Jump to content

James huntsman (jon's brother) sues church for 'fraud'


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

How may audited financial statements for NFPs have you looked at.  I can assure you they use P&Ls.  They are different than a for profit but they still use one.

Of course they are different than for profits.  In fact they are not even called P&Ls

Here is an example for the american red cross a non profit

https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/about-us/publications/2019-publications/2019_AmericanRedCross_Financial_Statements.pdf

You wont find the term "Profit" at all on any of the Consolidate statement  You come up with a "Profit" if you want to compare changes in net fund balances.

Compare with general motors, a for profit company

https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReports/PDF/NYSE_GM_2019.pdf   (page 50)

 

My point is that non profits account for things differently that for profits.

Do you agree?

 

Link to post
15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Why do you believe there is enough oversight? And how would you even know whether or not it is enough oversight?

Because I trust the leadership in this matter and the systems they already have in place. I haven't heard anything yet to ultimately dissuade me from that position. And how would I know whether it's enough? Beats me. Show me hard evidence that it's being abused and I'll lend my ear. Why do you believe there isn't enough oversight? Because someone complains? Because you don't know where every cent goes? And how would you even know whether or not it is enough? When you were satisfied with what was reported? The bottom line for me is anyone can mount an argument against the current practices. That's their right. I can listen and consider but in the end my position is that until the 1st Presidency indicates an inspired change, I'm comfortable with the reasons they give for keeping it staying the same. And who knows, maybe the Brethren do keep their 'ears to the rails' and are willing to consider change for that reason. Of course, once that change is made, there will be a whole new group arguing for yet a new shift. And many of those who were satisfied with the first change will then wring their hands with the newer suggestions and so on, and so on, and so on... And here's the clincher, those wringing their hands will no longer have a leg to stand on.

As an aside, I wonder how many of us would have made the trek across the plains with what probably seemed to be so much willy-nilly, patriarchal decision-making exclusivity. I don't think I would have even made it to Nauvoo... ; )

Link to post
24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I believe that consolidated financial statements of the entire church, including all assets and corporate holdings, should be publicly available. I believe that about all churches and non-profits that solicit donations or receive tax breaks.

We don't really solicit for funds.  That stopped when we ended our association with the Boy Scouts as friends of scouting.  Now we just tell outsiders that our Lord has commanded us to pay tithes and help to support the poor and the needy, and the latter can be done without giving money.  So you won't see any of us knocking on your door to ask for money.  Except for those of us who are also Girl Scouts trying to sell cookies.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I am also in favor of using best practices in preparing those statements, including whatever confidentiality rules that would be applicable.

I am okay with that too.

Link to post

Just so we are speaking accurately here, Currently the church and churches are not required to pay income Tax on their exempt purpose revenues.

They are required to pay

1.     payroll taxes

2.    UBIT (unrelated buisness income tax) on unrelated business income

Some property and purchase may be subject to sales tax and property taxes  (It depends on the jurisdiction and the particular sales and property involved)

 

I am sure the church pays out a lot of payroll taxes.

I have had to deal with clients who are not profit organization and churches who have owed quite a bit on payroll taxes to the IRS.  In fact, a payroll tax audit is usually where they end up getting in trouble with the IRS and state taxing authorities. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I believe that consolidated financial statements of the entire church, including all assets and corporate holdings, should be publicly available. I believe that about all churches and non-profits that solicit donations or receive tax breaks.

I am also in favor of using best practices in preparing those statements, including whatever confidentiality rules that would be applicable.

However, the D&C says in Section 42 that contributions to the church are final and cannot be retrieved.  By implication, one can't question what is done with them.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You misunderstand me.  That is not my argument for a rainy day fund.  I firmly believe that the rainy day fund exists to serve and provide for God's children and to bring about His purposes, which always benefit all people.  But I consider the needs of future generations to be worth the same as the needs of this one.  

And I reject the idea that anyone without prophetic ability and authority to work in His kingdom can claim that 100B won't be needed to benefit all people at some future point.

I don't think I was projecting the rainy day fund argument onto you, but was rather seeing how others might be critical of the rainy day fund argument. 

Link to post
51 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Because I trust the leadership in this matter and the systems they already have in place. I haven't heard anything yet to ultimately dissuade me from that position. And how would I know whether it's enough? Beats me. Show me hard evidence that it's being abused and I'll lend my ear. Why do you believe there isn't enough oversight? Because someone complains? Because you don't know where every cent goes? And how would you even know whether or not it is enough? When you were satisfied with what was reported? The bottom line for me is anyone can mount an argument against the current practices. That's their right. I can listen and consider but in the end my position is that until the 1st Presidency indicates an inspired change, I'm comfortable with the reasons they give for keeping it staying the same. And who knows, maybe the Brethren do keep their 'ears to the rails' and are willing to consider change for that reason. Of course, once that change is made, there will be a whole new group arguing for yet a new shift. And many of those who were satisfied with the first change will then wring their hands with the newer suggestions and so on, and so on, and so on... And here's the clincher, those wringing their hands will no longer have a leg to stand on.

As an aside, I wonder how many of us would have made the trek across the plains with what probably seemed to be so much willy-nilly, patriarchal decision-making exclusivity. I don't think I would have even made it to Nauvoo... ; )

Right. So without evidence to the contrary, you will assume the level of oversight is sufficient?

Link to post
1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Right. So without evidence to the contrary, you will assume the level of oversight is sufficient?

Right. What about my questions for you?

Link to post
1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Of course they are different than for profits.  In fact they are not even called P&Ls

Here is an example for the american red cross a non profit

https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/about-us/publications/2019-publications/2019_AmericanRedCross_Financial_Statements.pdf

You wont find the term "Profit" at all on any of the Consolidate statement  You come up with a "Profit" if you want to compare changes in net fund balances.

Compare with general motors, a for profit company

https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReports/PDF/NYSE_GM_2019.pdf   (page 50)

 

My point is that non-profits account for things differently than for-profits.

Do you agree?

 

 

Link to post
6 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Right. What about my questions for you?

Why do I believe there isn't enough oversight? 

I don't know if there is enough oversight. There is not enough transparency to know if there is enough oversight.

  • Like 2
Link to post
17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't think I was projecting the rainy day fund argument onto you, but was rather seeing how others might be critical of the rainy day fund argument. 

You said:  Essentially the argument for a rainy day fund is that, financially, the Lord's church needs to be preserved first and foremost.

I haven't seen anyone make that argument.  But I could easily have missed it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Why do I believe there isn't enough oversight? 

I don't know if there is enough oversight. There is not enough transparency to know if there is enough oversight.

Since the 15 are only getting paid a relatively modest yearly stipend, especially when compared to the monies and benefits paid out to similarly placed high level corporate executives, I’m wondering what their motivation would be to get the Church into an advantageous financial position? Could it be they’re motivated to make the most of the Church contributions — while also being prudent with the same, because it’s the right thing to do? Does the Lord’s ‘parable of the talents’ ring a bell?

A prediction: One day a lot of complainers are going to wind up with egg all over their faces.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, teddyaware said:

A prediction: One day a lot of complainers are going to wind up with egg all over their faces.

Or perhaps someday, sooner or later, the discretionary powers are used in a corrupt manner by someone with access. It doesn't have to be someone who is called to leadership, just someone with access. Transparency helps to prevent such things.

Link to post
24 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Or perhaps someday, sooner or later, the discretionary powers are used in a corrupt manner by someone with access. It doesn't have to be someone who is called to leadership, just someone with access. Transparency helps to prevent such things.

Those at the top of the chain of command can see what is going on at every level.  Those at or near the bottom don't need to see as much or even at all for the people at the top to still be able to see all that they see. 

What I see looks like a lot of complaining from people at or near the bottom.  And I can also see that the people at the top are doing a good job.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Danzo said:

Although I don't have time to completely review all tax law cases, we can at least start with the supreme court decision in

Thor Power Tool v. Commissioner, 439 U.S. 522 (1979)

"There is no presumption that an inventory practice conformable to "generally accepted accounting principles" is valid for tax purposes. Such a presumption is insupportable m light of the statute, this Court's past decisions, and the differing objectives of tax and financial accounting."

You are right, that GAAP can be used as a starting point, but the tax code often requires deviation.

I am sure you are familiar with the M-1 Reconciliation for corporate and Partnership tax returns.

A full treatment of the subject may be beyond the ability of this forum.

Yes. I am familiar with the M-1/M-3 schedules for business tax returns. Also tax provision/accrual work.  I Am a CPA that specializes in tax law.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Danzo said:

Of course they are different than for profits.  In fact they are not even called P&Ls

Here is an example for the american red cross a non profit

https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/about-us/publications/2019-publications/2019_AmericanRedCross_Financial_Statements.pdf

You wont find the term "Profit" at all on any of the Consolidate statement  You come up with a "Profit" if you want to compare changes in net fund balances.

Compare with general motors, a for profit company

https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReports/PDF/NYSE_GM_2019.pdf   (page 50)

 

My point is that non profits account for things differently that for profits.

Do you agree?

 

Of course I agree. As noted I am a CPA though NFPs are not my specialty.  Taxes are.

Link to post
1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Since the 15 are only getting paid a relatively modest yearly stipend, especially when compared to the monies and benefits paid out to similarly placed high level corporate executives, I’m wondering what their motivation would be to get the Church into an advantageous financial position? Could it be they’re motivated to make the most of the Church contributions — while also being prudent with the same, because it’s the right thing to do? Does the Lord’s ‘parable of the talents’ ring a bell?

A prediction: One day a lot of complainers are going to wind up with egg all over their faces.

They aren't quite executives, IMO.

Link to post
59 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Of course I agree. As noted I am a CPA though NFPs are not my specialty.  Taxes are.

I specialize in taxes as well, EA and admitted to the US Tax court Bar.

I guess we are both crazy to be paying attention to these message boards at this time of year.

Good thing they gave us an extra month this year.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ha, nice one!

Just to clarify, the pay cut only applies to those at the Vatican. My diocese hasn't had any pay cuts (but we also got money from the PPP, so that probably helped).

Only churchmen such as cardinals had a pay cut. The lay workers did not. 
 

On another note, ideas about taxation on this thread make me laugh out loud.  GAAP?  Really?   
All charities in the US at least, pay taxes on business income that’s not directly connected to the charity’s purposes. This applies to churches as well. The LDS church changed a lot of policies regarding fund raising and other things, as a result of this law.  I’m sure the LDS church is incorporated separately in all countries where it has a presence to isolate the main church HQ here in the US from other nation’s laws. I think Canada requires some public reporting of finances.

At some level, it would be good to know some details of Church finances. But it’s not hard to see why it had to go dark. Huntsman’s lawsuit is just a ploy to get “discovery” so that the Church will be forced disclose financial information. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

They aren't quite executives, IMO.

They are having to deal with a tremendous workload, especially for men of such advanced age. But my point is if it’s  greed that’s motivating the Church leaders to want to amass large sums of money and capital in the name of the Church, it sure doesn’t look like that purported greed is enriching them personally in any significant way.

You see, if the Church leaders actually believe the Church is true, and therefore believe the prophecies of our scriptures are true — and I believe they do — then they clearly understand all hell is about to break loose now that it’s become so painfully obvious the world is in the process of fully ripening in iniquity. I have perfect faith that the leaders know that the Church will need as much capital, holdings and resources as possible in order to make it possible for the kingdom of God to fulfill the prophecies by bringing the faithful safely through the prophesied great and terrible day of tribulation.

The only way all the carping of the complainers on this thread could possibly make any real sense is if the Church actually isn’t true, and prophesied natural disasters, societal cataclysms and an entire world swept up in bloody armed conflict, are nothing more than figments of febrile imaginations. But if the prophecies are true, a paltry 100 billion dollars isn’t nearly enough to do what will need to be done to rescue the righteous of the world from the attacks of the great whore of all they earth and build the Zion of peace and safety throughout the world.

What you are witnessing on this thread is what happens when otherwise intelligent people lack the Spirit of revelation; being left to their own devises they cannot see afar off. Many there be that will rue the day they put aside the counsels of the Lord’s anointed as a thing of naught. Mark my word...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
On 3/23/2021 at 2:10 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

I can't imagine this case will go anywhere but it does bring up some interesting questions. I think most people pay tithing with the expectation that the funds will be used to build up the church in religious ways; Temples, chapels, missions etc. Most people don't expect their donation to be placed into investments for highrise housing in Philadelphia or malls or cattle farms etc. IMO the church can do whatever it wants to with donated monies but that doesn't change the fact that the use of funds may not meet the donor's expectations. That's a PR issue and I think the church is responsible for creating those expectations. How many lessons have we heard about tithing and its uses? Rarely, if ever is it taught that donations will go into a massive investment structure and that the church will function primarily on the annual returns from those investments. I wish I could finance my life that way but I don't think most people expect the church to function that way.

The issue of the Corporation Sole is interesting. Legally there is no Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church is essentially a trademark with legal entities surrounding it controlled by 1 person.

 

Has someone confirmed that 1/7 of the tithe we pay goes to the Ensign Peak advisors investment fund? 

What are the primary documents the whistleblower used to show the 1/7 diversion of tithing funds in the 19-Dec-2019 WaPo article? 

"The church typically collects about $7 billion each year in contributions from members, according to the complaint. Mormons, like members of some other faith groups, are asked to contribute 10 percent of their income to the church, a practice known as tithing.

While about $6 billion of that income is used to cover annual operating costs, the remaining $1 billion or so is transferred to Ensign, which plows some into an investment portfolio to generate returns, according to the complaint."

In the responses by directors of Ensign peak I don't see anywhere a denial that 1/7 of tithes are diverted to the stock portfolio.  The official response by the church confirms "The Church complies with all applicable law governing our donations, investments, taxes, and reserves.)  Ensign Peak does not pay taxes on the returns received from investments in Apple, Tesla and Gamestop.  +$11B this year.  According to what I understand you have to take this up with your congressmxn as of right now the church is only obligated to donate $1.00/10years on charitable or educational purposes to be fully compliant with the laws of our country.  Although set up as a rainy day fund they are also not obligated by any current laws to spend money from these reserve investments during a pandemic or the 2008 housing crisis. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post

We know Huntsman Sr bought the Gulfstream private jet and donated it to the church for charitable, educational, and religious purposes such as transporting apostles to personally administer sacred ordinances.  So James Huntsman was a personal witness that you can control directly how the donated money is spent but you have to gift it for a specific purpose to the Deseret Trust Company and negotiate a contract.

 

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...