demand, and no standing to present his demand?  Or are you going to continue to add a garage and mother-in-law apartment onto that great big Double Standard mansion you've been building?

-Smac

Charities and churches are different from private individuals and private business.  There is a competitive advantage to keeping costs structures and revenue streams private but that doesn't apply to charities and churches that supposedly aren't competing with the outside world, except certain churches that compete with its own members regarding disclosure.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

If I had a case against the church and punitive damages were at issue,

Then you might have standing.  And that's a very tenouous "might."

But as it is, you don't have a case, and hence don't have standing.

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

In any event, have the church pay an independent accounting firm to do the auditing and make the audit public.

Oh.  "Have the church pay," huh?  Mighty generous of ya.

I will, once again, point to this article: The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency

A relevant excerpt:

Quote

What Would It Cost?

I’m on the tax side of the accounting spectrum, so I haven’t actually priced out an audit, nor do I know enough about the LDS Church’s financial structure to come up with an good price even if I had experience. Based on the many audit bills I’ve seen, though I would expect a full audit to publicly release the LDS Church’s financial statements to cost at least $1 million more than whatever services the LDS Church is already paying for right now. That’s $1 million to, at best, scratch a bit of curiosity. There’s no way you’ll convince me that can’t be better spent elsewhere.

Even if the number is not that high, it would not be zero. From a cost/benefit analysis, I fail to see any benefit generated that would support all but the smallest of costs.

So, are you willing to "pay an independent accounting firm to do the auditing?"

It's your curiosity.  Are you willing to pay to scratch it?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Charities and churches are different from private individuals and private business. 

Not in any sense that is relevant here.  

Quote

There is a competitive advantage to keeping costs structures and revenue streams private but that doesn't apply to charities and churches that supposedly aren't competing with the outside world, except certain churches that compete with its own members regarding disclosure.

It's quite clear that you are just making this stuff up as you go along.  I get that.  But still, I'll go along with it for the moment.  Can you point to any case law that says you have a right to demand the Church's financials?

And you ignored my questions.  Here they are again: Are you going to present your financials at the demand of someone who has no basis for his demand, and no standing to present his demand?  Or are you going to continue to add a garage and mother-in-law apartment onto that great big Double Standard mansion you've been building?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 25, 2018 by smac97