Church Faces Possible Tax Issue in Australia (Simon Southerton is involved...).

[Calm]

Tithing is apparently paid into L.D.S. Charitable Trust Fund in Australia, correct (getting this from comments in the 2020 Reddit thread)?

However, the charity name is different, so was the poster wrong?  What do you write in your tithing, fast offerings, and humanitarian donations slips or the computer says or whatever…

https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities/df8937d2-38af-e811-a95e-000d3ad24c60/profile
 

I am bad with color and on my phone, can someone identify the two categories in the last graph on that page please.  They use shades of blue that are too close for me…at least on my phone. 

Edited April 4, 2022 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Tithing is apparently paid into L.D.S. Charitable Trust Fund in Australia, correct

On our end of financial year donation statement it says "The following is the total amount of your gifts received in the above-stated period by LDS Charitable Trust Fund - ABN 60-964-279-191 an Endorsed Deductible Gift Recipient"

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am bad with color and on my phone, can someone identify the two categories in the last graph on that page please.  They use shades of blue that are too close for me…at least on my phone. 

37.74%=Total expenses from employees

62.26%=Total expenses other

Edited April 4, 2022 by JustAnAustralian
adding percent signs

[Calm]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Story 2: Labor, Greens push for tax office investigation into Mormon donations

Quote

Some of the church’s tax activities are run through a shell company with no paid employees that is in potential breach of a 2019 Australian Taxation Office ruling that the “focal point … in a legal or organisational sense” of a charity must be in Australia for the money to be tax-deductible.

My guess is it is run by volunteer missionaries or it is a calling.  Wondering if there is any info on this. 

If the main work is writing checks for other charities to help their work, I see it as doable with no paid employees (my guess would be many would be soliciting such aid for various projects). But I know little about charities in the US and nothing about it in Australia (and my one possible source, my brother, hasn’t lived there for 5? years).

[JustAnAustralian]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

perhaps they think something like Ensign Peak is receiving the funds there like it does in the US

People seem to think (and this applies in the US too), that being called a charitable organisation requires them to give away all money they receive to needy people straight away.

In Australia there are 12 charitable purposes

Quote

The Charities Act 2013 (Cth) lists twelve charitable purposes:

• advancing health
• advancing education
• advancing social or public welfare
• advancing religion
• advancing culture
• promoting reconciliation, mutual respect and tolerance between groups of individuals that are in Australia
• promoting or protecting human rights
• advancing the security or safety of Australia or the Australian public
• preventing or relieving the suffering of animals
• advancing the natural environment
• other similar purposes ‘beneficial to the general public’ (a general category), and
• promoting or opposing a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice in the Commonwealth, a state, a territory or another country (where that change furthers or opposes one or more of the purposes above)

https://www.acnc.gov.au/for-charities/start-charity/you-start-charity/charitable-purpose

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

37.74%=Total expenses from employees

Thanks. But that doesn’t make sense if there are no paid employees…unless their expenses?  But that would be $10 million…

What is your perception of that meaning?

Edited April 4, 2022 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Thanks. But that doesn’t make sense if there are no paid employees…unless their expenses?  But that would be $10 million…

What is your perception of that meaning?

I've given up on working out how the different church organisations interact with each other. 

[Calm]

The person listed as one of the three directors for the charity is an area seventy:

https://news-nz.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-carl-maurer-meets-with-senator-amanda-stoker-to-discuss-religious-freedom

checking the other two

Can’t find anything on a possible calling for Paul Gray, there is a Douglas Martin as a SP in New Zealand as of 2019…do area seventies have counselors and if so, would someone in NZ work as a director for an Australian charity?  I suspect Douglas Martin is not so uncommon it has to be the same person though. 
 

Think I will call it a night on this.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I've given up on working out how the different church organisations interact with each other. 

I will stop assuming you are a tax expert on all things Australian then, lol. Thanks for the info so far. 

[JAHS]

An interesting 2012 letter from the Church to the Australian government regarding tax exemptions and deductions. 

Fairer, simpler and more effective tax concessions for the not-for-profit sector

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I know!     What I would like the critics to answer is why, in blazes, should an organization build a school, a hospital, a soup kitchen, and so on and so on from the ground up if it simply duplicates the efforts already accomplished by other groups operating in the same area?  Why not simply contribute to existing entities?

Yes.  I recall years ago, a faculty member friend of mine at BYU knew that there was a major disaster occurring in southern Sudan.  We had just finished attending a speech by Pres James Faust on campus, and my friend immediately went to Faust and briefed him on the ongoing disaster.  Within hours, a convoy of trucks loaded with water and food left Nairobi on its way to the Sudan border.  The LDS Church paid for it, and Catholic Relief organized it.  Later, the Church sent my friend to Africa to inspect Catholic Relief operations.  He reported back that they made good, honest use of LDS monies.  My friend was an Africa expert -- wrote his doctoral dissertation on Africa.  The Church makes very effective use of our tithing and other contributions.

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yeah, me too.

This is true in my case also.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

People seem to think (and this applies in the US too), that being called a charitable organisation requires them to give away all money they receive to needy people straight away.

In Australia there are 12 charitable purposes

https://www.acnc.gov.au/for-charities/start-charity/you-start-charity/charitable-purpose

The profile lists advancing religion as its purpose:

https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities/df8937d2-38af-e811-a95e-000d3ad24c60/history

Here is the employee numbers…since the article (Southerton?) says LDS Charities Australia has no paid employees, this must be regular church employees or maybe any church administration position…so maybe Mission offices and CES offices employees/volunteers?

”Full time employees: 69 

Part time employees: 16 

Casual employees: 11 

Full-time equivalent staff (FTE): 79 

Estimated number of volunteers: 1200”

So this is where the $11 million or so goes, salaries and likely their expenses I am guessing. 
 

https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities/df8937d2-38af-e811-a95e-000d3ad24c60/documents/cc7cd944-54bf-eb11-8237-000d3a6a6457

Edited April 4, 2022 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

The profile lists advancing religion as its purpose:

Yeah, these people are nuts. The Australian Government commission even provides examples of approved charitable activities that fit under the category of 'advancing religion':

Quote

Example clause 1

The [organisation] is established to be a charity whose purpose is to advance Buddhism by:

• leading a congregation for worship and other traditional religious activities
• providing Buddhist teachings to people who are interested, so that they may practice Buddhism
• practicing and teaching the practice of meditation, and
• undertaking other activities that are consistent with promoting the Buddhist religion, including supporting Buddhist monks and nuns.

Example clause 2

The [organisation] is established to be a charity whose purpose is to advance religion by:

• spreading the teachings of Islam
• establishing Islamic places of worship
• establishing educational facilities for the teaching of Islam, and
• observing and celebrating all major events in the Islamic calendar.

Example clause 3

The [organisation] is established to be a charity whose purpose is to advance Judaism by:

• providing a synagogue for religious services
• conducting Jewish religious services and cultural services and activities, and
• providing instruction on the Jewish religion.

Example clause 4

The [organisation] is established to be a charity whose purpose is to advance Hinduism by:

• spreading Sanatan culture and Sanatan religious scriptures
• encouraging observance and celebration of Hindu festivals, and
• establishing institutions where religious activities may be performed.

Example clause 5

The [organisation] is established to be a charity whose purpose is to advance the Christian religion by:

• establishing and operating a church
• offering regular masses and other opportunities for public worship at the church
• undertaking religious ceremonies such as baptisms, weddings and funerals at the church, and
• providing religious education, such as Sunday school programs.

Example clause 6

The [organisation] is established to be a charity whose purpose is to advance education and religion by undertaking any of the following activities:

• establishing and operating Christian primary schools
• establishing and operating Christian secondary schools
• establishing and operating Christian tertiary institutions
• together with one of the activities above, providing activities and programs commonly provided by such organisations to enhance the educational experiences of the children and young persons who attend them, and
• providing instruction in the Christian faith to students who attend non-Christian schools.

Example clause 7

The [organisation] is established to be a charity whose purpose is to advance religion by:

• nurturing the spiritual development of members by holding meetings for corporate worship
• providing information regarding spiritual beliefs and the activities of the organisation to members and the general public
• providing pastoral care to members to nurture their spiritual development, and
• undertaking other activities consistent with the above.

Example clause 8

The [organisation] is established to be a charity whose purpose is to advance religion by providing classes to educate children on the Christian religion and its beliefs in schools where there is no formal religious education.

 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yeah, these people are nuts. The Australian Government commission even provides examples of approved charitable activities that fit under the category of 'advancing religion':

 

It sounds like they will have as much success as they got with previous ‘sure to be the end of LD$ INC’ claims in the past.

I wonder how much money the Australian gov would get if the deductible was denied…average tax rate is around 25%, so guessing maybe church members would owe at most around 7.5 million more in taxes***.  Assuming the US chapter is sending $70 million, even if 90% is sent out of Australia, it seems like it likely comes close to even in benefiting Australians, if not more.

***Australian members appear to run slightly below average in household income (though this may be off as extrapolating from NSW).  They also appear to be much more likely to be a couple or single parent with children and have larger households, so my guess is they typically get more deductions in other areas.

https://multiculturalnsw.id.com.au/multiculturalnsw/religion-by-household-income?COIID=116

Edited April 4, 2022 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Tithing is apparently paid into L.D.S. Charitable Trust Fund in Australia, correct (getting this from comments in the 2020 Reddit thread)?

However, the charity name is different, so was the poster wrong?

Here's the correct link: https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities/357ae4a8-38af-e811-a962-000d3ad24a0d/profile

[JustAnAustralian]

The thing is, once you scrape away all the swarth about whether the church counts as a charity or not, it all comes down to:

Is the structure of the church in Australia set up in such a way to illegally make otherwise non-deductable donations deductable?

They regularly submit financials as required by the government in Australia, and registered accountants attach their name to it (which is a pretty bad idea if they don't know if its legal), so I doubt what the church is doing is illegal, and anything beyond that is for politicians to decide the laws on if they want things changed.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Q&A from the Australian Tax Office (with official response):

Quote

 Author: nigelpaul7(Newbie)13 Apr 2020

The money I give to my Church on a weekly basis, can I claim that when I do my Tax return?

 

 Author: KylieATO(Staff)13 Apr 2020

 

Hi @nigelpaul7,

 

If the church is registered a a deductible gift recipient you can claim the it as a deduction.  It is claimed under gifts and donations on your income tax return.

The Church's charitable trust account is listed as a deductible gift recipient:

Quote

L.D.S. CHARITABLE TRUST FUND is endorsed as a Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) from 01 Jul 2000. It is a public ancillary fund covered by Item 2 of the table in section 30-15 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 .

I find it quite frustrating that bitter apostates are repeatedly so bad at what they try to do.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

By the way, Ms Given popped 'round this board once to enquire about signing on to the doomed Laura Gaddy lawsuit.

[Rain]

6 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 

But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 

That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. - Matthew 6:3 KJV

 

On the one hand, the Savior said it, so it's a good idea. On the other hand, it sure does give a politically disadvantageous impression sometimes.

The thing to look at is motive.  If you  let people know of your alms to be seen of men it isn't good.  If you let people know so they can glorify God it is good. Then there is probably a whole lot of room in between where your motive may be good, but because you do so much it won't come across that way so best to do most of it in secret.

[Kenngo1969]

Anything's possible, I suppose, but in order for something like this to fly, I think one would have to believe that a whistleblower was able to put one over on accountants and lawyers who are in the employ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Australia who either were engaging in fraud actively or were asleep at the switch.  Not likely.  Am I suggesting that powerful corporations always are right and that whistleblowers always are wrong?  No.  Of course not.  All of us have seen too many instances where the reverse is true.  But in this instance ... ?  

[Amulek]

You know what I would like to see come out of this story? I would like to see the Church come out and say something to the effect of, 'You know what, you are absolutely right. We have intentionally structured our organizations in Australia to legally minimize our own tax liability and that of our members. In light of this news, it has come to our attention that many other churches are not similarly situated. As such, we have decided to make our financial and legal resources available to other religious and charitable organizations operating in Australia to help them set up similar legal structures for their own organizations.'

That would make me smile.

[Analytics]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyway, thoughts?  Am I way off?  Is there a scandal brewing here?

The way I interpret the allegations, before 2010 the Church in Australia donated about $30 thousand a year to charity. Then starting in 2011, the Church is Australia started donating about $70 million a year to charity. That's fishy. What actually happened?

It seems there are two basic ways they could have done this:

A: The global church really increased its charitable giving by $70 million a year, starting in 2011.

B: The global church said, "let's simultaneously do two things:

1. Increase Australia's charitable giving by $70 million a year
2. Decrease the rest of the Church's charitable giving by $70 million year"

If what they did is the second option, I can see why the Australian tax authorities might have a problem with that. 

[Vanguard]

10 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The thing is, once you scrape away all the swarth about whether the church counts as a charity or not, it all comes down to:

Is the structure of the church in Australia set up in such a way to illegally make otherwise non-deductable donations deductable?

They regularly submit financials as required by the government in Australia, and registered accountants attach their name to it (which is a pretty bad idea if they don't know if its legal), so I doubt what the church is doing is illegal, and anything beyond that is for politicians to decide the laws on if they want things changed.

I like the thinking on this. It makes sense that the more convoluted our laws are, the more ways there are to maneuver around them legally and illegally. Though some times interesting to explore, it does become tedious rather quickly to dissect these maneuverings. At some point, there is no way to determine whether the Church's actions were ethically appropriate enough. And it is no coincidence those who typically defend the church will agree it was appropriate enough (I am one) and those who continually express concerns will believe the Church has crossed the line. And so it goes. Managing a worldwide church and a massive corporation involves massive amounts of strange gray area. We see it ALL THE TIME. Who knows whether all of these intricacies involved malfeasance or not? If the Church has legally shifted funding sources and such in order to make it work better for their own needs in Australia, as a general rule, I say go for it. The case is closed for me at that point whether it involves my own faith or any other corporation/religious entity. If the legal system deems it inappropriate what the Church has done, then the Church should change accordingly. No harm no foul.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The way I interpret the allegations, before 2010 the Church in Australia donated about $30 thousand a year to charity. Then starting in 2011, the Church is Australia started donating about $70 million a year to charity. That's fishy. What actually happened?

It seems there are two basic ways they could have done this:

A: The global church really increased its charitable giving by $70 million a year, starting in 2011.

B: The global church said, "let's simultaneously do two things:

1. Increase Australia's charitable giving by $70 million a year
2. Decrease the rest of the Church's charitable giving by $70 million year"

If what they did is the second option, I can see why the Australian tax authorities might have a problem with that. 

If it was legal, then it doesn't really matter what the Australian tax authorities think.  If it's illegal then the church should make restitution and change its practices.  

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

If it was legal, then it doesn't really matter what the Australian tax authorities think.  If it's illegal then the church should make restitution and change its practices.  

Being legal doesn't make it right or ethical.