60 Minutes Australia: "Cooking the Book of Mormon"

[Chum]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This issue, however, is not about the Church paying the taxes it owes. It is specifically about the Church arranging matters within the existing legal and regulatory framework so that members' charitable donations are tax deductible.

If I wanted to stay on topic, would I be here?

[Chum]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

On a county level I don’t know the inner workings, but the end result is that the church recoups sales tax paid by members on its behalf. 

I'm guessing you mean Salt Lake handles the recouping. On the face of it, it seems onerous for SL to claw back sales tax from every big/small municipality that collect it.  Is that what's done?

Past that - Would that mean munis have to verify & process returns from most every non profit with a presence? For tiny depts, it seems like a lot.

[Teancum]

On 10/30/2022 at 1:35 PM, smac97 said:

And just because a disliked (in some circles) religious group is doing that legal something doesn't make it wrong.

Thanks,

Smac

Let's see.  Tithing and contributions to religions in Australia are not tax deductible.  LDS Church sets up a charitable trust and tells members to give their tithing to that entity instead.  Charities in Australia are supposed to use their funds primary in Australia for charitable purposes and be directed by Australians. LDS Trust does not do this and gives something like $7000 for charity purposes in Australia but funnels the $$ to SLC. I wonder if other religious organizations in Australia do this?

[ksfisher]

10 hours ago, Chum said:

Past that - Would that mean munis have to verify & process returns from most every non profit with a presence? For tiny depts, it seems like a lot.

Most non-profits handle things like the one I work for does: the business we are buying things from has our tax number on file and doesn't charge us tax.

Like I was saying, the church doesn't do that so as to avoid the danger of having people buy personal items along with things for church so as to avoid paying tax on their own stuff.

I can't really speak to anything below the state level as Utah doesn't have county or municipal sales tax, only state.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Tithing and contributions to religions in Australia are not tax deductible

No, they are 75% deductible.  JustAnAustralian has said this several times iirc and others have too.

Quote

Charities in Australia are supposed to use their funds primary in Australia for charitable purposes and be directed by Australians. 

CFR where government documents or something official says that.  Here is the ATO page on overseas funds:

https://www.ato.gov.au/Non-profit/Getting-started/In-detail/Types-of-DGRs/Overseas-aid-funds/

Charities in Australian are to be overseen by Australians, iirc. as is both the Trust Fund and LDSCA.  The names are available and when I checked when this first came out two of the three were able to be identified as locals.  The last name I couldn’t find anywhere online at that time, might now, but given these men also had callings as local leaders, the third is likely the same (the Trust Fund is likely part of their calling as is appropriate for overseeing tithing funds where possible and thus why there are no paid employees).***names are listed with their backgrounds in this:  https://acncpubfilesprodstorage.blob.core.windows.net/public/30f0a550-3aaf-e811-a963-000d3ad24077-f22f51ad-ee3d-438e-a40c-115e9ab6eef2-Financial Report-fea4e329-4ef0-ec11-bb3d-002248944f2b-LDSCA_2021_Financial_Statements_-_FINAL.pdf

Steven Peterson looks to be from Utah originally, but likely lived in Australia if I understand the references.  The three current ones look like all born and bred in Australia.

CFR for facts, not conjecture, that it gets funneled to SLC.  The articles do provide documentation for donations to overseas charities in various countries, none US iirc.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

This has a short discussion about the difficulties of getting approval of overseas charities in Australia, however as long as the CharitableTrust Fund donates to the all Australian LDSCA and that organization only gives to ATO approved charities, they can safely assume the government is ensuring those charities it supports are compliant.  So if any money is going to SL from LDSCA, they have to be on the approved list.

https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I4d0e5dd76e4e11e698dc8b09b4f043e0/Charitable-organisations-in-Australia-overview?

[Calm]

In the official report which is filed with the government, it is made clear where the funds will be going:

Quote

Short-Term Objectives
• Identify suitable projects to provide relief in developing countries.
• Ensure projects are socially just, environmentally responsible and meet the requirements of
the Tax Act for a deductible gift recipient.
• Provide all support in accordance with the precepts of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints.
Long-Term Objectives
• Advance community development in developing countries.
• Build relationships with other organisations that can assist in supporting the objectives of
the Company.

Quote

Principal Activities
The principal activity of the Company during the financial year was to provide humanitarian aid for the relief of people in developing countries by supporting and/or funding projects to achieve these purposes.
There were no significant changes in the nature of those activities during the year.

 

The intent is to provide relief in developing countries.  Kind of hard to believe the ATO would miss that and assume all that money was going back to Australians…if the law was actually it had to be primarily for Australians and not foreigners.

Since the Charity identifies projects and organizations to support and does not create projects themselves, seems likely to be a pretty low maintenance charity, take in the donations from the Trust Fund, find candidates to give the donations to and then follow up to ensure those relief funds are doing what they committed to.  The ATO has a list of developing countries’ relief funds, administrators can use that list as the beginning point of their investigations.

The report is audited, will try and see if the auditors are members or provided by the government or anything relevant later today.

The only way I see any money being sent to SL is if sent to LDSC for their projects in developing countries.  It would be illegal for any of the donation to be used for aid to Americans, church activities, missionary work, or any investment fund.  It has to go to humanitarian projects in developing countries.

The only issue I see that is problematic is not how the money is spent as that has to go through the approval process of the Australian government (they can only use approved charities), but the tax deductions the members are getting. Technically they are giving 85% of their tithing to humanitarian projects…not sure how the 15% qualifies, my guess is a certain percentage of fund may be used as dictated by the government for infrastructure and administration, how that is used and who by I can’t tell.  So it is not who they are giving the money to that is the issue either since it just gets passed on to the developing country.

The issue is how are the services paid for usually by the members to keep the lights on and the building’s comfortable, pay for manuals, etc are covered.  If I understand correctly, much is ‘free’ already in the sense the ward doesn’t pay the bills, but the Church covers the cost.  Maybe forms and such are free if ordered by the ward through Church distribution.  So not that difficult to cover since they were doing it pretty much the same already.  But the Church typically does this with the expectation of getting tithing funds from ward/branch members that contribute at least some to the larger fund, even if in some cases it is a small amount.  I suspect many of the Australian wards would be mostly self supporting in the sense that what they get for running the services, etc is about the same.  The Church may be calculating the Australian donations as part of its global efforts (why not? What is there to be ashamed of?), but unless they are lying about else they are giving, I don’t see this as some smoke and mirrors if the net effect is the same or has increased spending in developing countries funds (it may not be cost effective for the Church to invest the time to be sure they hold back from other humanitarian funds the exact additional amounts being provided to the relief projects by Australians) so there is no loss in church maintenance/administration coverage (assuming the global Church just goes ahead and pays expenses, budgets, etc of Australian Saints.  Most likely net change is zero or a loss as it would have been easier to capitalize and use the Australian donations for SL’s pet projects or dump lots of excess Australian tithing in Ensign Peak prior to the tithing being sent to relief organizations instead.  So they may have been doing it before the switch (though I doubt it) and may try to maintain the effort, but it’s harder now, more complicated, so it seems highly unlikely SL would use this as some sort of way to increase Ensign Peak funds (they can just give it from the general fund with no reference to Australia if they wanted to increase fund transfers into real estate, stocks, etc.  Easier to just pull from general funds whatever they need to send to Australia and not create something new to add complication and therefore costs to the process.

So the only loss of money anywhere is likely from the lower taxes of Australians, calculated above.

So will the government view the loss of taxes to the amount calculated above (I don’t buy the claimed $400 million, I want to see their math) as well worth all that money going to relief funds?  Remember almost 100% of the tithing is going to the designated by the government as appropriate relief funds to support while the amount received through the tax deduction to go to government projects is a fraction of that.  It is impossible to know what percentage of other church’s tithes and offerings would go to crucial humanitarian projects as opposed to feel good, but maybe not life altering efforts, but it will certainly be less than almost 100% and my guess is likely much less.****

And it seems to me relief funds benefit the Australian government significantly in some fashion or they would not create what is pretty much a favored status among overseas charities  (since most do not appear to qualify for full tax deduction).  One way is the significant PR and better relationships with other countries developed through Australians working with and supporting these relief funds.  Another might be that those helped may decide they can manage in their homeland and not try to immigrate to Australia, which adds to strained resources.

Some of this is speculation, such as the motive of the Australian government for favoring overseas relief funds, but if some can come up with a reason why Australia would choose to,promote support of overseas relief funds when it damaging to them, I would love to hear it.

****based on Hamba’s calculations (rounding off because I am lazy), in my hypothetical it would amount to a difference between an additional  $200 in taxes to the government vs the almost $4200 given to developing countries’ relief funds on an individual basis, a $4000 guaranteed increase.  For the entire hypothetical tithe paying Australian Saint community, that difference would be around a loss of 4.8 million for the government vs almost $1 billion being given to developing countries’ relief funds.  I can see the appeal to the government to not try to close the loophole then just hope church members and the Church will be willing to keep funding those high need charities vs just keeping the money for themselves or funding projects that are more personal for them, but less high need…such as sports or arts organizations.

Quote

A

Saint who earns $41,860/year, tithes on gross, and has no other deductions (including fast offerings, etc.) would have a taxable income of $37,674 under the current arrangement of 100 per cent deductibility, resulting in an estimated tax of $3,700.06. This is a total tax rate of 8.84 per cent.

In a scenario where only 75 per cent of tithing is deductible (as was the case for a few years before the Church fixed this), a Saint who earns $41,860/year, tithes on gross, and has no other deductions (including fast offerings, etc.) would have a taxable income of $38,721, resulting in an estimated tax of $3,898.99. This is a total tax rate of 9.31 per cent.

In other words, for a person on a median income, being able to deduct 100 per cent of tithing (vs just 75 per cent) reduces her/his income tax contribution by $198.93 per year, reducing the person's tax burden by 0.47 per cent of gross income.

Consequently, if every person in your $1 billion scenario earnt a median income, it would amount to 23,889 people, each paying $198.93 less per year. That's a total difference in government revenue of $4,752,239 per year. (Total government revenue with 100 per cent tithing deductible = $88,390,733. Total government revenue with 75 per cent tithing deductible = $93,142,972.) Over seven years, this would amount to $33,265,671 in 'lost' government revenue.

Again did this on little sleep, so please feel free to check my work, assumptions, and conclusions. 

Edited November 2, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Let's see.  Tithing and contributions to religions in Australia are not tax deductible. 

Yes.

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

LDS Church sets up a charitable trust and tells members to give their tithing to that entity instead. 

Yes.  And this is being treated as some terrible, unethical thing.

It's not.

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Charities in Australia are supposed to use their funds primary in Australia for charitable purposes and be directed by Australians.  

From the article:

Quote

In 2019, the ATO made a binding ruling that for an Australian charity to have deductible gift recipient status – which allows tax write-offs for donors – it must have Australia as “the focal point ... in a legal or organisational sense”.

"Must have Australia as 'the focal point ... in an legal or organisational sense.'"  I'm not sure that equates to "supposed to use their funds primar{ily} in Australia."  If you disagree, could you elaborate?

It sort of seems strange that charitable organizations in Australia are prohibited from receiving donations which cannot be used to, for example, fund a clean water initiative in Papua New Guinea, or to purchase and transport emergency foodstuffs to the Ukraine.

Quote

The spokesman said the church funded programs through other charities including the Red Cross, Water for the People and the World Food Programme, allowing it to keep costs low.

This is also apparently seen as scandalous.  The expectation is that the Church should be incurring a lot more overhead, and the the fact that its charitable efforts are structured to allow "it to keep costs low" is evidence of . . . what?  Misconduct?  Mismanagement?

Quote

Charity tax expert Krystian Seibert, from Swinburne University’s Centre for Social Impact, speaking in general terms, has said the operations and management decisions of a charity needed to be made from Australia.

“It can, of course, engage and consult with partner organisations outside Australia,

"It can, of course, engage and consult with partner organisations outside Australia..."  Um, isn't that . . . a big deal? 

Is it possible that the Church, being a global organization with extensive experience in working with charitable/humanitarian organizations and efforts throughout the world, just might be situated to be a "partner organization outside Australia" providing assistance to LDS Charities Australia?  Resources which might otherwise require it to acquire via substantial staffing and other overhead expenses?  

Quote

but if it effectively outsources operational and management decision-making to individuals or organisations that are outside Australia, that could raise issues under our tax laws.”

I don't see a reference to a legal requirement that donations from Australian Latter-day Saints be used, as you put it, "primar{ily} in Australia."  Rather, the legal requirement seems to be about "operational and management decision-making" taking place in Australia.

Am I missing something?

Quote

A church spokesman said the Utah-based charity “identified and referred” charitable projects to LDS Charities Australia but maintained local volunteers made the decisions on which projects were funded.

This statement seems to

• A) explain the Church's compliance with the law in Australia,
• B) demonstrate a fiscally prudent avoidance of duplicated administrative/overhead expenses, and
• C) be the only evidence in view as to who wields, as Ms. Seibert puts it, "operational and management decision-making" for LDS Charities Australia. 

The Church says that "local volunteers" in Australia "{make} the decisions on which projects were funded."  And the supposedly intrepid investigative journalists have compiled as contravening evidence . . . what?  They use lots of insinuation, loaded terms and conclusory accusations from former (and virulently hostile) members.  But what actual evidence to they have that the Church and/or LDS Charities Australia are operating in violation of the law?

Let's think about this for a minute.  These days it is really difficult to hide papertrails.  Just look at the overall tone and tenor of the 60 Minutes segment.  Its primary sources of information (and vitriol) are former members of the Church, including an apparently well-regarded Australian barrister.  If the Church's spokesman quoted above is conveying false information, if local volunteers in Australia are not making "the decisions on which projects were funded," then evidence to that effect would, I think, be available.  Surely Neville Rochow, being both extensively trained and experienced in Australian law and hugely unfriendly to the Church, is motivated to rake muck and sling mud.  The Sydney Morning Herald started actively reporting on this story in April 2022.  Who knows how much time they spent prior to that investigating the Church.  Who knows how much time Mr. Rochow and his fellow antagonists have spent in similar efforts.  And yet here we are, in November 2022, with a 60 Minutes segment that is long on bombast and alarmism but very short on actual evidence of misconduct by the Church. 

Also, calls for a governmental "investigation" of the Church have been pending since at least April 2022.  Is there any evidence that the authorities have started such an investigation?  

Also, the Church has every incentive in the world for having its spokesman be forthcoming and accurate about operational and management decision-making for LDS Charities Australia.  If the Church were really in violation of the law, I think the smarter move would be to remain silent, as issuing a misleading/false formal public statement via an official spokesperson to a (hostile) news outlet is tantamount to putting the Church's head on the chopping block.  Consider this:

Quote

The familiar saying that "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up" is well-worn for a reason. Obstructive behavior or false statements can land defendants in hot water regardless of the substance of the government's underlying allegations.  Consider the following:

• Martha Stewart was never convicted of insider trading—she went to federal prison for lying to investigators.
• The House of Representatives initiated impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton on two charges—perjury and obstruction of justice.
• Richard Nixon resigned before the House could vote on whether to initiate charges, but the Judiciary Committee had approved three articles of impeachment against him—for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

A subject or target of an investigation must navigate treacherous terrain in simultaneously preparing a defense and avoiding any actions that might be perceived as obstructive.

If the Church and/or LDS Charities Australia has/have been operating in violation of the law, then one or both should be held accountable.  I think we agree on that, right?

But my question is this: Why would the Church want to operate in violation of the law?  Why go out of its way to structure LDS Charities Australia to comply with the law as regarding tax deductions, only to then turn around and disregard other legal provisions requiring "operations and management decisions" as to donated funds be made "in" or "from" Australia?  Why run the risk of compounding a violation of the law by trying to cover it up? 

And in any event, what is the likelihood of such a cover-up succeeding?  Living in 2022 as we are, wouldn't there be reams of evidence as to where the donated funds are going?  The Church has to use banks and other financial institutions like everyone else in order to get money from Point A to Point B.  Those institutions are heavily regulated in most countries, no doubt including Australia.  Such regulations necessarily include mandates as to record-keeping and disclosures to the government. 

If LDS Charities Australia really is taking in $100M or so every year from the Saints in that country, what is the likelihood of the Church being able to abscond with or otherwise misappropriate such huge amounts of money and get away with it?  Wouldn't that be a pretty unlikely thing?

And given the Church's overall financial acumen (for pete's sake, one of the biggest criticisms against us these days is that the Church is too good at managing its funds), wouldn't the Church see such risks and pitfalls from a mile away, and therefore avoid them?  Wouldn't that acumen make the accusations and insinuations in the 60 Minutes segment fairly implausible?

And more to the point, wouldn't the Church, being a community of generally decent and honest men and women, be unlikely to even consider such a fraudulent scheme in the first instance?  The premise of the 60 Minutes segment requires us to attribute not only malevolent motives to the Church, but also ignorance, stupidity and incompetence on a grand scale as to financial management and governmental regulation.  I'm sorry, but that's just a bridge too far for me.  The Church certainly has its flaws, but it's not so idiotic as to try to do what 60 Minutes is accusing it of doing.

Consider the Church's statement again: "A church spokesman said the Utah-based charity 'identified and referred' charitable projects to LDS Charities Australia but maintained local volunteers made the decisions on which projects were funded."  Reading between the lines, whom do you think these "local volunteers" are?  Anyone familiar with the Church can venture some likely accurate guesses (more accurate than those coming from the yahoos on 60 Minutes, anyway). 

Personally, I surmise that the Church has established one or more committees in Australia headed by Area Seventies and/or selected members of stake presidencies (and also perhaps advisory committees made up of other members with experience/training/resources, and also time to commit to do research) to review the potential funding of charitable/humanitarian projects, including those “identified and referred” to them by the Church (which assistance is, as noted above, totally legal and above board).  Such advisory committees in Australia could then compile reports and recommendations about where/how to use donated funds, which reports/recommendations would then be submitted to "volunteers" in Australia with "operational and management decision-making" authority.  Now who might these folks be?

It is my understanding that, for ecclesiastical "jurisdiction" purposes, Australia is overseen by the "Pacific Area Presidency" (who are General Authorities) and members of the Eighth Quorum of Seventy (who are not GAs).  Regarding the former, the current Pacific Area Presidency is comprised of Elders Peter F. Meurs, K. Brett Nattress, and Taniela B. Wakolo.  Elder Meurs is from Australia.  However, their offices are physically located in Auckland, New Zealand, rather than in Australia.  So I suspect the Area Presidency is not tasked with exercising "operational and management decision-making" authority for LDS Charities Australia because, well, the law apparently requires such authority to be exercised in Australia.  

As to the former (Area Seventies), here is the current list of Seventies in the Eighth Quorum (from the Church's website) :

Quote

Faapito Auapaau, Mapusaga, American Samoa; Samoa multipack operations manager, Starkist Samoa Co.; former counselor in a bishopric, high councilor, counselor in a stake presidency, and stake president; married to Irva; four children.

Glenn Burgess, Glen Eden, New Zealand; police officer, New Zealand Police Service; former bishop, counselor in a bishopric, high councilor, and stake president; married to Tracey; three children.

Sapele Fa‘alogo Jr., Apia, Samoa; translation and consulting services contractor, self-employed; former bishop, high councilor, counselor in a stake presidency, and stake president; married to Fiona; five children.

Robert Gordon, Bahrs Scrub, Australia; director and chief executive officer, Prime Learning, ACTE Group; former bishop, counselor in a district presidency, counselor in a mission presidency, stake mission president, and stake president; married to Rose; four children.

Carl R. Maurer, Moorooka, Australia; manager of Self-Reliance Services, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; former bishop, high councilor, mission president, stake mission president, stake president, and mission president; married to Karen; six children.

Allistair B. Odgers, Rangiora, New Zealand; counselor, R13 Trust; former bishop, counselor in a bishopric, district president, mission president, and stake president; married to Noeline; four children.

Damon Page, Croydon Hills, Australia; chief financial officer, ARB Corporation; former bishop, counselor in a bishopric, high councilor, and stake president; married to Alithea; four children.

Craig W. J. Raeside, Marden, Australia; forensic psychiatrist, S.A. Mental Health Service; currently serving as mission mental health specialist of the Philippines Mission; former bishop, branch president, high councilor, mission presidency member, and stake presidency member; married to Lesley; five children.

Frédéric T. Riemer, Pape‘ete, Tahiti; leader and member support coordinator, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; former bishop, high councilor, mission president, counselor in a stake presidency, stake president, and mission president; married to Jenny; five children.

Robert H. Simpson, Casula, Australia; director and certified public accountant, RM Financial Services; former bishop, counselor in a bishopric, counselor in a mission presidency, mission president, counselor in a stake presidency, and stake president; married to Jinny; seven children.

Iotua B. Tune, Taborio, Kiribati; MLS coordinator, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; former bishop, branch president, district president, stake president, and counselor in a mission presidency; married to Maii; seven children.

Paul B. Whippy, Nasese, Fiji; retired; former bishop, counselor in a branch presidency, counselor in a stake presidency, stake president, and counselor in a mission presidency; married to Olive; six children.

Elders Gordon, Maurer, Page, Raeside, and Simpson are all from Australia, Elders Burgess and Odgers are from New Zealand, and the remaining five are spread out across various Pacific Island locations (Samoa, American Samoa, Tahiti, Kiribati and Fiji). 

Area Seventy are not general authorities, they "live at home and serve on a Church-service basis for a designated number of years, similar to a bishop or stake president," and they "maintain their non-religious vocations."  Based on this information, it is my understanding that the above-referenced places associated with the names of these Area Seventies reflect where these men actually live.  That is, Elder Auapaau lives in Mapusaga ("a small village located nine miles west of Pago Pago on Tutuila island in the American territory of American Samoa"), Elder Burgess lives in Glen Eden ("a suburb of West Auckland, New Zealand"), and so on.  If that is so, then I think we can reasonably surmise that Elders Gordon, Maurer, Page, Raeside, and Simpson all live and work in Australia, and so are situated to be assigned "operational and management decision-making" authority for LDS Charities Australia.  In addition these Area Seventies, per Wikipedia, the Church presently has 42 stakes in Australia, which translates into 126 men in stake presidencies, 504 men on high councils, and 126 women in stake Relief Society Presidencies. 

Taken together, then, the Church has 5 Area Seventies, 126 members of stake presidencies, 504 members of high councils, and 126 members of stake RS presidencies, for a total of 761 people. 

761 people.  All living in Australia, likely with strong ties to both Australia and the Church.  All already serving, without pay, in volunteer capacities in the Church. 

Is it possible that the Church can utilize this fairly extensive roster of devoted Australian Saints to form committees of "local volunteers" who are given authority to make (or provide recommendations regarding) "operations and management decisions" for LDS Charities Australia, including "decisions on which projects {are} funded"?  Projects which include (but may not be limited to) those charitable/humanitarian endeavors “identified and referred” to them by the Church (functioning as a "partner organisation" outside Australia)?  Is it also possible that out of the 155,000 or so members of the Church in Australia, there might be even more people who could be added to the above roster of people with the time, talent and willingness to serve on such committees?

Is it also possible that by drawing on this extensive potential roster of unpaid (but nevertheless dedicated) volunteers, the Church can avoid most of the overhead expenses that it would otherwise necessarily incur by hiring employees, renting/buying office space, etc. (as, I think, most other charitable groups are forced to do)?

Are the foregoing circumstances not only "possible," but likely?  The Church already has a substantial volunteer (and unpaid) infrastructure in place.  Millions of Latter-day Saints across the world function in that capacity as a matter of course, sometimes in callings that - though essential to the function of the Church - are not necessarily full-to-overflowing with "job satisfaction" (I spent 3+ years on my stake's high council, and I found many of the meetings to be either unnecessary or unnecessarily long and inefficient).  How wonderful and meaningful it would be to assigned the task of identifying charitable/humanitarian efforts to be funded by donated (and sacred) funds!  

So it may just be that the Church has set things up whereby

• A) some Australian Latter-day Saints, living in Australia, are asked to serve on one or more committees (thus complying with the law as noted above), which committees
• B) review charitable/humanitarian endeavors “identified and referred” to them by the Church (and, I suspect, other charitable/humanitarian endeavors of which the Church might not be aware (because "men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness" - D&C 58:27)), and then
• C) prepare written summaries/reports as to ways in which donations to LDS Charities Australia can be utilized for charitable/humanitarian purposes, which reports they then deliver to
• D) sort of "executive committee," likely including one or more of the Area Seventies living and working in Australia (Elders Gordon, Maurer, Page, Raeside, and Simpson) (which, again, would be compliant with the law in Australia), which committee then
• E) makes "operations and management decisions" for LDS Charities Australia.

Doesn't this sound like something the Church would do?

I suggest that the foregoing scenario, though somewhat conjectural, is more likely and accurate than the evidence-free and speculative characterization of the Church by 60 Minutes (and their virulently-hostile-to-the-Church sources) as being some sort of sinister, malevolent, machiavellian, money-grubbing scofflaw which greedily absconds with millions of the Australian Widows' Mites and, using your terms, "funneling" the "$$" to "SLC" (no doubt to fund the lavishly profligate and jetset lifestyles of the wantonly hypocritical and libidinous Hugh Hefner doppelgangers and wannabes who otherwise speciously pass themselves off as so-called "General Authorities").  The notion that the Church and its leaders could misbehave in this way, could misappropriate such huge amounts of money without the charity/finance regulatory divisions of government in Australia catching on is, to me, pretty farfetched.

 YMMV. 

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

LDS Trust does not do this and gives something like $7000 for charity purposes in Australia but funnels the $$ to SLC.

I have questions about this.  A lot, actually.  I suspect 60 Minutes is not giving us all the facts.

As for "funnels the $$ to SLC," where are you getting that?

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I wonder if other religious organizations in Australia do this?

Per this article: 

Quote

In 2019, the ATO {Australian Tax Office} made a binding ruling that for an Australian charity to have deductible gift recipient status – which allows tax write-offs for donors – it must have Australia as “the focal point ... in a legal or organisational sense”.

So the "law" on this point in Australia seems to be pretty new.  It can take a while for the general public to become aware of such things.  And since 2019 this process may have been slowed down by the COVID pandemic.

But I guess I don't understand your question.  Are you implying that the Church is behaving unethically/immorally, but that that if and when "other religious organizations in Australia" start to set up similar charitable organizations to maximize tax deductions for donors, then the Church's behavior becomes ethical/moral? 

Thanks,

-Smac

[2BizE]

Here are some additional thoughts:

https://religionnews.com/2022/10/31/lds-church-is-under-fire-in-australia/

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

 

No….again. 

I don’t understand why posters are not reading an actual Australian Saint’s post about the subject at least as well as the news articles that demonstrate sloppy reporting.

Do I dare hope this will be the last time someone claims donations to churches have no tax deductions rather than deductions are 75% tithing and 100% for offerings, unlike most countries’ 100% deduction.

“"Must have Australia as 'the focal point ... in an legal or organisational sense.'"  I'm not sure that equates to "supposed to use their funds primar{ily} in Australia."  If you disagree, could you elaborate?”.
 

It does not. It refers to the activities of the Australian charity, not who they give the money to as the giver has set up a special category for overseas developing countries’ relief funds. I may have quoted all the relevant info, but LDSCA explicitly documents their purpose is for their funds go to these overseas funds and yet they got approved and continue to be approved as a DGR. 
 

“I have questions about this.  A lot, actually.  I suspect 60 Minutes is not giving us all the facts.

As for "funnels the $$ to SLC," where are you getting that?”

Please read the ACNC document on LDS Charities Australia and LDS Charitable Trust Fund. It would have saved you lots of time and confusion is you did it first when it was linked to. 

Edited November 2, 2022 by Calm

[Duncan]

https://news-nz.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/how-charitable-donations-in-australiaare-helping-people-around-the-world

 

not sure of this was posted or not, it's from April of this year

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Charities in Australian are to be overseen by Australians, iirc. as is both the Trust Fund and LDSCA.  The names are available and when I checked when this first came out two of the three were able to be identified as locals.  The last name I couldn’t find anywhere online at that time, might now, but given these men also had callings as local leaders, the third is likely the same (the Trust Fund is likely part of their calling as is appropriate for overseeing tithing funds where possible and thus why there are no paid employees).***names are listed with their backgrounds in this:  https://acncpubfilesprodstorage.blob.core.windows.net/public/30f0a550-3aaf-e811-a963-000d3ad24077-f22f51ad-ee3d-438e-a40c-115e9ab6eef2-Financial Report-fea4e329-4ef0-ec11-bb3d-002248944f2b-LDSCA_2021_Financial_Statements_-_FINAL.pdf

Steven Peterson looks to be from Utah originally, but likely lived in Australia if I understand the references.  The three current ones look like all born and bred in Australia.

Huh.  I just now posted a fairly long comment that, among other things, speculated about who has "operational and management decision-making" authority for LDSCA.  I did so sort of off-the-cuff, and so I did not review the above-linked 2021 Financial Statement.  This document lists, as the "directors" of LDSCA, Douglas J. Martin, Paul G. Gray, Carl R. Maurer, and Steven K. Peterson (since released).

Douglas J. Martin works, as of February 2021, for the Church as "Pacific Area Director for Temporal Affairs," having replaced Steven K. Peterson "who has returned to the United States to take up the role of managing director of the Church’s Materials Management Department."  The link here, to a "News Release" from the Church, does not specify that Bro. Martin lives in Australia.  The News Release is showing as from "AUCKLAND, New Zealand."  However, we know that the offices for the Pacific Area Presidency are in Auckland, so this reference might just be due to that.  Based on his job title (referencing the "Pacific Area"), his responsibilities ("Brother Martin will oversee the Church’s welfare, self-reliance, disaster relief and other humanitarian efforts in the South Pacific..."), and his qualifications as listed in the Financial Statement (he's a CPA who has spent most or all of his career working in Australia and New Zealand), and given the legal requirements that LDSCA be managed from Australia, I think it is reasonable to surmise that Bro. Martin lives and works in Australia, and therefore complies with that country's in-Australia decision-maker legal requirement.

Paul G. Gray is, per his credentials as stated in the Financial Statement, also a CPA (two accountants - boy, their office parties must be really lively), having been educated in Australia and working as "Finance Manager for Australia" for 19 years.  The likelihood of Bro. Gray satisfying the in-Australia decision-maker requirement is . . . pretty good.

Carl R. Maurer is an Area Seventy living in Australia, and I included him as a potential in-Australia decision-maker for LDSCA.

Moreover, the Financial Statement lists 2021 revenues of $93,000,000.00 (donations) and interest ($87,880), and expenditures for "Payments to Suppliers and Employees" ($6,070.00), "Payments for Humanitarian Projects" ($94,851,028.00), legal fees ($3,870) and audit fees ($2,200), for a net loss of $1,769,218.00.

The Financial Statement also gives the "registered office and principal place of business" for LDSCA as 756 Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford NSW 2118, which is the address for the Sydney Temple.  I wonder if the above-listed wonks actually convene meetings there.  That would actually be kind of cool.  What a great setting to be in while making important decisions about sacred funds.

The Financial Statement also includes an independent audit report from MVA Bennett, "Chartered Accountants." This report states that the Financial Statement, in the auditors' opinion, "is in accordance with the Corporations Act of 2001 and Division 60 of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission Act 2012," and that it includes "a true and fair view of {LDSCA's} financial position ... {and} performance," and that the Statement complies with "Australian Accounting Standards to the extent described in Note 1, the Corporations Regulations 2001 and Division 60 of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission Regulation 2013," and that "the audit evidence" the auditors obtained "is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion."

For the 60 Minutes to be substantively accurate, it seems like the Church will need to have either A) colluded with the auditors, or else B) done a great job at pulling the wool over their eyes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

https://news-nz.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/how-charitable-donations-in-australiaare-helping-people-around-the-world

 

not sure of this was posted or not, it's from April of this year

This part seems especially relevant to the thread:

A Full Federal Court ruling in 2014 interpreting the law governing charities in Australia led to the Church establishing LDS Charities Australia (LDSCA). This allowed Australian donations to be used for overseas aid projects that satisfy Australia charities and tax rules. All uses of charitable donations in Australia are checked against those rules before any such donation is made by LDSCA to ensure that the funds are used to relieve poverty or distress, including sickness, disability, destitution, suffering, misfortune, or helplessness.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

No….again. 

I don’t understand why posters are not reading an actual Australian Saint’s post about the subject at least as well as the news articles that demonstrate sloppy reporting.

Do I dare hope this will be the last time someone claims donations to churches have no tax deductions rather than deductions are 75% tithing and 100% for offerings, unlike most countries’ 100% deduction.

Yeah, sorry.  I noted for myself, but then forgot to actually address in writing, this point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This part seems especially relevant to the thread:

A Full Federal Court ruling in 2014 interpreting the law governing charities in Australia led to the Church establishing LDS Charities Australia (LDSCA). This allowed Australian donations to be used for overseas aid projects that satisfy Australia charities and tax rules. All uses of charitable donations in Australia are checked against those rules before any such donation is made by LDSCA to ensure that the funds are used to relieve poverty or distress, including sickness, disability, destitution, suffering, misfortune, or helplessness.

"This allowed Australian donations to be used for overseas aid projects that satisfy Australia charities and tax rules."

I figured as much.

Teancum, does this affect your assessment at all ("Charities in Australia are supposed to use their funds primar{ily} in Australia for charitable purposes...")?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 2, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Here are some additional thoughts:

https://religionnews.com/2022/10/31/lds-church-is-under-fire-in-australia/

This link was posted and commented on yesterday.

Kneejerk reactions from Jana Riess which presumptively assume the worst about the Church, and depict it and its actions and motives in the worst possible light, are pretty standard fare.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Anyone familiar with the Church can venture some likely accurate guesses (more accurate than those coming from the yahoos on 60 Minutes, anyway). 

You don’t have to guess. Read the documents online at the government site. Why spend just more time on news articles instead of going to the source to check them.  This info has been linked to since early in the thread. 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

https://news-nz.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/how-charitable-donations-in-australiaare-helping-people-around-the-world

not sure of this was posted or not, it's from April of this year

Huh.  This news item was posted on 13 April 2022, which was ten days after the April 3 publication of this article in the Sydney Morning Herald: Labor, Greens push for tax office investigation into Mormon donations (also published on that same date here, which is not behind a paywall).

Moreover, we have Hamba reporting from "an Australian friend who serves in a Communications calling" that "the Church was approached for information/clarification before the original stories ran in May and again before these stories/broadcast ran," that "{i}n both cases, the journalists chose to include nothing from the Church's highly detailed and thoroughly referenced submissions."

Yet despite the above April 13 public statement from the Church, which was likely intended to be responsive to the April 3 article referenced above, it was not addressed in the 60 Minutes piece.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

https://news-nz.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/how-charitable-donations-in-australiaare-helping-people-around-the-world

 

not sure of this was posted or not, it's from April of this year

Yes, it was. I know my posts are long and sometimes wander a lot, but I wish people would at least read the links.  Those are usually useful unless I say it’s off topic. 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

You don’t have to guess. Read the documents online at the government site. Why spend just more time on news articles instead of going to the source to check them.  This info has been linked to since early in the thread. 

Calm, you have an tendency to make things easier, to speak with clarity and concision, and to otherwise regularly demonstrate a host of other annoyingly useful skill sets.  Please stop it.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Calm, you have an tendency to make things easier, to speak with clarity and concision, and to otherwise regularly demonstrate a host of other annoyingly useful skill sets.  Please stop it.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

I really hope that it comes across that way because from my end it is rambling and often incoherent and I spend hours trying to get it to say what it needs to say…with documentation (the fun part).

[JustAnAustralian]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

LDS Trust does not do this and gives something like $7000 for charity purposes in Australia but funnels the $$ to SLC. I wonder if other religious organizations in Australia do this?

Like Jana, you need to actually read more than just one page of the financial document. The 7K amount is expenses (most of which is audit fees). The donation component is elsewhere in the document.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Financial Statement also gives the "registered office and principal place of business" for LDSCA as 756 Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford NSW 2118, which is the address for the Sydney Temple.  I wonder if the above-listed wonks actually convene meetings there.  That would actually be kind of cool.  What a great setting to be in while making important decisions about sacred funds.

The Sydney Temple site also has a church admin building.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

Tithing and contributions to religions in Australia are not tax deductible.  LDS Church sets up a charitable trust and tells members to give their tithing to that entity instead.  Charities in Australia are supposed to use their funds primary in Australia for charitable purposes and be directed by Australians. LDS Trust does not do this and gives something like $7000 for charity purposes in Australia but funnels the $$ to SLC.

Mate, I'm genuinely impressed. Literally every single statement you make above is wholly or substantially false.

They're all very useful for feeding the outrage, however, and that's precisely the purpose of this particular narrative.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

No, they are 75% deductible.  JustAnAustralian has said this several times iirc and others have too.

Perhaps the tax law changed on this. I work with a lot of Australians who have immigrated to the US or who are still in Australia but have ties to the US and have US tax issues.  I am a bit familiar with Australia tax law but certainly not an expert.  Many of the Australians I work with are part of a small religious sect called The Brethren, or The Exclusive Brethren.  They donate a lot to their religious organization.  As I have worked with them most have an Australian discretionary trust that they wrap around their businesses.  They do this for a variety of tax planning reasons and among their purpose is the trust can take a deduction for contributions to their religious organization when they or their business cannot. That said, as notes there may have been a change to the law as you note above.

9 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR where government documents or something official says that.  Here is the ATO page on overseas funds:

https://www.ato.gov.au/Non-profit/Getting-started/In-detail/Types-of-DGRs/Overseas-aid-funds/

Charities in Australian are to be overseen by Australians, iirc. as is both the Trust Fund and LDSCA.  The names are available and when I checked when this first came out two of the three were able to be identified as locals.  The last name I couldn’t find anywhere online at that time, might now, but given these men also had callings as local leaders, the third is likely the same (the Trust Fund is likely part of their calling as is appropriate for overseeing tithing funds where possible and thus why there are no paid employees).***names are listed with their backgrounds in this:  https://acncpubfilesprodstorage.blob.core.windows.net/public/30f0a550-3aaf-e811-a963-000d3ad24077-f22f51ad-ee3d-438e-a40c-115e9ab6eef2-Financial Report-fea4e329-4ef0-ec11-bb3d-002248944f2b-LDSCA_2021_Financial_Statements_-_FINAL.pdf

Steven Peterson looks to be from Utah originally, but likely lived in Australia if I understand the references.  The three current ones look like all born and bred in Australia.

Didn't you just provide your own CFR?   Anyways see SMACs response to me.  

9 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR for facts, not conjecture, that it gets funneled to SLC.  The articles do provide documentation for donations to overseas charities in various countries, none US iirc.

It was conjecture so I cannot provide a CFR.

[Teancum]

59 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, I'm genuinely impressed. Literally every single statement you make above is wholly or substantially false.

They're all very useful for feeding the outrage, however, and that's precisely the purpose of this particular narrative.

Are they now?  Feel free to refute them.