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

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Being legal doesn't make it right or ethical.

But that is not what this case is about, right?  

There is no one involved in this case, or present on this message board, who can say whether or not it's ethical.  Vanguard's post was correct in that trying to discuss whether or not it's ethical, with the incredibly limited information that we have and the many different perspectives, is tedious and useless.  It will always be a black hole topic.

The pragmatist in me says, why get angsty over a question that no one will ever be able to answer with anything other than their unsupportable opinion?

But the law, we can deal with.

Edited April 4, 2022 by bluebell

[Analytics]

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.  

My point was that the Australian tax authorities are the ones with the authority to judge if it was illegal or not.

Further, they could decide that the Church's tax strategy is technically legal, but it violates the spirit and intention of the law, and that the law needs to be changed to close this unintended loophole.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My point was that the Australian tax authorities are the ones with the authority to judge if it was illegal or not.

Further, they could decide that the Church's tax strategy is technically legal, but it violates the spirit and intention of the law, and that the law needs to be changed to close this unintended loophole.

Agreed.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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. 

Not only is it not illegal, I'm not even sure it's unethical.  I'm curious why you think there is a problem here.

In previous threads, critics have made the argument that dollars are fungible, and that a dollar of non-tithing is indistinguishable from a dollar of tithing, and that the Church is therefore being disingenuous in claiming that no tithing funds are used on the commercial ventures of the Church. 

Here, though, the opposite argument is being made.  That a dollar of Australian-tithing is not fungible with a dollar of not-Australian-tithing, and that the Church cannot legitimately exchange the one for the other in its accounting procedures. At least here the Church is exchanging tithing dollars for tithing dollars, so we don't encounter the same issues as the City Creek and other similar discussions.

[ttribe]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The pragmatist in me says, why get angsty over a question that no one will ever be able to answer with anything other than their unsupportable opinion?

Uhhhhh, is that not pretty much what happens all day on an Internet message board?

[Vanguard]

52 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Being legal doesn't make it right or ethical.

This is true. Though a court of law deeming its 'rightness' is only in my mind an academic matter as I reserve the right to disagree with the court's decision on ethical grounds though I acquiesce to it's authority - that's how the game is played. The Church having to change its practices proves nothing beyond the fact that another group of men/women empowered to make legal decisions, disagrees.

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Uhhhhh, is that not pretty much what happens all day on an Internet message board?

Sometimes.  They are usually the topics that get shut down quickly because their "black hole-ness" is pretty apparent.

But much of what is talked about on here is supportable (which is different than proveable of course).  When we have something we can share or point to to help explain our conclusions, something other than assumptions or speculation, then discussion can be engaging.  When it's all speculation then it seems rather worthless.

Some topics lend itself better to that than others.  A topic that has almost zero information available to use to make a determination of ethical or not seems worthless as well, to me anyway.

(Your mileage probably does vary, and you and others who also disagree can endlessly ping pong back and forth between "it's not ethical" and "yes it is" to your heart's content).

I was just explaining why I personally didn't see value in bringing the questions of ethics into this specific discussion.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Not only is it not illegal, I'm not even sure it's unethical.  I'm curious why you think there is a problem here.

In previous threads, critics have made the argument that dollars are fungible, and that a dollar of non-tithing is indistinguishable from a dollar of tithing, and that the Church is therefore being disingenuous in claiming that no tithing funds are used on the commercial ventures of the Church. 

Here, though, the opposite argument is being made.  That a dollar of Australian-tithing is not fungible with a dollar of not-Australian-tithing, and that the Church cannot legitimately exchange the one for the other in its accounting procedures. At least here the Church is exchanging tithing dollars for tithing dollars, so we don't encounter the same issues as the City Creek and other similar discussions.

I would presume that when the Australian government decided not to make tithing tax-deductible, they did so because they shared Jon Huntsman Sr's sensibilities on the topic (Huntsman Sr. says he doesn’t count tithing as philanthropy). I would also presume that when they set up the tax law, they were imagining typical churches which are stand-alone entities fully within Australia. I doubt their intention was to make effectual tithing payments to the LDS Church tax-deductible while not providing the same benefit to churches that operate wholly within Australia.

I think I'm being consistent with the fungibility argument. It comes across as insincere to claim tithing money isn't being used to capitalize the Church's business enterprises and investment portfolios. Likewise, it comes across as insincere to claim that the donations made by Australian Latter-day Saints are not being used to fund the Church in Australia. 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Being legal doesn't make it right or ethical.

So... you should stop taking your mortgage interest deduction from your income tax then? 

Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right. Right?

Of course, there are things that are wrong that are legal, but what is taxation, anyway? it is the government that sets it. The government specifies the rate, and what is taxed. It creates loopholes. Taxation can be morally wrong, I suppose, if it takes away all of a person's means to survive. But can the government create an immoral tax that doesn't tax enough? That is absurd.

You might be of the opinion that someone or something isn't being taxed enough. That's your right. But just as someone once said to me, my stake president, in fact, that just because I didn't believe the income tax was moral, didn't make it wrong, but if I wanted to do something about it (and still keep my temple recommend), then I ought to work towards the repeal of income taxes. Otherwise, he would expect me to obey the law until the law changed.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Stargazer

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So... you should stop taking your mortgage interest deduction from your income tax then? 

Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right.

Seriously, man? I didn't speak in some absolute terms. I was pointing the flaw in the argument.  Nor do I think your comparison is anywhere close to appropriate. The mortgage interest deduction is largely an economic stimulus policy to promote home ownership. The deductibility of a charitable contribution is meant to incentivize giving to organizations that give back to the community. It seems the question here is whether said charitable organization actually achieves that mission; something I've not actually weighed in on.

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Seriously, man? I didn't speak in some absolute terms. I was pointing the flaw in the argument.  Nor do I think your comparison is anywhere close to appropriate. The mortgage interest deduction is largely an economic stimulus policy to promote home ownership. The deductibility of a charitable contribution is meant to incentivize giving to organizations that give back to the community. It seems the question here is whether said charitable organization actually achieves that mission; something I've not actually weighed in on.

So what? Does it matter that the mortgage interest deduction has a purpose? You're not required to use it, are you? Wouldn't the purposes of the government, which are presumably beneficial to society as a whole, be served best if you simply paid more in taxes than you're strictly required to? That's supposedly why politicians want to tax the rich, correct? They have the most money, so it's time to shear the sheep. And why Simon Southerton wants the church and its members to fork over more money, presumably. Out of purely humanitarian motives, most probably.

I've not addressed the question of whether said charitable organization actually achieves its mission, either. I'm addressing the mission of the government, which ostensibly is the benefit of the entire country. So you should pay more in taxes, if you're able.

But, since you bring it up, let's weigh in on whether said charitable organization actually achieves its mission. The Australians seem to have included "religious purposes" as a charitable purpose. The LDS church spends a great deal of money building and maintaining properties for the purpose of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, and as far as I can tell, that is a religious activity. So, clearly, the LDS church is using its donated funds for the charitable purposes. If you want the LDS church to commit to other varieties of charitable activity, then you're free to advocate for it. Including getting the government to repeal pure religious purposes as a charitable activity.

But I apologize for missing your point, if I did, and if there was one.   It's entirely possible that I misconstrued what you were trying to say. 

[ttribe]

4 hours 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.  

 

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

Being legal doesn't make it right or ethical.

 

11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So what? Does it matter that the mortgage interest deduction has a purpose? You're not required to use it, are you? Wouldn't the purposes of the government, which are presumably beneficial to society as a whole, be served best if you simply paid more in taxes than you're strictly required to? That's supposedly why politicians want to tax the rich, correct? They have the most money, so it's time to shear the sheep. And why Simon Southerton wants the church and its members to fork over more money, presumably. Out of purely humanitarian motives, most probably.

I've not addressed the question of whether said charitable organization actually achieves its mission, either. I'm addressing the mission of the government, which ostensibly is the benefit of the entire country. So you should pay more in taxes, if you're able.

But, since you bring it up, let's weigh in on whether said charitable organization actually achieves its mission. The Australians seem to have included "religious purposes" as a charitable purpose. The LDS church spends a great deal of money building and maintaining properties for the purpose of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, and as far as I can tell, that is a religious activity. So, clearly, the LDS church is using its donated funds for the charitable purposes. If you want the LDS church to commit to other varieties of charitable activity, then you're free to advocate for it. Including getting the government to repeal pure religious purposes as a charitable activity.

But I apologize for missing your point, if I did, and if there was one.   It's entirely possible that I misconstrued what you were trying to say. 

Geez, look at the context. bb made a very simple statement regarding legality. I simply pointed out that legality is not the appropriate (or only) measure of what is right or ethical. That's it. Done. You jumped in with your non sequitor argument about mortgage deductions as if I had either explicitly, or implicitly, argued that all legal things must be ethical or 'right,' or that all ethical and 'right' things must be legal. I did neither.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

would presume that when the Australian government decided not to make tithing tax-deductible

CFR they decided to make tithing not tax deductible…

Just An Australian says his is and everything I have read suggests it is (donations to a church/religion qualify as charitable donations).

Edited April 4, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

The deductibility of a charitable contribution is meant to incentivize giving to organizations that give back to the community. It seems the question here is whether said charitable organization actually achieves that mission; something I've not actually weighed in on.

According to how the Australian government defines charities, the Church would appear to do so since it is a bonafide faith/religion…and according to gov documents, it has been fully accepted as such:

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

Quote

The charity's subtype history

Purpose	Start date	End date
Advancing religion

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

Quote

4. Advancing religion

A religion involves a belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle, and acceptance of canons of conduct which give effect to that belief. Advancing religion involves promotion of those beliefs, principles, observances and standards of conduct.

Some examples of charities that advance religion:

• Religious congregations
• Religious education bodies
• Funds for establishing and maintaining religious buildings

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by Calm

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

According to how the Australian government defines charities, the Church would appear to do so since it is a bonafide faith/religion…and according to gov documents, it has been fully accepted as such:

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

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

 

Again, I've not weighed in on this, nor do I really have that much interest in it. Had Simon Southerton not been banned from this site, perhaps the discussion could be had with him.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Again, I've not weighed in on this, nor do I really have that much interest in it. Had Simon Southerton not been banned from this site, perhaps the discussion could be had with him.

Was he banned?  What was his alias if you recall?  There are a number of Simon’s, but nothing jumps out.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Calm

[ttribe]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Was he banned?  What was his alias if you recall?  There are a number of Simon’s, but nothing jumps out.

My recollection was he was banned years ago during the so-called purge and that he may have posted under his own name.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

My recollection was he was banned years ago during the so-called purge and that he may have posted under his own name.

I don’t remembering him posting and wanted to refresh my so called memory…I didn’t think names of members were ever deleted, but perhaps they are.

[ttribe]

Just now, Calm said:

I don’t remembering him posting and wanted to refresh my so called memory…I didn’t think names of members were ever deleted, but perhaps they are.

I just checked one that I know was here and that person's name is gone from the records.

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

 

 

Geez, look at the context. bb made a very simple statement regarding legality. I simply pointed out that legality is not the appropriate (or only) measure of what is right or ethical. That's it. Done. You jumped in with your non sequitor argument about mortgage deductions as if I had either explicitly, or implicitly, argued that all legal things must be ethical or 'right,' or that all ethical and 'right' things must be legal. I did neither.

Perhaps conclusions were 'hurried along' from your comment though I too wondered what you might be getting at by making the statement you did. Rather than assume it is S-gazer who hustled this far too much, perhaps you might consider the legitimate inferences others made to your comment? I can count 2 who have done so.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

 

 

Geez, look at the context. bb made a very simple statement regarding legality. I simply pointed out that legality is not the appropriate (or only) measure of what is right or ethical. That's it. Done. You jumped in with your non sequitor argument about mortgage deductions as if I had either explicitly, or implicitly, argued that all legal things must be ethical or 'right,' or that all ethical and 'right' things must be legal. I did neither.

Were you just making a general comment about laws in general? I could agree with you that, in general, not all legal acts are ethical or right, just because they are legal. But I understood the discussion to revolve around tax laws, not all laws in general. And in particular, the discussion seems to pertain to the tax laws that the church must follow, thus narrowing it further.

And here I wasn't addressing bluebell's context. I was addressing the thread's context. When you said that just because something is legal doesn't make it right or ethical, I was disagreeing with your assertion, in connection with tax laws (which the subject of the thread), and the taking advantage thereof. 

If you want to claim that my using as an example a particular kind of tax regulation is a non-sequitur, go for it. But the principle is this: if someone is obeying the tax law, then how the heck can it be unethical? OR wrong? You want to argue that it can be, please come up with an example.

The sense that I get from some of the argumentation in the thread is that the church should not follow the tax law when it results in the church having an advantage. Or, in other words, that the church should avoid taking advantage of the law, and pay more tax, if doing so would result in its paying unethically less tax (whatever that might mean).  And I followed the logic trail down this path: if the church voluntarily pays more tax instead of taking advantage of certain provisions of the tax law, and this makes the church more ethical, then perhaps we should follow the church's ethical example and also choose to pay more tax. Just to be ethical.

 

 

 

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

CFR they decided to make tithing not tax deductible…

Just An Australian says his is and everything I have read suggests it is (donations to a church/religion qualify as charitable donations).

I just recently discovered something very interesting with regard to UK tax law in connection with charitable giving. I just got done doing my wife's UK tax return, and it turns out that if one is a UK taxpayer, one may donate to a charity through the government's "Gift Aid" scheme. While this doesn't reduce the tax you owe, the government will pay to the charity the tax that you paid on the amount you donated!  Slick. It doesn't necessarily incentivize charitable giving, but it does provide a way for a person to effectively give more. The charity has to be a recognized charity, which the LDS church is.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR they decided to make tithing not tax deductible…

Just An Australian says his is and everything I have read suggests it is (donations to a church/religion qualify as charitable donations).

“Australia is unusual among English-speaking countries in that it does not allow tax deductions for tithing or church donations.”

https://www.theage.com.au/national/mormons-inc-church-accused-of-multinational-tax-rort-20220330-p5a98p.html

[JustAnAustralian]

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

“Australia is unusual among English-speaking countries in that it does not allow tax deductions for tithing or church donations.”

https://www.theage.com.au/national/mormons-inc-church-accused-of-multinational-tax-rort-20220330-p5a98p.html

That's a vast simplification of the matter. To get a tax deduction for a donation to a charity, the charity has to be on the deductible gift recipients list. Just being a charity doesn't cut it. 

Donations we pay goes to L.D.S. CHARITABLE TRUST FUND which is on the deductible gift recipients list https://abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View?abn=60964279191

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

“Australia is unusual among English-speaking countries in that it does not allow tax deductions for tithing or church donations.”

Repeating my post from yesterday, which I took directly from the Australian Tax Office's website:

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.

In this case, I'm much, much more inclined to trust the ATO itself than I am to blindly accept a blanket statement in an Age article based on complaints from disgruntled (but, apparently, 'senior'!) apostates.