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

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

That isn’t what the Constitution says, and it isn’t how the Supreme Court interprets the matter.

Given that you disagree, why won’t you answer my question? If freedom of religion means it is unconstitutional to tax religions, why doesn’t freedom of press mean it’s unconstitutional to tax book stores?

A bookstore is a business, not a religion.  You might want to take a course in Constitutional Law, and perhaps read the Supreme Court Reporter.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Supreme Court decisions are principles which are applicable in a wide array of instances.  These include the taxing of religion since it is a Bill of Rights matter (1st Amend).  That's how the Law works.

Nope. If the First Amendment freedoms were freedom from any form of taxation than news organizations would be inherently non-taxable which is not the case. Why does freedom of religion get this protection while freedom of the press does not?

I agree with you that the religious and non-profit tax exemptions are a good thing but they are not defended by the constitution. They were created by legislative action. They can be repealed as well.

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There has not been and will not be a case where the U.S. Govt or the States may tax a religion.  Anyone may of course hem and haw about that all they want.

There won't be a case for it or there won't be a ruling in favor of it? Two different things. In both cases though you are wrong. The Church of Scientology fought against many of its components being taxed and lost.....repeatedly.

Eventually the IRS cut a controversial deal which is probably illegal itself.

[JustAnAustralian]

If you really want to take a deep dive into taxation of religions and the religious, check out Sam Brunson's book "God and the IRS".

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Nope. If the First Amendment freedoms were freedom from any form of taxation than news organizations would be inherently non-taxable which is not the case. Why does freedom of religion get this protection while freedom of the press does not?

Religion and business are inherently different, and the 1st Amendment contains different verbiage:

Religion:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Press: "Congress shall make no law ...........abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I agree with you that the religious and non-profit tax exemptions are a good thing but they are not defended by the constitution. They were created by legislative action. They can be repealed as well.

Constitutions may be changed, but only with great difficulty.  Legislation must comport with the Constitution.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

There won't be a case for it or there won't be a ruling in favor of it? Two different things. In both cases though you are wrong.

Religion cannot be taxed and will not be.  At least in the USA.  Like most Americans, you have no idea what that means.  Luckily, the judges do.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The Church of Scientology fought against many of its components being taxed and lost.....repeatedly.

Eventually the IRS cut a controversial deal which is probably illegal itself.

The question there was whether Scientology is actually a religion, or a MLM scheme.  Scientology undercover agents penetrated the IRS and forced the govt to acquiesce.  Might makes right.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Religion and business are inherently different, and the 1st Amendment contains different verbiage:

Religion:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Press: "Congress shall make no law ...........abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

Constitutions may be changed, but only with great difficulty.  Legislation must comport with the Constitution.

Religion cannot be taxed and will not be.  At least in the USA.  Like most Americans, you have no idea what that means.  Luckily, the judges do.

The question there was whether Scientology is actually a religion, or a MLM scheme.  Scientology undercover agents penetrated the IRS and forced the govt to acquiesce.  Might makes right.

https://www.theonion.com/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-consti-1819571149

[Metis_LDS]

The Church pays tax on the UK Temples because they are not places of public worship. They tried to get an exemption but could not.

[CV75]

From the horse's mouth:

"Congress has enacted special tax laws that apply to churches, religious organizations and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business."

Source: this very helpful publication: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by CV75

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Religion cannot be taxed and will not be.  At least in the USA.  Like most Americans, you have no idea what that means.  Luckily, the judges do.

That's simply not true. As we've already discussed, there are lots of taxes that churches do in fact pay, and there are hoops that churches must jump through in order to avoid other taxes. For example, if a church engages in "substantial" lobbying activity, it loses its tax exempt status.

If you are interested in the reality of how churches are in fact taxed, see: Publication 1828 (Rev. 8-2015) Catalog Number 21096G Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service www.irs.gov

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, Danzo said:

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.

I think we both agree that GAAP is the starting point for net income with book to tax differences for adjustments from there.  Was not aware of the tax court case you referred to.  

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Ahab said:

Rich?  For a global society?  Hmm.  You really think so?  Just curious, how much money do you think we should keep stored away, untouched, to be used only for catastrophic events, while giving everything above that level to others?

$100 Billion plus all the other assets is filthy rich. The wealthiest people in the world are in this range.  The Church has about as much in easily liquid assets as Apple. So yea. RICH.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Extremely good point.  Churches ought to be taxed like everybody else.  However, charitable contributions are not income.  

Charitable contributions are not income to the charity simply due to tax law, which can be changed.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

 

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.

D&C 42 has no force on anyone other than those who accept it.

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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...

And one can also argue that what we are seeing on this thread is the perilous piety of the overtly religious that think they really know God's will when they really don't.  Nobody does. Doomsday prophecy has been around forever and ever.  I am not worried.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The question there was whether Scientology is actually a religion, or a MLM scheme.  Scientology undercover agents penetrated the IRS and forced the govt to acquiesce.  Might makes right.

Well there you go.  Maybe a similar argument could be made for the LDS Church? 😏

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

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.

You mean lower level works like the Quorum of 12, right? They can't see everything either. 

I really have to wonder why so many people are opposed to transparency. 

15 hours 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.

Are you truly wanting to compare the top ecclesiastical leaders of the church with corporate executives? I kind of doubt that.

What happens if we compare church leadership income with church leadership income of other denominations. (I'm not talking about televangelists with their jets and yachts etc- I'm talking mainstream larger denominations like southern Baptist conference, United Methodist, Episcopal, Catholic etc. Or even non-Christian faith leaders.) I have no idea how much $$ top leadership make in these other groups. Does anyone know? I imagine that info is available out there. Remember, the only reason we know how much LDS church leadership makes is because of leaks, not because the church disclosed that info.

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

That's simply not true. As we've already discussed, there are lots of taxes that churches do in fact pay, and there are hoops that churches must jump through in order to avoid other taxes. For example, if a church engages in "substantial" lobbying activity, it loses its tax exempt status.

If you are interested in the reality of how churches are in fact taxed, see: Publication 1828 (Rev. 8-2015) Catalog Number 21096G Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service www.irs.gov

So, a church is not taxed on its religious practices (tithing, collections, contributions, etc.), but on unrelated activity that generates taxable income. Granted the laws, rules, regulations, definitions etc. are very complex, so it seems to me that the enforcement structures are more appropriate controls than transparency in ensuring legal compliance.

[CA Steve]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I really have to wonder why so many people are opposed to transparency

I do not think most are really opposed to transparency, they just feel the need to defend any perceived criticism of the Church.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You mean lower level works like the Quorum of 12, right? They can't see everything either. 

I really have to wonder why so many people are opposed to transparency. 

Are you truly wanting to compare the top ecclesiastical leaders of the church with corporate executives? I kind of doubt that.

What happens if we compare church leadership income with church leadership income of other denominations. (I'm not talking about televangelists with their jets and yachts etc- I'm talking mainstream larger denominations like southern Baptist conference, United Methodist, Episcopal, Catholic etc. Or even non-Christian faith leaders.) I have no idea how much $$ top leadership make in these other groups. Does anyone know? I imagine that info is available out there. Remember, the only reason we know how much LDS church leadership makes is because of leaks, not because the church disclosed that info.

 

A couple I've found after brief searches-

- Catholic Cardinals-  $68,000                                                         Priest- $25-50,000

- United Methodist Bishops- $160,000                                           Pastors- $50-75,000

- Southern Baptist Convention President- $500,000  🤔              Pastor- $40-60,000

- Episcopal Bishop - $100,000                                                          Priest- $50-70,000

 

I thought those numbers were interesting. The SBC president definitely earned some negative attention when it was learned how much he was making.

[Analytics]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So, a church is not taxed on its religious practices (tithing, collections, contributions, etc.), but on unrelated activity that generates taxable income. Granted the laws, rules, regulations, definitions etc. are very complex, so it seems to me that the enforcement structures are more appropriate controls than transparency in ensuring legal compliance.

Yes, transparency is a terrible control for whether an entity is complying with the tax code.

I've argued on this thread that the point of financial transparency is to give donors and potential donors enough information to make an informed decision about what they are donating too. If an organization already has a rainy day fund that is by all accounts several times bigger than what experts say is prudent, and if that same organization is directing around 50% of its annual income towards further enlarging that fund, a donor might rightly question whether his charity dollars could be put to better use elsewhere. Or not. If the Church thinks it needs to save up a trillion dollars to rescue the world's righteous when Armageddon comes, let the world know that's what they are doing so that those who have ears to hear can feel good about contributing to the cause. 

I've also pointed out that a large group of Christian churches argue in favor of transparency because it helps them deal with the "temptation to acquire assets as their lasting goal." 

[Analytics]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A couple I've found after brief searches-

- Catholic Cardinals-  $68,000                                                         Priest- $25-50,000

- United Methodist Bishops- $160,000                                           Pastors- $50-75,000

- Southern Baptist Convention President- $500,000  🤔              Pastor- $40-60,000

- Episcopal Bishop - $100,000                                                          Priest- $50-70,000

 

I thought those numbers were interesting. The SBC president definitely earned some negative attention when it was learned how much he was making.

About 20 years ago I asked this question to the Billy Graham association, and was told by his personal assistant that he made $200,000. That was a total flat amount and there was no additional compensation for living allowances, book royalties, speaker fees, etc.

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Religion:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

You know, I've often wondered if that word "an" is a typo and the founding fathers might have meant "the" instead.
It would completely change the intent.  They wanted freedom of religious practice, the freedom to be a member of any religion.  Did they really mean for there to be no laws about Churches at all?

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Yes, transparency is a terrible control for whether an entity is complying with the tax code.

I've argued on this thread that the point of financial transparency is to give donors and potential donors enough information to make an informed decision about what they are donating too. If an organization already has a rainy day fund that is by all accounts several times bigger than what experts say is prudent, and if that same organization is directing around 50% of its annual income towards further enlarging that fund, a donor might rightly question whether his charity dollars could be put to better use elsewhere. Or not. If the Church thinks it needs to save up a trillion dollars to rescue the world's righteous when Armageddon comes, let the world know that's what they are doing so that those who have ears to hear can feel good about contributing to the cause. 

I've also pointed out that a large group of Christian churches argue in favor of transparency because it helps them deal with the "temptation to acquire assets as their lasting goal." 

Where in the world did this (bolded part!) come from?

Doctrinally, tithing and fast offerings are not "donations," which is a term used (or appropriated) for tax technicalities. Where these offerings are a matter of faith, it seems to me there would be an inverse relationship between faith and the expectation of transparency. And yes, people assess their participation as a matter of faith (I would hope).

If the Church was in the business of collecting donations, perhaps she would benefit from transparency, or even "transparency." 

I think transparency is as good a control for temptation as it is for compliance --  -- but if it helps a particular subset of clergy, who decide they need it to maintain their priorities, it can be a good thing.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

You know, I've often wondered if that word "an" is a typo and the founding fathers might have meant "the" instead.
It would completely change the intent.  They wanted freedom of religious practice, the freedom to be a member of any religion.  Did they really mean for there to be no laws about Churches at all?

The reference to "an establishment of religion" is a direct reference to the Church of England, which had the power to tax and exercise civil legal control on the populace.  The Anglican Church was the formally established religion, and the Founding Fathers wanted to exorcise that and open society up to whatever religion (or no religion) anyone wanted.  Colonial America was filled with a wide variety of religious groups, many of which had come specifically to find religious freedom.

The good thing about this new opening up was that the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ could now be preached without any legal obstacles (which does not protect against illegal obstacles).

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

That's simply not true. As we've already discussed, there are lots of taxes that churches do in fact pay, and there are hoops that churches must jump through in order to avoid other taxes. For example, if a church engages in "substantial" lobbying activity, it loses its tax exempt status.

If you are interested in the reality of how churches are in fact taxed, see: Publication 1828 (Rev. 8-2015) Catalog Number 21096G Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service www.irs.gov

None of that means that a Church may in fact be taxed.  Church owned businesses can be taxed, and that is an accepted norm.  Those businesses are not churches.  Churches are restricted to religious activity, which means that they may of course lobby in favor of this or that moral or ethical legislation, but they may not engage in party politics in support of particular candidates.  IRS publications and practices simply seek to systematize those rules.  That is nothing new, and it does not mean that churches are taxed.  When conflicts arise over how to apply such rules, they are settled in court, not on a blog thread.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

https://www.theonion.com/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-consti-1819571149

Yokels is as yokels does.