I’ve been vindicated, church caught with hands in cookie jar

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Stargazer. Heh. I have always wondered why people who vote for higher taxes, that get voted down, don't just give anyway out of their beneficent hearts? The state will always take free money on those rare occasions when it is offered.

And it borrows money like there is no tomorrow, which creates inflation, thus reducing the value of the money in circulation.

6 hours ago, 3DOP said:

If I am not mistaken, you once lived in the state of Washington, in the U.S.? I lived most of my life there. It was in or around Vancouver, WA. All Washingtonians are happy with their state income tax, which is $0.00. The sales tax makes up the difference. 

Yes, I lived in Olympia for about 30 years. The state base sales tax is 6.5%. Are you aware that businesses in Washington must pay a tax based on how much money they take in -- regardless of how much their expenses are? They can't call it an income tax, but it is effectively a tax on income.

You might be interested that the UK sales tax (called "value added tax" or VAT) is 20% generally speaking. Add that to the base income tax rate, which is 20%, and we here in the UK enjoy a very profligate government. 

6 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Years ago, when I was pastoring in Washington, one of our regular attendees made known to me a form that we can fill out to pay sales tax on out of state purchases. Most people in Vancouver go to Oregon for expensive items, cars being an exception since they are taxed when licensed. But appliances, furniture, and automatic transmissions are significantly less expensive in Oregon, because there is no sales tax.

Yep, I was aware of that form and the requirement.

6 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I lived well over fifty years in that state and if that man from my church had not told me about it when I was already in my thirties, I would have been blissfully unaware that there was any attempt by the state to make me pay taxes on out of state purchases. I know it was an unenforced code. Living next door to Oregon, I never heard of a single instance of someone getting in to the slightest trouble for "failure" to keep the law. But this man that I knew claimed to keep a record of purchases, and fill out this form every year. I never attempted to discourage his, in my opinion, mistaken ideas on rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's, in this particular situation. I am sure Caesar accepted his money. But I don't think it was a real tax.  

Many years ago, when Washington state vehicle registration fees were based on the value of the vehicle, people throughout the state would go to Oregon to buy their more expensive vehicles and register them there, which was far cheaper (and no sales tax either!). Then they would drive their Oregon-plated vehicles in Washington. This was actually against the vehicle code of Washington, but enforcing it was a problem. The Washington State Patrol was responsible for trying to enforce the law about this, and part of the WSP's crime information system (which I personally maintained as a programmer for several years!) was set aside for troopers to record their interactions with Washington licensed drivers driving Oregon-plated vehicles. Once they had recorded a certain number of instances of a WA driver driving a OR registered vehicle, there was a unit in the WSP that would "investigate" and hopefully charge the WA driver with violation of the vehicle registration law. There were heavy fines associated with a conviction. But I don't think they succeeded very often. That system was abandoned after Tim Eyman's $30 vehicle registration initiative passed.

6 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Knowing that this man was certainly the great exception to how other Washingtonians conducted their business, I did not feel compelled to keep records and fill out a form to pay money that the state was not enforcing or even depending upon. I no longer live there, but if I did, I would not fear to be found for failure to pay sales tax. I suspect that officials of state and local governments, as well as all law enforcement personnel, would be as liable as me, for failing to pay a "tax" that is almost unknown and ignored. Virtually everybody living on the Oregon, Idaho, or Canada borders, would be criminals!

Government has to be on the lookout for cash at all times. 

[ksfisher]

23 minutes ago, Rain said:

But this is about VAT, not about including sales tax in the price labeled on the shelf. 

For the consumer it’s essentially the same thing, with some of the same implementation problems. 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

I actually don't understand why they are not included especially since most stores have computer systems.  Once I went to Walmart in Taylorsville and then went a Walmart in Murray.  The price of the item I wanted was different before taxes. If they can have different prices in different stores I'm not sure why they can't include different taxes in the total price. The stores have to figure it out anyway when they do the sell, if they program the tax into the price as they price things it shouldn't make any difference.

This is especially true in stores where you don't have different taxed items like food and alcohol.  

I think with computer systems it would be a much easier task, for sure, if the US suddenly decided to do it.  I think we mostly don't because it would be a huge pain to keep track of everything, especially since when the store has to pay their taxes to the state, they have to be able to show the state exactly how much tax was collected on each item sold.  For stores that sell nationally online it would be almost impossible to include sales tax in the price, since each person from a different state would owe a different amount.

I've also just learned that in some states it's actually illegal to include the sales tax in the price tag. I didn't know that before.

[3DOP]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

I do keep track. It's easy now with software as I can either tag it or put .com to show I didn't pay taxes. 

I do ìt because legally you are supposed to and I believe in being honest and wouldn't personally feel honest not doing it. Everyone else can make that decision for themselves and if they choose differently I have no judgment on them.

And just to be clear. I'm not just saying I gladly pay taxes and try to pay more.  I take advantage of tax breaks when I can.  I just am ok with paying some taxes knowing that we benefit from them.

I respect your perspective. I think I would have a bad conscience if I could avoid ALL taxes through some ingenius scheme. But I have never been so innovative! Heh.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

No, you didn't, and I was joking around a bit, sorry! And being a bit overboard. If one feels one should pay more than required, it's a free country, so one should go for it. The whole reason why the US government has a donation page is because some people actually wanted to donate, and pushed for it. 

No I'm normal and don't pay more or donate more, unless it goes to a charity on the form sometimes. I just realize that our country is what it is because of taxes. Like we all carry the load for each other. I still pay for education, but none of my children attend anymore, out of the house. I like that the infrastructure is available for our convenience and safety, along with law enforcement. And the medical help through medicare and medicaid for those that need it, and I'm glad to do it and not use it. The library system is a jewel too, so many free programs that help kids and adults with education. Our parks and recreation, state parks, national parks etc can be maintained and safeguard as well. The government feels a lot better than a dictatorship where the dictator keeps the bulk to themselves. So grateful for the founding fathers that put things in place and the evolving system that needed to change with the times and the taxes that helped that progress. Don't like a lot of politicians especially now, but know that it's necessary for the representations of each state.  

 

 

 

 

[rodheadlee]

On 7/15/2023 at 7:03 AM, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Not sure if this is true, or rather some truth in it. But at least it has given you have been given an opportunity to rejoice at the flawed nature of at one person, maybe many more. What will to wish for now, or what needs to happy so you can be, “Happy and vindicated”? Or have you pinned your hopes on flawed men, or women, for recreation? 

Hey Craig, how come you never answered this post?

[smac97]

On 7/14/2023 at 1:51 PM, Craig Speechly said:

did you read the SEC complaint?  

What "SEC complaint" are you referencing here?

On 7/14/2023 at 1:51 PM, Craig Speechly said:

The church admitted guilt

Flatly false.  Wildly incorrect.  Patently wrong.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 7/14/2023 at 2:04 PM, Craig Speechly said:

The complaint was about none compliance with the law thus the fine. The church admitted guilt. 

The Church did nothing of the sort.  To the contrary, the document I think you have in mind (which is not a "complaint") specifically states that the Church did not admit guilt.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

@Craig Speechly

If one views the situation as, apparently, you view it, this seems an odd thing to take delight in, Craig.  I've never been a big fan of schadenfreude, but ... whatever floats your boat, I guess.

[Craig Speechly]

On 7/14/2023 at 7:14 PM, JLHPROF said:

This whole debate depends on where you land on the sliding scale:

1. The Church is always 100% honest AND legal in all business dealings to the best of all involved's ability.  How could they be other and be Christ's Church?

2. The Church leadership directs honesty and legality but its tens of thousands of employees are humans with free will.  Someone somewhere  inevitably consciously decides to act against complete honesty and law.

3. Church leadership themselves are intentionally bending laws and directing shady honesty and justifying themselves because of their calling.

4. It's all about the money, the Church is just a corporation in disguise, its leaders CEOs, and out to get gain.

Personally I'm around about a 2 - I'm not cynical enough for 3-4 or naive enough for 1.

You didn't mention the scapegoat excuse the church used when explaining away it's and Ensign Peak's SEC $5M fine.  It was the lawyers fault.

[Craig Speechly]

On 7/14/2023 at 9:14 PM, Calm said:

CFR the above. Everything I have read from the Australian government’s own website contradicts your claims (much of which I have linked to). Now maybe I am interpreting such wrong, but as far as I can tell the government doesn’t care what label is put on the donation including “tithing”, but what it is used for and if it’s been approved by the government (once the organization has applied to qualify).

Quite a bit of tithing is used for more than just benefits to members, including for welfare overhead, education, and advancing religion…all of which qualify according to the government’s list of deductible charitable purposes.  I am not saying it would have been 100% or even 50%, but I very much doubt it would be 0%. I think it would depend greatly on whether or not missionary work counts as advancing religion and how much of the cost for missionary needs would count towards that (transportation and teaching materials likely; not so likely room and board, but maybe; don’t have a clue about church provided cell phones as they are necessary to communicate with and about investigators).

Your CFR:

 

Is Church Tithing Tax Deductible?

When we consider church tithing, many individuals wonder about its tax deductibility. Is church tithing tax deductible? Understanding the implications of tax deductibility for your church donations is crucial. By exploring the concept, you can gain clarity about the potential tax benefits associated with your religious contributions.

This article will delve into the intricacies of church tithing and its tax deductibility, empowering you to make informed decisions regarding your giving.

I. The Tax Status of Church Tithing in Australia

A. What is Church Tithing?

Church tithing is a practice where you, as a member of a religious community, contribute ten percent of your income to support your church’s activities, ministries, and charitable initiatives. By participating in tithing, you play a vital role in sustaining your church’s operations and outreach programs.

In Australia, specific regulations govern the tax deductibility of church tithing. Unlike donations made to registered charities, church tithing is not eligible for tax deductibility. However, there is an alternative route to gain tax deductibility for church tithing.

B. Why is Church Tithing Not Tax-Deductible?

Church tithing, while a significant act of religious devotion and support, is ineligible for tax deductions due to the following reasons:

Personal Benefit: Church tithing is considered to provide a personal and spiritual benefit to the individual contributing, rather than a direct charitable purpose that benefits the broader community.

Specific Purpose: Tithing is primarily intended to support the operations, maintenance, and mission of the religious organization rather than meeting the criteria of a registered charity or Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) as defined by tax authorities.

C. The Alternative Route

To obtain tax deductibility for church tithing, many churches in Australia establish a charitable trust. By directing the donations through this trust, the contributions can gain 100% tax deductibility. This means that individuals who tithe to a church through a charitable trust can potentially claim their contributions as tax deductions.

D. How Church Donations Differ From Registered Charities

Understanding the distinction between donations made to churches and registered charities is important. While donations to registered charities are generally tax-deductible, church tithing falls under different rules. ATO does not consider tithing to be a charitable donation. Tithing is a religious obligation, and it is not intended to benefit the public. As a result, you cannot claim a tax deduction for your tithing payments.

With this distinction in mind, you can carefully consider the tax implications of your tithing contributions.

II. Church Tithing Tax Deductible with Registered DGR Status

In Australia, individuals can claim a tax deduction for their donations to deductible gift recipients (DGRs), which includes registered churches.

If you’re considering claiming a tax deduction for your church tithing, it’s essential to understand the process and requirements involved. You will need to provide certain documents to ATO, including:

• A copy of your tax return
• Receipts from the church for your tithe payments
• A letter from the church confirming its registration as a DGR
• If you don’t have a receipt, a written statement from the church indicating the amount of your tithe payments can be accepted

The tax deduction can be claimed in the year you make the tithing payment. For example, if you make a tithe payment in 2023, you can claim the deduction on your 2023 tax return.

The maximum amount you can claim as a tax deduction for tithing is limited to 10% of your taxable income.

Thus, keeping accurate records and ensuring the church is registered as a DGR is vital to claim the deduction correctly.

We can conclude that you hold the key to understanding the tax implications of church tithing in Australia. While church tithing does not qualify for tax deductions, you can still maximize your tax benefits by donating to registered charities and DGRs.

Keep accurate records, stay informed about eligible deductions, and ensure compliance to support your religious community while potentially optimizing your financial situation. Embrace the opportunity to confidently give back and navigate the tax landscape, knowing that your generosity can create a meaningful impact.

 

[Craig Speechly]

On 7/14/2023 at 10:40 PM, webbles said:

Is this a quote from one of the various articles?  It sounds like it.

I think I'm starting to understand what is being talked about and why people thing there is something "there".

The donation slip for Australian members states that all tithing, fast offerings, and humanitarian aid go to LDS Charitable Trust Fund.  That is a DGR approved fund (since 2000) and so donations are deductible.  But that fund isn't "the church".  The church in Australia is actually "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Australia" and it is NOT DGR approved.  So if you wanted to actually donate funds to "the church" in Australia, you wouldn't be able to deduct it.  "The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints Australia" appears to get all of its money from the US based organization.  It doesn't appear to receive much money from Australian members (I think missionary funds go here).  This organization is what pays for everything that the stakes and wards need.

That means that the church in Australia is not funded by the local members.  All of the tithing that the local members donate is actually going to the DGR approved organization which doesn't go back to the stakes and wards.  Without the external US organization, Australia members would have to donate to the local church and not deduct it.

It appears that the issue is that members in Australia aren't technically paying tithing.  Technically, tithing is what we donate to fund the church and its operations.  None of the tithing from Australian members fund the operation of the church.  It all goes into an actual humanitarian charity.

"By Jove, I think he's got it"

[Craig Speechly]

On 7/17/2023 at 8:16 AM, rodheadlee said:

Hey Craig, how come you never answered this post?

Was that a question or a statement? If a question, is isn't comprehensible, if a statement, then it is just this posters opinion.

[Craig Speechly]

On 7/17/2023 at 10:15 AM, smac97 said:

What "SEC complaint" are you referencing here?

Flatly false.  Wildly incorrect.  Patently wrong.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Quote

Washington D.C., Feb. 21, 2023 —

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against Ensign Peak Advisers Inc., a non-profit entity operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to manage the Church’s investments, for failing to file forms that would have disclosed the Church’s equity investments, and for instead filing forms for shell companies that obscured the Church’s portfolio and misstated Ensign Peak’s control over the Church’s investment decisions. The SEC also announced charges against the Church for causing these violations. To settle the charges, Ensign Peak agreed to pay a $4 million penalty and the Church agreed to pay a $1 million penalty.

 

Quote

Ensign Peak agreed to settle the SEC’s allegation that it violated Section 13(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 13f-1 thereunder by failing to file Forms 13F and for misstating information in these forms. The Church agreed to settle the SEC’s allegation that it caused Ensign Peak’s violations through its knowledge and approval of Ensign Peak’s use of the shell LLCs.

 

Seems charges were announced against the church for causing these SEC violations and the church agreed to pay the penalty.  That councilor is an admission of guilt in the violation of SEC regulations.

 

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-35

 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Craig Speechly

[rodheadlee]

35 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Was that a question or a statement? If a question, is isn't comprehensible, if a statement, then it is just this posters opinion.

He basically wanted to know what it would take to make you happy regarding the Church. 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

Your CFR:

 

Is Church Tithing Tax Deductible?

When we consider church tithing, many individuals wonder about its tax deductibility. Is church tithing tax deductible? Understanding the implications of tax deductibility for your church donations is crucial. By exploring the concept, you can gain clarity about the potential tax benefits associated with your religious contributions.

This article will delve into the intricacies of church tithing and its tax deductibility, empowering you to make informed decisions regarding your giving.

I. The Tax Status of Church Tithing in Australia

A. What is Church Tithing?

Church tithing is a practice where you, as a member of a religious community, contribute ten percent of your income to support your church’s activities, ministries, and charitable initiatives. By participating in tithing, you play a vital role in sustaining your church’s operations and outreach programs.

In Australia, specific regulations govern the tax deductibility of church tithing. Unlike donations made to registered charities, church tithing is not eligible for tax deductibility. However, there is an alternative route to gain tax deductibility for church tithing.

B. Why is Church Tithing Not Tax-Deductible?

Church tithing, while a significant act of religious devotion and support, is ineligible for tax deductions due to the following reasons:

Personal Benefit: Church tithing is considered to provide a personal and spiritual benefit to the individual contributing, rather than a direct charitable purpose that benefits the broader community.

Specific Purpose: Tithing is primarily intended to support the operations, maintenance, and mission of the religious organization rather than meeting the criteria of a registered charity or Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) as defined by tax authorities.

C. The Alternative Route

To obtain tax deductibility for church tithing, many churches in Australia establish a charitable trust. By directing the donations through this trust, the contributions can gain 100% tax deductibility. This means that individuals who tithe to a church through a charitable trust can potentially claim their contributions as tax deductions.

D. How Church Donations Differ From Registered Charities

Understanding the distinction between donations made to churches and registered charities is important. While donations to registered charities are generally tax-deductible, church tithing falls under different rules. ATO does not consider tithing to be a charitable donation. Tithing is a religious obligation, and it is not intended to benefit the public. As a result, you cannot claim a tax deduction for your tithing payments.

With this distinction in mind, you can carefully consider the tax implications of your tithing contributions.

II. Church Tithing Tax Deductible with Registered DGR Status

In Australia, individuals can claim a tax deduction for their donations to deductible gift recipients (DGRs), which includes registered churches.

If you’re considering claiming a tax deduction for your church tithing, it’s essential to understand the process and requirements involved. You will need to provide certain documents to ATO, including:

• A copy of your tax return
• Receipts from the church for your tithe payments
• A letter from the church confirming its registration as a DGR
• If you don’t have a receipt, a written statement from the church indicating the amount of your tithe payments can be accepted

The tax deduction can be claimed in the year you make the tithing payment. For example, if you make a tithe payment in 2023, you can claim the deduction on your 2023 tax return.

The maximum amount you can claim as a tax deduction for tithing is limited to 10% of your taxable income.

Thus, keeping accurate records and ensuring the church is registered as a DGR is vital to claim the deduction correctly.

We can conclude that you hold the key to understanding the tax implications of church tithing in Australia. While church tithing does not qualify for tax deductions, you can still maximize your tax benefits by donating to registered charities and DGRs.

Keep accurate records, stay informed about eligible deductions, and ensure compliance to support your religious community while potentially optimizing your financial situation. Embrace the opportunity to confidently give back and navigate the tax landscape, knowing that your generosity can create a meaningful impact.

 

Could you give the link to this?

Also, the recommendation that this gives fits in line with what the church is doing (see section C).  So it seems that the church is not doing anything fishy.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Quote

Washington D.C., Feb. 21, 2023 —

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against Ensign Peak Advisers Inc., a non-profit entity operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to manage the Church’s investments, for failing to file forms that would have disclosed the Church’s equity investments, and for instead filing forms for shell companies that obscured the Church’s portfolio and misstated Ensign Peak’s control over the Church’s investment decisions. The SEC also announced charges against the Church for causing these violations. To settle the charges, Ensign Peak agreed to pay a $4 million penalty and the Church agreed to pay a $1 million penalty.

Seems charges were announced against the church for causing these SEC violations and the church agreed to pay the penalty.  That councilor is an admission of guilt in the violation of SEC regulations.

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-35

A few thoughts:

First, an attorney is a "counselor," not a "councilor."  If you are going to sneer at my profession (or my competency in it), you might want to start with using the proper terminology.  Which brings me to the next point...

Second, you previously stated: "{D}id you read the SEC complaint?"  I again ask you: What "SEC complaint" are you referencing here?  I suspect you are referring to the SEC's "ORDER INSTITUTING CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 21C OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER," which is a very different legal beastie from a "complaint."  You can review this document here.  Notably, this Order includes the following text:

Quote

I.  

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate that ceaseand-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), against Ensign Peak Advisors, Inc., and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“Respondents”).  

II.  

In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondents have submitted Offers of Settlement (the “Offers”) which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission’s jurisdiction over them and the subject matter of these proceedings, which are admitted, Respondents consent to the entry of this Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order (“Order”), as set forth below.  

Of particular note: "In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondents have submitted Offers of Settlement (the “Offers”) which the Commission has determined to accept."  (Emphasis added.)  That is, the SEC presented allegations, and the Church settled the matter.  No facts were determined and no findings of wrongdoing were made by an impartial factfinder (an administrative law judge ("ALJ") or an Article III (that is, a regular "federal") judge.

Also: "Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission’s jurisdiction over them and the subject matter of these proceedings, which are admitted, Respondents consent to the entry of this Order..."  (Emphases added.)

Once more, with feeling: "and without admitting or denying the findings therein."  Contrast this language with your assertion below.

Third, you previously stated: "The church admitted guilt."  Well, no.  It did not.  Instead, it did precisely the opposite of what you are asserting here.

Fourth, you have now stated that "the church agreed to pay the penalty," and that this is "an admission of guilt in the violation of SEC regulations." 

No, Craig, it is not an admission of guilt.

To be sure, the Church did state that it "regret{s} mistakes made."  But as you have not presented that statement to support your above "the church admitted guilt" thing, I do not think you have that in mind.  And even if you did, that is not an admission of "guilt," either.

I understand that people who are antagonistic toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really want to turn this issue into a talking point against the Church, and for that talking point to be something akin to what you have repeatedly (and, as demonstrated above, incorrectly) stated as "the church admitted guilt."  This will not do.  As Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it: “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”  Agreeing to pay a fine is not an admission of guilt.  If you insist otherwise, please substantiate it.  

As far as I can see, there has been no admission by the Church (the SEC Order was, in fact, explicitly based on the Church not admitting the allegations).  There has also been

• no suit filed by the SEC in an Article III court,
• no administrative proceeding commenced before an Administrative Law Judge,
• no hearings,
• no motion practice,
• no submission of evidence to an impartial factfinder,
• no weighing of such evidence by such an impartial factfinder,
• no trial,
• no findings of fact,
• no conclusions of law,
• no judgment entered,
• no Due Process. 

Instead, the matter was settled without any of these things having taken place.  If I am wrong in this assessment, I am happy to be corrected by you (or anyone else).  Feel free to lay out your facts and evidence and reasoning.  I'm quite willing to listen to what you have to say.

As it is, however, I don't think you will be able to substantially rebut the foregoing assessment.  I say this because we have slogged through this topic for 67 pages here: Church fined by SEC. I commented at the time: 

Quote

I have no qualms with you reading the SEC and reaching conclusions of your own.  My point is that you cannot say that the SEC's unsubstantiated, untested, unproven allegations have been adjudicated as "fact" by an impartial factfinder (an Article III court or an Administrative Law Judge).  I am emphasizing this because I have spent years watching anti-Mormons embellish, exaggerate, distort, mischaracterize, and otherwise mislead both themselves and others as to issues pertaining to the Church of Jesus Christ.  I suspect that folks like you are salivating at the prospect of being able to say something like "The Mormon Church was found guilty of violating securities laws," or "The Feds have demonstrated that the Mormon Church violated securities laws."  I fully expect this to happen.  I fully expect to see it on this very board.  When and if this happens, this thread will be available for ample review of what can and cannot be accurately stated about this episode.

And here:

Quote

Some of our critics and dissidents will want to, proverbially speaking, use this as justification for disparaging the Church, trying to carve out a pound of flesh, and so on.  C'est la vie.  I think we'll manage.  This thread has been helpful in contextualizing the story, and providing something of an analytical framework for those not trained or experienced in the law.  And if, down the road, there are assertions made about how the Church "violated securities laws" or was "found guilty" of some such, I think this thread will be a useful resource for rebutting and correcting and clarifying what happened.

You are amply proving the foregoing points.  But you are hardly the first to do so.  From that thread:

• Teancum: "Nobody pays a fine to the SEC unless there is a greater threat if they don't and if they are not guilty of something."
• SeekingUnderstanding (responding to "Please provide the statements of guilt and fraud in the SEC's report") : "That would be the entire report, top to bottom."
• Analytics: "Yes, they threw the Church a bone by allowing it to pay the fine without admitting or denying any wrongdoing, but that is just a convenience the SEC gives guilty parties so that they can save some face and put the matter to rest amicably."
• Teancum: "My main issue is the lack off admission of guilt seems meaningless really."
• Teancum: "Because they were guilty at going to lengths to hide their investments from the SEC."
• Analytics: "He has said something to the effect that just because somebody settles a lawsuit doesn't mean they are really guilty of the allegations."

You are, of course, free to trot out the falsehood that the Church has "admitted guilt" when it has not.  If and when I notice such calumnies, I will speak in response to them.  Not because the Church is perfect, but because falsehoods and mischaracterizations ought not be left unaddressed.

I will yet again state my position on the Church and its obligation to follow the law:

Quote

I have repeatedly noted that I have no objection to the Church being subject to the laws of the land, including taking its legal lumps if and when it errs or does something wrong (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, here).  I do so again here.

The Church ain't perfect, but it is overwhelmingly decent and good, and far from the villain some want to portray it to be.  As for its actions in this specific issue, I will close by quoting Amulek's trenchant observation and recommendation posted here:

Quote

I don't have a problem admitting the Church and (by proxy) it's agents were in the wrong on this one.

But I also have a hard time caring about it.

On the spectrum of "wrongs" that can be committed, this isn't anywhere near the top of the list - at least not for me, personally.

It isn't like the Church was doing anything truly scandalous - no tax evasion, no illegal funneling of monies as contributions to non-Libertarian Party campaigns, no secret hooker islands, nothing. All they did was attempt to legally obfuscate how much money they were controlling.

Now, I think it's pretty clear they were in the wrong on how they went about doing that, notwithstanding whatever weak 20-year old legal advice they may have been relying on to the contrary. But I also think that what they did isn't worth getting too excited about either. And the SEC obviously agreed - otherwise they would have gone after the Church for more than just a weak slap on the wrist.

Seriously, when compared to a $40B+ investment portfolio growing (on average) at 7% annually, a $5M fine comes out to be less than what we make in a single day.

If people want to be upset with the Church, fine. But let's keep things in perspective.

What the Church and EPA did was the financial equivalent of smoking a little weed, so let's not go around pretending like they were guilty of raping and cannibalizing babies or anything crazy like that.

Yeah.  That.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 18, 2023 by smac97

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

obtain tax deductibility for church tithing, many churches in Australia establish a charitable trust. By directing the donations through this trust, the contributions can gain 100% tax deductibility. This means that individuals who tithe to a church through a charitable trust can potentially claim their contributions as tax deductions.

Thank you.  That above quote (?) was very helpful and it confirmed what I had gathered from reading the various government sites, but summarized it better than the others one.  
 

So church tithing and donations can be tax deductible according to this.  Are you saying you were wrong?  Or should we just agree we were using different labels for the same thing and that the Australian government is perfectly okay with defining tithing and other donations as tax deductible.   (I am assuming this is a government site, if you could provide the link or reference, please as I would like to bookmark it.)

The statement of fact I called Craig to CFR:

Quote

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

This is not fully accurate since there is one condition under which Australia does allow them to be deducted and that is (according to your provided CFR and other government sites I have read) if they are paid to a charitable trust fund a church owns or works with.  It sounds like the Church’s situation is not that unique given your info, except perhaps the 100% amount.  It certainly doesn’t sound the least law breaking or skirting the law given the government is providing the how tos to do it.

Would be interesting to see a list of how much other churches are choosing to direct donations and tithing and the percentage of such to a charitable trust fund and if the Church is unusual in the percentage (my guess is yes, unless there are churches that have a good size endowment to run its member services on).

Quote

We can conclude that you hold the key to understanding the tax implications of church tithing in Australia. While church tithing does not qualify for tax deductions, you can still maximize your tax benefits by donating to registered charities and DGRs

Is this you or the website?  Because the website says elsewhere:

Quote

there is an alternative route to gain tax deductibility for church tithing… This means that individuals who tithe to a church through a charitable trust can potentially claim their contributions as tax deductions.…

Church Tithing Tax Deductible

So while I understand what the first quote actually means (does not qualify unless donated to a DGR), it is more or less inconsistent with how it was being discussed above this sentence.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

That councilor is an admission of guilt in the violation of SEC regulations.

So are companies settling nuisance suits to make them go away because it is cheaper to pay than go to court admitting to guilt in your view?

[Calm]

Craig, I tried to find the site you referenced online, but google can’t find it, so it would be very helpful for you to identify where you found it because it is the clearest explanation I have seen so far on the question.

[Kenngo1969]

On 7/16/2023 at 6:20 PM, bluebell said:

I think with computer systems it would be a much easier task, for sure, if the US suddenly decided to do it. ...

Maybe, maybe not: Have you heard any of the horror stories about the outdated technology the government uses and the difficulties and conundrums encountered in maintaining or updating it?

[Nofear]

Help me if my, somewhat cursory, reading of this thread and situation is incorrect.

• Donations made on tithing slips by Australian members go to a DGR called L.D.S. Charitable Trust Fund
• L.D.S. Charitable Trust Fund uses those funds, all of them, in a manner approved by the Australian government as tax deductible
• this allows members to register their donations as tax deductible
• necessary funds to cover other not-tax-deductible financial activities of the Church are sent from outside Australia

Sounds like the Church did something fiscally nice for its members potentially at the cost of the government's coffers (see unanswered question). If so. Darn and shucks. The horror.

Unanswered question: when the Church sends funds to its local Australian units (e.g. stakes) are those funds taxed? If the answer is yes, then the Australian government may not have lost any income and potentially makes more than it would otherwise, depending on the taxation rate differential ... if so, I withdraw my darn and shucks, but still approve the Church's fiscal kindness to its members. But answering that question is way beyond my capability to discern (Byzantine tax law = cooties = avoid).

.

[webbles]

37 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Help me if my, somewhat cursory, reading of this thread and situation is incorrect.

• Donations made on tithing slips by Australian members go to a DGR called L.D.S. Charitable Trust Fund
• L.D.S. Charitable Trust Fund uses those funds, all of them, in a manner approved by the Australian government as tax deductible
• this allows members to register their donations as tax deductible
• necessary funds to cover other not-tax-deductible financial activities of the Church are sent from outside Australia

Sounds like the Church did something fiscally nice for its members potentially at the cost of the government's coffers (see unanswered question). If so. Darn and shucks. The horror.

Unanswered question: when the Church sends funds to its local Australian units (e.g. stakes) are those funds taxed? If the answer is yes, then the Australian government may not have lost any income and potentially makes more than it would otherwise, depending on the taxation rate differential ... if so, I withdraw my darn and shucks, but still approve the Church's fiscal kindness to its members. But answering that question is way beyond my capability to discern (Byzantine tax law = cooties = avoid).

.

The church organization in Australia is classified as a charity and has the following tax concessions (see https://www.abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View/84114483091 )

• GST Concession
• Income Tax Exception
• FBT Rebate

https://www.abr.business.gov.au/Help/CharitableTaxConcession defines what those concessions are.

I believe the Australian organization doesn't have to pay taxes on the funds that the US organization sends it because it has the Income Tax Exception.

Also, if you look at the yearly financial report (see https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities/df8937d2-38af-e811-a95e-000d3ad24c60/documents/), it shows $0 for income taxes.

Edited July 19, 2023 by webbles

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Sounds like the Church did something fiscally nice for its members potentially at the cost of the government's coffers (see unanswered question). If so. Darn and shucks. The horror.

Except the government didn’t have to set up DGR’s the way they have and they approve DGRs and could easily not, could have put limits on the amounts, etc, so it would seem the government wants money to be given to the DGRs, so the government is happy at the result, I am guessing.

[Nofear]

9 hours ago, webbles said:

The church organization in Australia is classified as a charity and has the following tax concessions (see https://www.abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View/84114483091 )

• GST Concession
• Income Tax Exception
• FBT Rebate

https://www.abr.business.gov.au/Help/CharitableTaxConcession defines what those concessions are.

I believe the Australian organization doesn't have to pay taxes on the funds that the US organization sends it because it has the Income Tax Exception.

Also, if you look at the yearly financial report (see https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities/df8937d2-38af-e811-a95e-000d3ad24c60/documents/), it shows $0 for income taxes.

Briefly scanned through the 2022 report. Lots of numbers I can't claim to understand. Can also compare to the 2022 report for the LDS Charitable Trust Fund. Though, I did kind of understand this statement from the independent auditor:
Opinion
We have audited the financial report of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Australia (the Company), which comprises the statement of financial position as at 31 December 2022, the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income, statement of changes in equity and statement of cash flows for the year then ended, and notes to the financial statements, including a summary of significant accounting policies, and the directors’ declaration. In our opinion, the accompanying financial report of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Australia is in accordance with Div 60 of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission Act 2012, including:
a. giving a true and fair view of the Company’s financial position as at 31 December 2022 and of its financial performance for the year ended; and
b. complying with Australian Accounting Standards to the extent described in Note 1 and the requirements of Div 60 of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission Regulation 2013.

A similar, but, different statement was made for the L.D.S. Charitable Trust fund report.