James Huntsman's Tithing Refund Lawsuit Thrown Out

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Did you happen to see the post I made on this thread about the third world country with members that were starving. How does that happen?

I've lived in multiple Third World locations. I just don't buy it ... unless there was some kind of local failure to adequately train leaders.

Quote

I have a love/hate relationship with the church's finances. 

You've made it clear on multiple occasions that you deeply resent paying tithing.

[Teancum]

48 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So you've seen the future and know how many downturns we can expect and the length of each?

Yep.

 

Look it is my opinion.  And if you want to check into it you can see it is best practices.  If you are quite fine with the so called Church of Jesus Christ being one of the most wealthy corporations in the world have at it.  I don't give anymore though I easily gave a healthy 6 figures over my life and helped build their war chest.  

I give my charity $$ to where I think it will relief the most human suffering these days. I thought that was important to followers of Christ.

[SkyRock]

The church used to be near bankruptcy for most of its existence.   Given the many financial problems, which continued into the 50s, IIRC, wise stewardship to avoid such again is a good idea. 

It wasn't that long ago that members paid for budget in addition to tithing, ending only in 1990.  Members used to donate and build themselves chapels and temples, as the church couldn't afford them. 

However, there is something to be said about being overly prudent, which is where we seem to be today.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

If you are quite fine with the so called Church of Jesus Christ being one of the most wealthy corporations in the world have at it.

Oo, 'so-called Church' and 'wealthy corporation' all in a single sentence. You're on a roll!

But yeah, I thought we had established through a number of prior interactions on this topic that I am more than fine with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints having unlimited wealth in order to fulfil its divine mission. This is literally how I feel: 

And in fact, I hope at some point it has more than 100 trillion dollars with which to do so.

Quote

I don't give anymore though I easily gave a healthy 6 figures over my life and helped build their war chest.  

Yes, your extreme lack of concern/interest is clearly evident in your need to address this topic again and again.

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Oo, 'so-called Church' and 'wealthy corporation' all in a single sentence. You're on a roll!

Feeling a bit snarky today?

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But yeah, I thought we had established through a number of prior interactions on this topic that I am more than fine with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints having unlimited wealth in order to fulfil its divine mission. This is literally how I feel: 

Bully for you.  Apparently we have a different value system.

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And in fact, I hope at some point it has more than 100 trillion dollars with which to do so.

Yea we definitely have differing values and ethics on this topic at least.

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, your extreme lack of concern/interest is clearly evident in your need to address this topic again and again.

If it bugs you butt out.  I did not post in response to you.  And if I want to comment on it a few hundred more times I will.  I speak to the lurkers here more than the true believers.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Feeling a bit snarky today?

0 per cent snark, 100 per cent mirth! 

[mrmarklin]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Uhhh yes it does......

 

It just does not have to file a Form 990 or an audited financial statement. Which maybe can allow it to do whatever it wants.  Hmmm

As in many things, you are totally wrong. Look it up. 🙄

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

  I speak to the lurkers here more than the true believers.

It’s nice to understand posters true motivations. 
 

I came here when I was angry at the church so somewhat understand and found the give and take debate helpful. 

[mrmarklin]

I don’t think we have a problem until the church announces that the GAs need upgraded housing from which to perform their duties. 
That’s my exit signal. 

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

So really nothing from Ensign Peak yet, that I know of.

You can't eat shares. You can't drink shares. Shares won't stop you getting waterborne diseases.

[Stormin' Mormon]

12 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I don’t think we have a problem until the church announces that the GAs need upgraded housing from which to perform their duties. 
That’s my exit signal. 

Exactly this.  We can talk round and round until we're blue in the face about whether or not ACCUMULATING lots of money is immoral.  But I think we can all agree that MISUSE of money is immoral.  

And its an objective fact that the church is not MISUSING this money.  At WORST they are just letting it sit there UNUSED, not misused.  It's not being used to pay for lavish lifestyles of church leaders.  It's just sitting there, waiting for the opportune moment. 

Until we have GAs living high off these consecrated donations, I simply don't care how much money the church has stockpiled. 

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

You can't eat shares. You can't drink shares. Shares won't stop you getting waterborne diseases.

[kimpearson]

Just some general input from someone who dealt with the IRS almost everyday of my work life for 30 years (large corporation under constant audit of 5 to 10 IRS agents, multiple court case and negotiations with IRS appeals officers) and responsible for keeping corporate sponsored charitable funds in compliance with tax laws.  The IRS and Treasury Department absolutely have a history of refusing to look into any financial arrangements operated by legitimate Christian religions who have a long history in the United States.  The IRS will likely never investigate the Church unless evidence that is overwhelming comes to light of abuse of funds for personal gain by individual leaders of the Church.  I would suggest that any attempt to argue the Church is somehow breaking the law is very doubtful.  The real issue is if you believe it is morally right.

I just want to understand what the need is for 100 billion.  I am a CPA and have worked for multi-billion dollar companies my whole work career.  I have personally been responsible for managing hundreds of millions in income tax payments.  I begin to wonder how many on this board have any real appreciation for how much money $100 billion really is.  Tithing and fast offering could completely stop and the Church's investments would provide more money than the Church currently spends on all operations, church schools and seminaries, building projects, missionary work and fast offerings.  While the Church doesn't provide the exact amount of these costs, any reasonably smart financial modeler can come up with a very accurate estimate.  The current estimates (which come from internet posts) I have seen are between $6 and $8 billion which is right in the range the Ensign Peak whistle blower gave.  I have been a financial clerk and stake auditor for many years and built my own models based on average ward expenditures, missionary costs and any other costs like temple and building costs that I could find.  I got the same numbers.  Church for profit business reasonably generates $1 to $2 billion in profits.  Investment returns of liquid investments (stocks, bonds, notes) which can be verified by SEC filings have averaged $8 to $10 billion over the last 10 years.  Who know how much for profit real estate values have gone up?  I would expect at least several billion a year.  Please remember nobody outside of a very few have any idea where the Church has all cash and investment sitting that are not part of SEC filings.  That is much more than a prudent reserve fund.  There is no situation I can think of that would ever require the Church to spend more money in a year than it makes off of investments.  The biggest potential lawsuits don't even come close (boy scouts $300 million not billion).  Dooms day scenarios for the 2nd coming are ridiculous because investments will have no value (Church farms could but how would they distribute food in a global crisis).  So again I ask, what on earth will the Church ever need 100 billion for.  There is no scenario for a need.  Please try to come up with a scenario were the Church needs $100 billion to survive and share it with me.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Exactly this.  We can talk round and round until we're blue in the face about whether or not ACCUMULATING lots of money is immoral.  But I think we can all agree that MISUSE of money is immoral.  

And its an objective fact that the church is not MISUSING this money.  At WORST they are just letting it sit there UNUSED, not misused.  It's not being used to pay for lavish lifestyles of church leaders.  It's just sitting there, waiting for the opportune moment. 

Until we have GAs living high off these consecrated donations, I simply don't care how much money the church has stockpiled. 

This doesn't make sense, with the NT Jesus.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This doesn't make sense, with the NT Jesus.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Can you clarify?

[Tacenda]

ETA again: I am glad the church increased the money going out from 40 million to 1 billion, that's about 1%. I understand that it's a lot of money, but to the amount the church has, it really isn't. And the rainy day is here, IMO. 

ETA: Switch out "he" for "church" on the quote, churches shouldn't hoard money in order to sustain themselves IMO. 

21 So is he that layeth up ^atreasure for ^bhimself, and is not rich toward God.

I'm going off of @kimpearson's post here: 

I don't really care about the laws, I would just like to know what the 100 billion plus is for.  Does God really want 100 billion in the bank doing nothing more than collecting interest.  How does that align with any of the teachings of Jesus Christ in any of our scriptures.  Remember the parable for Luke 12 about gathering riches in bigger and bigger amounts for some future purpose that will likely never be realized (there was no way the rich man could ever use up all the wealth he had accumulated):

16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:

17 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to ^abestow my fruits?

18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.

19 And I will say to my soul, ^aSoul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, ^beat, drink, and be merry.

20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy ^asoul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

21 So is he that layeth up ^atreasure for ^bhimself, and is not rich toward God.

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm going off of @kimpearson's post here: 

I don't really care about the laws, I would just like to know what the 100 billion plus is for.  Does God really want 100 billion in the bank doing nothing more than collecting interest.  How does that align with any of the teachings of Jesus Christ in any of our scriptures.  Remember the parable for Luke 12 about gathering riches in bigger and bigger amounts for some future purpose that will likely never be realized (there was no way the rich man could ever use up all the wealth he had accumulated):

16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:

17 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to ^abestow my fruits?

18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.

19 And I will say to my soul, ^aSoul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, ^beat, drink, and be merry.

20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy ^asoul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

21 So is he that layeth up ^atreasure for ^bhimself, and is not rich toward God.

 

Thanks for explaining your thoughts on it.

Do you think that the Lord's words to the rich man would have been the same if he had been stockpiling so that there would always be money available to use to help accomplish God's will, rather than stockpiling the money for himself and then thinking that he can sit back and be lazy the rest of his life?

 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for explaining your thoughts on it.

Do you think that the Lord's words to the rich man would have been the same if he had been stockpiling so that there would always be money available to use to help accomplish God's will, rather than stockpiling the money for himself and then thinking that he can sit back and be lazy the rest of his life?

 

I'm always a quick post and leave poster. Then have to go back in and edit galore. I hope you reread what I said, and hopefully this will answer the question. And because my post limits are few, I may edit this to answer you back if needs be. 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

ETA: Switch out "he" for "church" on the quote, churches shouldn't hoard money in order to sustain themselves IMO. 

When it comes to scriptural interpretation, I don't know that individuals and institutions are interchangeable.

 

[Gillebre]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Just some general input from someone who dealt with the IRS almost everyday of my work life for 30 years (large corporation under constant audit of 5 to 10 IRS agents, multiple court case and negotiations with IRS appeals officers) and responsible for keeping corporate sponsored charitable funds in compliance with tax laws.  The IRS and Treasury Department absolutely have a history of refusing to look into any financial arrangements operated by legitimate Christian religions who have a long history in the United States.  The IRS will likely never investigate the Church unless evidence that is overwhelming comes to light of abuse of funds for personal gain by individual leaders of the Church.  I would suggest that any attempt to argue the Church is somehow breaking the law is very doubtful.  The real issue is if you believe it is morally right.

I just want to understand what the need is for 100 billion.  I am a CPA and have worked for multi-billion dollar companies my whole work career.  I have personally been responsible for managing hundreds of millions in income tax payments.  I begin to wonder how many on this board have any real appreciation for how much money $100 billion really is.  Tithing and fast offering could completely stop and the Church's investments would provide more money than the Church currently spends on all operations, church schools and seminaries, building projects, missionary work and fast offerings.  While the Church doesn't provide the exact amount of these costs, any reasonably smart financial modeler can come up with a very accurate estimate.  The current estimates (which come from internet posts) I have seen are between $6 and $8 billion which is right in the range the Ensign Peak whistle blower gave.  I have been a financial clerk and stake auditor for many years and built my own models based on average ward expenditures, missionary costs and any other costs like temple and building costs that I could find.  I got the same numbers.  Church for profit business reasonably generates $1 to $2 billion in profits.  Investment returns of liquid investments (stocks, bonds, notes) which can be verified by SEC filings have averaged $8 to $10 billion over the last 10 years.  Who know how much for profit real estate values have gone up?  I would expect at least several billion a year.  Please remember nobody outside of a very few have any idea where the Church has all cash and investment sitting that are not part of SEC filings.  That is much more than a prudent reserve fund.  There is no situation I can think of that would ever require the Church to spend more money in a year than it makes off of investments.  The biggest potential lawsuits don't even come close (boy scouts $300 million not billion).  Dooms day scenarios for the 2nd coming are ridiculous because investments will have no value (Church farms could but how would they distribute food in a global crisis).  So again I ask, what on earth will the Church ever need 100 billion for.  There is no scenario for a need.  Please try to come up with a scenario were the Church needs $100 billion to survive and share it with me.

The Church could stop collecting tithes and offerings and then we would lose the blessings of acting and growing in faith by paying tithes and giving generous offerings. To me it's not about making sure the Church has enough to build Temples as much as it is about me being prepared and willing to consecrate 100% rather than 10%, and giving 10% plus a fast offering helps me remember that everything I have isn't mine, but the Lord's, and this helps inoculate me from some of the more common tactics of the adversary.

The only reason I could conceive for the Church to *need* so much might be something like this: the government needs a bailout, Missouri has been wiped clean, the Church offers to buy Missouri for a few hundred billion, the government agrees because it needs the money and no one wants Missouri. What I'm completely confident in is that God has told me personally that President Nelson and those who serve with him are His anointed, and that contrary to all worldly assumptions I can trust them because I trust Him, and that even though I don't know them, I certainly do know Him and great has been His faithfulness to me.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Gillebre

[Stormin' Mormon]

Cui bono?

An honest question, really.  If no one with stewardship over the funds is actually getting rich off of it or living lavish lifestyles, then why are they doing it?  How are the money managers and leaders of the Church benefiting from their hoard?  And if they aren't benefiting from it personally, why do you think they do it?  Do the reasons that someone hoards wealth change the calculus on the severity of the sin of hoarding?

I get the frustration.  I get that the Church is sitting on a large amount of untapped wealth, a treasure hoard that has the potential to do so much good in the world.  But that potential will remain as long as the church doesn't misspend it on frivolous or unethical things (like enriching the lives of church leaders).  And we have NO EVIDENCE that it is spending those funds on frivolous or unethical things.

The question, then, is not one of "good use" vs "bad use;" rather it's a question of "good use now" vs "good use at some indeterminate time in the future."  Either way, those funds WILL be put to good use, this year, or next, or 257 years from now.  Whatever.  But based on how we see the Church spending its money now, I have no doubt that those funds will be used (eventually) to lift and inspire and not to enrich and luxuriate.   

Edited January 18, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[Tacenda]

43 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

The Church could stop collecting tithes and offerings and then we would lose the blessings of acting and growing in faith by paying tithes and giving generous offerings. To me it's not about making sure the Church has enough to build Temples as much as it is about me being prepared and willing to consecrate 100% rather than 10%, and giving 10% plus a fast offering helps me remember that everything I have isn't mine, but the Lord's, and this helps inoculate me from some of the more common tactics of the adversary.

The only reason I could conceive for the Church to *need* so much might be something like this: the government needs a bailout, Missouri has been wiped clean, the Church offers to buy Missouri for a few hundred billion, the government agrees because it needs the money and no one wants Missouri. What I'm completely confident in is that God has told me personally that President Nelson and those who serve with him are His anointed, and that contrary to all worldly assumptions I can trust them because I trust Him, and that even though I don't know them, I certainly do know Him and great has been His faithfulness to me.

Just wanted speak to the tithing you mention. I think that is awesome to tithe to a faith organization you belong to, that is somewhat universal. But why is it not what the original meaning, on interest annually? Calm answered a post on this thread addressing my beef with the leaders saying to pay tithing before the bills, or a talk on a member paying tithing before they buy food. And Calm mentioned that the member could just pay tithing after they pay the bills or buy the food unless I'm misunderstanding her. Here's her quote, maybe she can explain it better. Well, this doesn't appear to be what the leaders are saying in past talks.

@Calm's post below, my bold:

With the expectation the Church will provide the food.  Nor does it say how to calculate tithing, so someone might deduct necessary expenses (food, shelter and minimum needed for clothing and transportation) and then tithe on the rest, so the family gets fed first if the parents decide that is how they will pay tithing.
 

 I wonder what the counsel would be in the case where someone was isolated from the Church for most of the time and put aside their tithing to pay when in contact with a leader. Would they say don’t touch the tithing you put aside or something along the lines of ‘take from the tithing savings as the Church would be helping you out if it could, but it can’t’?

[sunstoned]

I am sure many of us are aware of this statement from a prophet of the modern era.  It seems to me the church finances have reached that point JSF is speaking about.  I am wondering when JFS's vision will be realized.

 

Quote

“Furthermore, I want to say to you, we may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God.”

Joseph F. Smith

LDS General Conference , 1907

Edited January 19, 2022 by sunstoned

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I am sure many of us are aware of this statement from a prophet of the modern era.  It seems to me the church finances have reached that point JSF is speaking about.  I am wondering when JFS's vision will be realized.

As we've already discussed multiple times on this forum, if you look at Pres Smith's entire sermon, it is clear that he was not looking forward to a day when people would not pay tithing any longer. Instead, he looked forward to a day when people's tithes would support the Church so fully that they wouldn't have to be asked for any other kinds of donations. (Do you remember building funds and donations to keep the lights on and fundraisers for youth camps, etc.?)

Just look at what he said directly before the quote you provided:

Quote

I want to say another thing to you, and I do so by way of congratulation, and that is, that we have, by the blessing of the Lord and the faithfulness of the Saints in paying their tithing, been able to pay off our bonded indebtedness.  Today the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes not a dollar that it cannot pay at once.  At last we are in a position that we can pay as we go.  We do not have to borrow any more, and we won't have to if the Latter-day Saints continue to live their religion and observe this law of tithing.  It is the law of revenue to the Church.

Pres Smith expected the Saints to continue to observe the law of tithing. Why? Because 'it is the law of revenue to the Church'. It's how the Lord intends His Church to be funded and sustained. And he was congratulating them for having done so. Earlier in the sermon, he was even clearer about the importance of always observing this law:

Quote

I want to say to my brethren and sisters here this morning, that in my opinion there never was a time when the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were living better lives, were more faithful and more diligent, than they are today. We have various means of judging of this. One very accurate way of knowing is the fact that the law of tithing is being observed.

Please actually look at the entire sermon because he goes on and on in discussing the role of tithes in demonstrating a person's faithfulness and in sustaining the work of the Lord.

The good news is that the day that Pres Smith looked forward to has arrived. We no longer assess ward members their share of the ward budget. We no longer require branches to come up with a portion of the funds needed to build their chapels. And so on. Tithing is the Church's revenue stream, and because faithful Saints over many years have observed this law, we now 'have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God', exactly as prophesied.

Edited January 19, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[smac97]

Here's a litigation update.  Two of them, actually.  Both from the Tribune:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/02/04/james-huntsman-appeals/ (published at 6:22 p.m.)

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/02/04/read-james-huntsmans/ (published at 6:37 p.m.)

Both are written by the same journalist, Tony Semerad.  The first one is a bit longer.  Both provide a link to the actual appeal (Huntsman's opening brief) :

James Huntsman's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Brief

This brief is an appeal of the trial judge's decision to dismiss the case, see here:

Judge rules against James Huntsman

Here's a synopsis of what happened at the trial court:

1. The Church's attorneys filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment" asking for the case to be dismissed on three basic arguments:

• The First Amendment bars Huntsman's claims;
• No reasonable juror could find that Plaintiff justifiably relied on any alleged misrepresentation; and
• No reasonable juror could find a misrepresentation.

2. The first argument above is distinct from the others.  The judge found that Huntsman's claims present "a purely secular dispute" (that is, the disposition of tithing money), such that the court was not being asked to adjudicate the Church's religious beliefs/teachings (which would be prohibited by the First Amendment).  So the Church did not persuade the judge on this argument.  

3. The second and third arguments above both pertain to "fraud."  While the particulars of how a fraud claim can vary from state to state, the basics always include a number of items, including that a "misrepresentation" was made (that is, a statement of fact that is false), and also that the plaintiff (the purportedly defrauded party) "justifiably relied" on the misrepresentation.  The judge found that A) "{no} reasonable juror {could} conclude that Hinckley made a false statement when he said that tithing funds would not be used on the City Creek project but earnings of invested tithing funds would be used," and B) that "no reasonable juror could conclude that it was justifiable for Plaintiff {Huntsman} to rely on" statements from the Church "as an assertion that Defendant would not use earnings on invested tithing funds."  

4. We've had hundreds of posts on this board arguing these points.  Candidly, I have been pretty surprised at the confusion about them.  Critics sought to conflate tithing with "earnings of invested tithing funds."  The judge was having none of it:

Quote

Based on the foregoing {evidence}, no reasonable juror could conclude that Hinckley's statement was false.  This is because a reasonable juror could only conclude that Defendant used "the earnings of invested reserve funds" to fund the City Creek project - i.e., Defendant did exactly what Hinckley said Defendant would do.

Tithing funds from donors are materially distinguishable from revenues generated by the donee's subsequent investment of those funds.  This point was made and re-made dozens upon dozens of times on this board.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Quote

“Interest on tithing money is still tithing money,” says Provo resident Marco Davis. “They shouldn’t be used for speculative business projects. And it’s a serious half-truth, if not an outright lie, to claim the City Creek mall wasn’t funded by tithing.”

I disagree.  Interest on tithing money is not "still tithing money."  And the Church should have used some portion of tithes for "speculative business projects."  See, e.g., the Parable of the Talents, the amazing success of Ensign Peak, etc.

And it's neither a half-truth nor an outright lie to say that tithes weren't spent on City Creek.

Quote

Of course the church tapped tithing funds, counters Boise resident Rick Jepson. “What other funds would the church have to spend outside of tithing and the accumulated interest from tithing? Is there another fund to draw from?”

"And the accumulated interest" being the key phrase there.

A tithe is a voluntary and unconditional donation to the Church from one of its members.  That's where the money came from.

If the Church thereafter invests a portion of that tithe and generates profit/revenue/interest, then the source of that profit/revenue/interest is . . . the investment.

If I donate $1,000 to the Church and the Church invests $250 of that and generates a profit of an additional $250, is my tithe $1,000, or $1,250?  Please explain your answer.

And here:

Quote

Quote

 

Meh.  You're just making this up as you go along.

If the Church receives $1,000, and then invests $250 of that donation and generates profits of an additional $250, then the Church has $1,250.  If the Church thereafter spends $100, and refuses to authorize any expenditure that would take the balance of the accumulated money below $1,001, then the principal remains untouched.

 

This is an example of a cognitive bias called Mental Accounting. It is irrational and leads to bad decisions.

Mental Accounting Definition (investopedia.com)

Quote

First you conflate tithing with profits generated from tithes as being indistinguishable from each other.

That is correct. Money is fungible.

Quote

This despite the fact that the IRS certainly doesn't view the two things and interchangeable.

Actually, the IRS does agree that money is fungible. 

To help clarify your thinking on the matter, consider the difference between a stock and a flow (in the rest of this post, when I refer to "stocks" it is in this sense). How much money the church has is a stock. 

Quote

One comes from a donor, the other does not.  One comes from an investment in a farm or stock or piece of real estate or whatever, the other does not.  One is a charitable donation, the other is not.  

 

And here:

Quote

Yes, money is fungible, and yet money from one source is treated very differently than money from another source.

Tithes are charitable contributions from a donor to a donee.  Profits/interest generated by the donee investing a portion of those tithes are not charitable contributions from a donee.

And here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.  And in many, many other places.

5. The appeal makes for somewhat interesting reading.  The drafting continues to be emotional and bombastic.  Lots of bolded and underlined text (for emphasis).  Such things are, in my experience, used very sparingly in legal briefs.

6. It looks like the appeal includes a fairly significant error (I'm not sure, as I'm tired as I am reading this stuff, so maybe I'm missing something).  Footnote 5 of the appellate brief states:

Quote

The Church also raised two additional grounds for summary judgment: (1) that the First Amendment bars Mr. Huntsman’s claim; and (2) that no reasonable juror could find that Mr. Huntsman justifiably relied onthe Church’s misrepresentations.  However, since the District Court ruled in Mr. Huntsman’s favor on both of these grounds,Mr. Huntsman agrees with the rulings and does not seek to disturb them on appeal.

This appeal correctly states that the trial court found that the First Amendment does not bar Huntsman's claims.  However, as to the "no reasonable juror could find that Mr. Huntsman justifiably relied onthe Church’s misrepresentations" bit, I think that's quite wrong.  The trial court specifically states on page 10 of its ruling as follows:

Quote

In other words, when the later four statements were made, Plaintiff was aware of Hinckley's statement that earnings on invested reserve tithing funds would be used to fund the City Creek project.  Under those circumstances, no reasonable juror could conclude that it was justifiable for Plaintiff to rely on the other four statements as an assertion that Defendant would not use earnings on invested tithing funds.

In other words, the trial judge found that

A) "a reasonable juror could only conclude that Defendant used 'the earnings of invested reserve funds' to fund the City Creek project - i.e., Defendant did exactly what Hinckley said Defendant would do" (that is, there was no "misrepresentation"), and also

B) that "no reasonable juror could conclude that it was justifiable for Plaintiff to rely" on the Church's representations about what money would be used.

And yet Huntsman's attorneys above state that "the District Court ruled in Mr. Huntsman’s favor on" the "justifiable reliance" issue.  To me it looks like the judge ruled against Huntsman on this issue.  This may be significant because Huntsman's attorneys specifically say they are not appealing the trial judge's decision on the "justifiable reliance issue" ("since the District Court ruled in Mr. Huntsman’s favor on both of these grounds,Mr. Huntsman agrees with the rulings and does not seek to disturb them on appeal").  

This could potentially be a significant error.  If Huntsman's attorneys are not appealing the trial court's ruling on the "justifiable reliance" issue ("Huntsman agrees with the rulings {regarding justifiable reliance} and does not seek to disturb them on appeal"), and if the trial court ruled against Huntsman on this issue, then Huntsman's attorneys have left intact the trial court's ruling on this issue.

Hey, lawyers!  Can you help me out here?  Am I up in the night on this point?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 5, 2022 by smac97