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

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I wonder if the government used tax dollars to set up an investment fund and then used the proceeds of that investment fund to pay for abortions, how many individuals on this board would be satisfied with the response: “You have nothing to complain about. No tax dollars were used to fund abortions.”

In this scenario, are my taxes compulsory or do I have the choice not to pay them?

But seriously, imagine if the government was as good with it's money as the church is with a voluntary 10%?!  Where can I sign up for that reality?

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Anyway, if you set up a first-in-last-out principle for identifying dollars, you could distinguish dollars in the way you do. But the fact remains that tithing dollars were used to create interest dollars that were used to fund the mall, which means tithing dollars were used to fund the mall.

This isn't a tax issue.  Religions operating as charities are not required to pay tax on charitible contributions or interest or investment income obtained therefrom.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I wonder if the government used tax dollars to set up an investment fund and then used the proceeds of that investment fund to pay for abortions, how many individuals on this board would be satisfied with the response: “You have nothing to complain about. No tax dollars were used to fund abortions.”

First, I don't think the government should be paying for abortions at all.

Second, taxpayers have a "stake," a say, in how taxes are spent.  We can vote politicians into and out of office for this reason.

Third, there is no such corollary "stake" relative to tithing.

Fourth, I could envision a situation where I might voice a concern about the expenditure of Church funds, but I would do so with the Church's best interests at heart, and I would not claim to be a stakeholder, and I would not publicly call out or sue the Church about such matters.

Fifth, I think the funding of abortion falls outside, or should fall outside, the mandate of state and federal government.  

Sixth, the voluntary nature of tithing, compared to the involuntary nature of taxes, makes a big difference to me.

Seventh, the track record (of the last 50+ years) of the Church is managing the finances of the Church, compared to the grossly incompetent and corrupt management of finances by the federal government, makes a big difference to me.

Eighth, your analogy doesn't really work because Huntsman has severed his ties to the Church, and hence has no particular standing to say jack squat about how the Church handles its money, whereas I am still an American, and therefore have an ongoing interest in how the government handles taxes.

There are more.  Shall I go on?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Or similar situation...my husband's brother went to his father and asked for a loan to buy property in Bluffdale, Utah for $5000 an acre and bought several.

A "loan" is materially distinguishable from an unconditional gift.

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

He then sold all the acres years later for around a million dollars. His brothers were a little miffed though. 

Your husband's brother took out the loan, and in so doing he incurred a risk.  He also did some work and invested the money.  The risk and the work paid off.

If the $5K was all the father had to lend out, then I could see grounds for disgruntlement.  Same with if the "loan" was in name only (there was no intention to pay it back, it was never paid back, etc.).  But if bystanders get jealous because someone else hustled and made a good deal, I don't think that's a valid grievance.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

42 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Who Controlled the funds before it went to Ensign Peak?  The Church

Correct.

42 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Who Controlled the funds after it went to Ensign Peak? The Church

That is absolutely false. Ensign Peak Advisors is controlled by its board of trustees. It is not controlled by the church.

42 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Any real change in ownership? no

That is false. Ensign Peak Advisors owns the funds in its portfolio. That's it.

42 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Who is huntman suing? The Church. 

Correct. It is accusing the Church of fraud.

42 minutes ago, Danzo said:

No one is claiming seperation between EPA and the church.  Because they Can't.  

It is a separate entity. The same group of people control both entities. Sure. But legally they are different entities.   

You can ignore this truth because it is inconvenient to you. But it is still true.

42 minutes ago, Danzo said:

By the way, your argumentes fall afoul of the Step doctrine , Economic Substance Doctrine, Form over substance .

Red herring. 

42 minutes ago, Danzo said:

No where, is anyone asserting, not even in the pleadings of the lawsuit that there is any meaningful distinction between EPA and the church.

Irrelevant. You asked me to cite the law and the IRS to defend my position. I did so. Huntsman's attorneys saying something else doesn't change what the law actually says.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, taxpayers have a "stake," a say, in how taxes are spent. 

 

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

, and therefore have an ongoing interest in how the government handles taxes.

I think you misread my post. It’s the interest that funded abortions. Not the taxes. Oh wait, are you saying that the interest from taxes is still taxes? Hmm…

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Correct.

That is absolutely false. Ensign Peak Advisors is controlled by its board of trustees. It is not controlled by the church.

That is false. Ensign Peak Advisors owns the funds in its portfolio. That's it.

Correct. It is accusing the Church of fraud.

It is a separate entity. The same group of people control both entities. Sure. But legally they are different entities.   

You can ignore this truth because it is inconvenient to you. But it is still true.

Red herring. 

Irrelevant. You asked me to cite the law and the IRS to defend my position. I did so. Huntsman's attorneys saying something else doesn't change what the law actually says.

I'm confused here but I'd like to understand.

Who is on the board of Trustees of Ensign Peak? You are saying that because Ensign Peak has a Board of Trustees the church has no control over Ensign Peak. Is that right?

IF the church has zero control over Ensign Peak why did it move so much money away from the church and into Ensign Peak? Again, I think I'm misunderstanding something significant here because if money is donated to the church and then that money is moved to Ensign Peak for investments which the church has no control over, that would seem to bolster a fraud claim because each individual who donates funds is donating to the church, NOT to Ensign Peak. Please help me understand what you are saying here. Thanks.

[Bob Crockett]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, I don't think the government should be paying for abortions at all.

Second, taxpayers have a "stake," a say, in how taxes are spent.  We can vote politicians into and out of office for this reason.

Third, there is no such corollary "stake" relative to tithing.

Fourth, I could envision a situation where I might voice a concern about the expenditure of Church funds, but I would do so with the Church's best interests at heart, and I would not claim to be a stakeholder, and I would not publicly call out or sue the Church about such matters.

Fifth, I think the funding of abortion falls outside, or should fall outside, the mandate of state and federal government.  

Sixth, the voluntary nature of tithing, compared to the involuntary nature of taxes, makes a big difference to me.

Seventh, the track record (of the last 50+ years) of the Church is managing the finances of the Church, compared to the grossly incompetent and corrupt management of finances by the federal government, makes a big difference to me.

Eighth, your analogy doesn't really work because Huntsman has severed his ties to the Church, and hence has no particular standing to say jack squat about how the Church handles its money, whereas I am still an American, and therefore have an ongoing interest in how the government handles taxes.

There are more.  Shall I go on?

Thanks,

-Smac

First, government does and has paid for abortions for the poor.  Biden has already proposed to deletion of the Hyde amendment, but even then with the fed's total funding of Planned Parent for everything BUT abortions it is silly to argue the government is not funding abortions.  Apparently, the morality of that escapes the government.  

FIfth, you are incorrect.  See First.  Again, the government is not concerned with the morality of that at all.  Biden has been denied communion for his support of abortion  so his own church thinks he's taking an immoral position.

Eighth, unfortunately there is law in California permitting a church to be sued for fraud in connection with contributed funds.  I've read the decision and think it is wrong, but it is there.

[Analytics]

53 minutes ago, webbles said:

In Exhibit K and L of the "Letter to IRS Director" Exhibit K and Exhibit L, it marks the "Ensign Peak Years" as 1995-2012.  So, maybe the church had been working on creating the official EPA organization for a while and that it finally happened coincidentally with the Times article. 

It's possible.

53 minutes ago, webbles said:

Also, I don't see how moving money from the "Investment Department" to EPA is hiding money from anyone.  The numbers in the "Investment Department" were just as hidden as the numbers from the EPA.  So it isn't hiding it anymore than it was before.

If a court ordered the Church to disclose its finances (say to help a judge calculate punitive damages), it would show the Church's assets, which would preclude EPA's assets.

53 minutes ago, webbles said:

I would assume that the experts actually did consider the IRS requirements.  I would assume they know those requirements far better than I.  You are basically the only person that seems to think that it isn't an integrated auxiliary.

The rules I've quoted are clear, and the experts you've cited didn't address them.

53 minutes ago, webbles said:

We don't really know that.  The story from the whistleblower (found on page 13 in the 'w' footnote) is that President Packer talked to Mr. Clarke and was rebuffed.  Somehow, Richard B. Willes found out about this and then told the whistleblower.  So the whistleblower is, at best, a third-hand witness.  It also doesn't tell us if this policy encompassed the entire quorum of 12 apostles nor does it tell us if this policy encompassed anyone else.  I don't see why experts would be prevented from seeing the EPA's balance sheet.

We actually do know that because we have corroborating evidence. It turns out seven people have complete access to the Church's financial statements:

• The three members of the first presidency
• The three members of the presiding bishopric
• The controller

That's it.

According to Financial Standard #6230, apostles are not authorized to see the following details of the Church's balance sheet:

Cash
Investment Securities
Investment Properties
Other Assets
Liabilities
Net Assets

See the following document:

https://archive.org/stream/MormonDocumentsLDSChurchInternalLeaks/25-AccessingAndSecuringFinancialInformation#page/n3/mode/2up

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In this scenario, are my taxes compulsory or do I have the choice not to pay them?

Well, just like tithing they are non-compulsory. Although you might end up in jail. But that seems mild compared to consequence for non-tithing (“for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.”)

[Analytics]

41 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

This isn't a tax issue.  Religions operating as charities are not required to pay tax on charitible contributions or interest or investment income obtained therefrom.

That isn't my point. You are a straight shooter so I'd like your opinion on what I've been arguing.

In summary:

• Ensign Peak Advisors is a 501(c)(3) that isn't owned by the Church or by anybody else. Like all non-profits, it isn't owned. Rather, it is a standalone entity controlled by its board of trustees.
• The $100 billion question is how EPA should be categorized by the IRS: is it a public charity, a private foundation, or an integrated auxiliary?
• According to some links to irs.gov I provided above, certain things are required for a 501(c)(3) to be a public charity. Basically, they have to engage in something that the IRS recognizes as being charitable in nature. I've argued that EPA doesn't meet the requirements. Not even close. It doesn't do any charitable work and it doesn't give money to any charitable causes (unless giving money to build a mall and bail out an insurance company can successfully be construed as charitable).
• According to irs.gov, only public charities can be integrated auxiliaries.
• Therefore, EPA is a private foundation and should be taxed as such. 

[secondclasscitizen]

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

Among other differences—the analogy only really works if one thinks that saving jobs in a recession, and paying life insurance claims to widows and orphans, is as morally repugnant as [presumably, elective] abortions are.

Is that what you think?

It isn’t the job of a tithe payer to prop up a failing for-profit business. If it was our obligation why didn’t we bail out everyone?

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

[When the Church "saves money for a rainy day" what it is also doing is capitalizing its own business empire and purchasing stocks. ]

That seems like a substantial mischaracterization.

No, it is objectively what is happening.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nobody is getting rich off the Church.

Ensign Peak Advisors is getting rich off the Church. Are you unaware of corporate personhood?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 Those with access to the accumulated wealth of the Church are not living high off the hog.

That doesn't mean the church isn't capitalizing its business empire and purchasing stocks.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 They are not enriching themselves.

Being miserly is a thing.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

  Instead, the finances of the Church have been manages remarkably well, to the point where the Church has, arguably, too much money. 

That is exactly my point.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That's a pretty good problem to have.

Not really.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Church spends huge amounts of money on philanthropic efforts.  It uses for-profit businesses and investments to subsidize those efforts.  

According to everything that has been leaked and the whistleblower accusations, EPA has never spent a penny on a philanthropic effort. Literally not one dime. That is the problem.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The critics, however, will never be satisfied. 

Completely irrelevant. The issue isn't satisfying the critics. The issue is whether EPA is complying with the tax code and whether the IRS will fairly and justly enforce the tax code, even when the alleged tax dodger is as powerful as the Church. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well, just like tithing they are non-compulsory. Although you might end up in jail. But that seems mild compared to consequence for non-tithing (“for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.”)

If the option is jail, then that's not non-compulsory, since non-compulsory means "not required by law".

To go back to your example, if I believe the government is funding abortions with my money--that I have to pay by law--then that's a different scenario from a belief that an organization, that I don't have to belong to, is funding something with money that I don't have to give them.

 

[webbles]

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If a court ordered the Church to disclose its finances (say to help a judge calculate punitive damages), it would show the Church's assets, which would preclude EPA's assets.

But since the EPA is an auxiliary of the Church, wouldn't the court still be able to force the disclosure of the EPA?  Kind of like what's happening in the Huntsman lawsuit, some of the blacked out areas look like they are financial details of the EPA.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The rules I've quoted are clear, and the experts you've cited didn't address them.

So unless they explicitly mention the rule you are talking about, you think that they just ignored it?  I disagree but ok.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

We actually do know that because we have corroborating evidence. It turns out seven people have complete access to the Church's financial statements:

• The three members of the first presidency
• The three members of the presiding bishopric
• The controller

That's it.

According to Financial Standard #6230, apostles are not authorized to see the following details of the Church's balance sheet:

Cash
Investment Securities
Investment Properties
Other Assets
Liabilities
Net Assets

See the following document:

https://archive.org/stream/MormonDocumentsLDSChurchInternalLeaks/25-AccessingAndSecuringFinancialInformation#page/n3/mode/2up

That's an interesting document.  It doesn't mention EPA, though.  So it is possible that the 12 do have access to what is in EPA.  But say we assume that EPA is under the "Investment securities" and "Investment properties" rows.  There are more people than just those seven who can see that information: ICS Employers Authorized by FRD, Global Service Center Authorized Employees, and Church Auditing.  That's a lot of people who probably are experts in the field.  So they definitely had "experts" who could look at the financials and notify them if something was going wrong.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

with my money-

But it’s not your money right? It’s the interest off your money. At least that seems to be what people in this thread are saying. That the interest on tithing is not tithing. So the interest on the your taxes is no longer taxes, hence not your money. Am I missing something?

[Analytics]

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm confused here but I'd like to understand.

Who is on the board of Trustees of Ensign Peak? 

I'm not sure. Certainly the president of the Church. Probably other members of the first presidency and presiding bishopric. Probably nobody else.

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are saying that because Ensign Peak has a Board of Trustees the church has no control over Ensign Peak. Is that right?

I'm saying Ensign Peak is its own legal entity. The same people who control the Church control Ensign Peak, but the Church itself does not.

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IF the church has zero control over Ensign Peak why did it move so much money away from the church and into Ensign Peak?

The only reason I can think of is because it is trying to appear less wealthy than it is. If it has extra money it donates money to Ensign Peak. If it needs extra money it can have Ensign Peak donate money back to the Church. But if you look at the Church's actual assets, the assets of Ensign Peak is not on the list.

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Again, I think I'm misunderstanding something significant here because if money is donated to the church and then that money is moved to Ensign Peak for investments which the church has no control over, that would seem to bolster a fraud claim because each individual who donates funds is donating to the church, NOT to Ensign Peak. Please help me understand what you are saying here. Thanks.

Ensign Peak Advisors is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and there is nothing scandalous about the Church giving money to a nonprofit. The Church can do whatever it wants with its money. And there is nothing illegal about Ensign Peak doing nothing other than accumulating investments and occasionally bailing out insurance companies and building malls. However, if Ensign Peak Advisors is really a "private foundation" and not an "integrated auxiliary" or a "private charity," then in order to avoid taxes on its earnings, it must comply with IRS rules of giving away to charitable causes a certain percentage of its value every year. 

   

[Analytics]

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

But since the EPA is an auxiliary of the Church, wouldn't the court still be able to force the disclosure of the EPA?  Kind of like what's happening in the Huntsman lawsuit, some of the blacked out areas look like they are financial details of the EPA.

Technically, EPA is an independent entity. If a court was aware of its existence and significance it would ask about it. Sure. But if the court wasn't aware, the Church would comply with the request and wouldn't proactively offer the additional information.

I think the Church was trying to hide the existence and scope of this money as much as possible. That is the reason for EPA existing. If you have any other theories about the reason the Church went to the effort of creating EPA, my ears are open. 

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

So unless they explicitly mention the rule you are talking about, you think that they just ignored it?  I disagree but ok.

All I know is that the things I've quoted are pretty clear and authoritative.

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

That's an interesting document.  It doesn't mention EPA, though.  So it is possible that the 12 do have access to what is in EPA.  But say we assume that EPA is under the "Investment securities" and "Investment properties" rows.  There are more people than just those seven who can see that information: ICS Employers Authorized by FRD, Global Service Center Authorized Employees, and Church Auditing.  That's a lot of people who probably are experts in the field.  So they definitely had "experts" who could look at the financials and notify them if something was going wrong.

For people outside those seven individuals, there are asterisks that explain there are limitations to their access.

It seems to me that whether the IRS decides they owe any taxes or not, when "A Letter to the IRS Director" was released 20 months ago the Church scrambled in filing some reports with the IRS and SEC and changed how it was doing things. This was done, it seems, because the Church's experts weren't aware of the situation until David Nielsen blew the whistle. 

[webbles]

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

According to some links to irs.gov I provided above, certain things are required for a 501(c)(3) to be a public charity. Basically, they have to engage in something that the IRS recognizes as being charitable in nature. I've argued that EPA doesn't meet the requirements. Not even close. It doesn't do any charitable work and it doesn't give money to any charitable causes (unless giving money to build a mall and bail out an insurance company can successfully be construed as charitable).

So, it the law isn't as clear cut as you are saying.  You don't think that EPA meets those requirements but it is possible that it does it by being connected to a religious organization and just holding its money.  That's what I see experts generally mention.  The EPA is managing the money for its parent religious organization and it isn't using the money for commercial purposes, then it is engaging in furthering a religious mission and so it can be categorized as an auxiliary.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Correct.

That is absolutely false. Ensign Peak Advisors is controlled by its board of trustees. It is not controlled by the church.

That is false. Ensign Peak Advisors owns the funds in its portfolio. That's it.

Correct. It is accusing the Church of fraud.

It is a separate entity. The same group of people control both entities. Sure. But legally they are different entities.   

You can ignore this truth because it is inconvenient to you. But it is still true.

Red herring. 

Irrelevant. You asked me to cite the law and the IRS to defend my position. I did so. Huntsman's attorneys saying something else doesn't change what the law actually says.

You are funny.

You obviously don't have a clue about tax law in general.  Many people go to jail over the argument of "It wasn't my money, it was donated to a corporation/trust/church/partnership, etc".  The argument just doesn't work.  The judges don't buy it, the IRS doesn't buy it. I have to explain it to clients all the time. Putting it on paper doesn't make it so. 

All of this thread you are arguing over how the church classifies its funds when the church is really giving it all away to some third party.  Now that would be the real scandal. The church isn't misspending the tithing money, it gives it away!

I don't think anyone, including yourself believes the church is giving the money away to a third party to do with is it pleases. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

All I'm saying is that if you put your paycheck in the bank and it grows with interest, then the money in your bank account is your paycheck that has grown with interest.

No. That’s silliness. My paycheck is my paycheck. Its value is frozen in time. Any interest that accrues on that value is is not part of my paycheck. It is separate and apart from what I received from my employer and flows from my own industry and thrift in managing that value after it was conveyed from my employer’s possession to mine. My good fortune in receiving interest or return on investment is no more attributable to my employer than it would be his fault if I had squandered the funds on casino gambling. 
 

Added later: Suppose I scrimped and saved funds from my paychecks over time and used those funds to establish a successful Pizza Hut franchise. Are you saying my pizza business must be regarded as part of the pay I received from my employer? 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

38 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm not sure. Certainly the president of the Church. Probably other members of the first presidency and presiding bishopric. Probably nobody else.  

Registered Agent CORPORATE AGENT
SERVICES, LLC
36 S STATE STREET
STE 1900
SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84111

Trustee L. TODD BUDGE 50 E. NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84150

Trustee GERALD CAUSSE 50 E NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84150

Officer GERALD CAUSSE 50 E NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84150

Secretary DAVID A. CHANNER 50 E NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84150

Treasurer DON W. CLOUSE 60 E SOUTH TEMPLE
STE 400
SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84111

Vice President DON W. CLOUSE 60 E SOUTH TEMPLE
STE 400
SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84111

Vice President MICHAEL CONNORS 60 E SOUTH TEMPLE
STE 400
SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84111

Treasurer KEVIN R. JERGENSEN 50 E. NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84150

Vice President REED H. LAW 60 E SOUTH TEMPLE
STE 400
SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84111

Treasurer DOUGLAS H. MARTIN 50 E NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84150

Vice President SETH B. MERRILL 50 E. NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84150

President D. ROBERT NYDEGGER 60 E. SOUTH TEMPLE
STE 400
SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84111

Trustee D. ROBERT NYDEGGER 60 E. SOUTH TEMPLE
STE 400
SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84111

Vice President HELEN M. ORME 50 E. NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84150

Vice President JEFFREY G. PORTER 60 E. SOUTH TEMPLE,
SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84111

Vice President ANDREW G.
SCHWENDIMAN
50 E. NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84150

Vice President DAVID P. STEVENS 50 E. NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84150

Vice President GREG N. TARBET 50 E NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84150

Vice President CURTIS TOONE 60 E SOUTH TEMPLE
STE 400
SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84111

Trustee W. CHRISTOPHER
WADDELL
50 E NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY
UT 84150

 

[Analytics]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

So, it the law isn't as clear cut as you are saying.  You don't think that EPA meets those requirements but it is possible that it does it by being connected to a religious organization and just holding its money.  That's what I see experts generally mention.  The EPA is managing the money for its parent religious organization and it isn't using the money for commercial purposes, then it is engaging in furthering a religious mission and so it can be categorized as an auxiliary.

I'm sure that was the basic intention.

When it was originally formed, in all likelihood the Church's attorneys explained what EPA needed to do in order to meet the IRS's qualifications of being an integrated auxiliary. I'm sure their original intentions were great. However, once it started operating the Church probably didn't consult with its attorneys on a year by year basis about the legal and tax ramifications of their decisions vis-à-vis remaining a lawful integrated auxiliary.  

The bottom line is that from a legal perspective, EPA is holding its own money, not the Church's. According to David Nielsen's credible allegations, commercial purposes are the only thing it does with the money. If he is right about that, then it isn't an integrated auxiliary of the Church, it is a private foundation. That isn't illegal, but private foundations do need to use some of their money for charitable purposes in order to avoid taxes. Since EPA has never used any of its money for a charitable purpose ever, it has a gigantic tax bill due.

[Analytics]

26 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You are funny.

You obviously don't have a clue about tax law in general.  Many people go to jail over the argument of "It wasn't my money, it was donated to a corporation/trust/church/partnership, etc".  The argument just doesn't work.  The judges don't buy it, the IRS doesn't buy it. I have to explain it to clients all the time. Putting it on paper doesn't make it so. 

All of this thread you are arguing over how the church classifies its funds when the church is really giving it all away to some third party.  Now that would be the real scandal. The church isn't misspending the tithing money, it gives it away!

I don't think anyone, including yourself believes the church is giving the money away to a third party to do with is it pleases. 

 

It's funny how you originally asked me to quote from the law and from the IRS to defend my position. Now that I've done so, you ignore it and pretend what the IRS says and what the law says doesn't matter.

[ttribe]

FYI - All SEC Filings by Ensign Peak Advisors, Inc. can be found here - https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1454984