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

[JustAnAustralian]

On 7/15/2023 at 2:18 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

edit: I just did a donation into ward missionary, so I will let you know in a few days where my bank statement shows it went.

Following up from this. This was finally processed. It looks identical to the normal tithing donations on my bank statement, so I can't tell where ward missionary donations go.

[JustAnAustralian]

 

21 hours ago, Nofear said:

• 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

Correct

 

21 hours ago, Nofear said:

necessary funds to cover other not-tax-deductible financial activities of the Church are sent from outside Australia

I'm including below the text of a letter that was sent out in November last year by the Pacific Area Presidency. It was discussed in Elders Quorum and Relief Society classes.

 

Quote

Australian members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—from Perth to Far North Queensland, and from Darwin to Hobart—come from many walks of life and cultures, and speak many different languages. What unites us as Latter-day Saints is a common love for God, and a desire to live good lives by following the teachings and example of His Son, Jesus Christ.
One of the principles that many Latter-day Saints choose to live by is the Biblical law of tithes and offerings. Many will attest that by obeying this law their lives are blessed.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses these sacred funds to build and maintain houses of worship and other facilities; to support missionary service; to help individuals research their family trees; to provide programs for youth; to respond to natural disasters; to support humanitarian initiatives; to operate universities and schools; to print scriptures and other materials; to run self-reliance, addiction recovery and other classes that help individuals and families improve their lives; and in other charitable ways.
As is the case in some other countries, in Australia, more tithing is donated by Church members than is needed to run the operations of the Church within the country. With this surplus, the funds could be used for any number of charitable efforts in other parts of the world. The decision was made to use this surplus to fund humanitarian projects in communities around the world where there are great needs, such as places impacted by natural disasters, war, poverty, pandemics and other challenges. In this way, Australian Saints are helping to lift lives across the world.
Australian charity law allows for individuals of any faith, or of no faith affiliation, who donate to a deductible gift recipient to receive a tax deduction. It would appear that the government encourages charitable donations because it helps the recipients, it lessens the burden on government, and it fosters a culture of giving.
LDS Charities Australia was established for these reasons. It was set up and operates according to Australian law. Humanitarian projects—many of which are principally sponsored by major charities such as UNICEF, Red Cross, Red Crescent and ADRA—are proposed to an LDS Charities Australia committee, whose members decide which projects the charity will support. LDS Charities Australia is run by Australians, according to Australian law. Overheads are low, but impact is high.
We are grateful for a government that supports charitable giving and humanitarian efforts within Australia and overseas. Church members’ donations enable the Church to operate its religious and charitable programs in Australia, as well as bless the lives of others in communities around the world.
We are grateful for all Australians who put love of God and service to neighbour—the two great commandments as taught by Jesus Christ in the New Testament—above other interests. As followers of Jesus Christ, this is what inspires Latter-day Saints to live as we do.

 

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by JustAnAustralian

[Calm]

10 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

As is the case in some other countries, in Australia, more tithing is donated by Church members than is needed to run the operations of the Church within the country. With this surplus, the funds could be used for any number of charitable efforts in other parts of the world.

Unless there are some members who have volunteered to donate the tithing that covers the operating costs (which are not tax deductible if used for services for members themselves) and the funds are not actually coming from Salt Lake as previously stated (how do we know Salt Lake is covering the costs? Has this been speculation to explain how the Saints can get 100% or actually documented?) while this is technically accurate, it leaves out a crucial fact that the “surplus” is not just part of their tithing, but all of it apparently and it is only such a large surplus because the Church has funded the operating costs by other means (which is not the least issue legally or morally in my view btw).

It would be quite interesting to find out that some Saints are taking a hit on taxes so the rest can get the full amount.  That would, imo, avoid claims of legal maneuvering that shorts the government as the part that would have normally been taxed churchwide still got taxed.  If so though, I would think that would have been announced by the Church to avoid controversy.

Edited July 20, 2023 by Calm

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Unless there are some members who have volunteered to donate the tithing that covers the operating costs (which are not tax deductible if used for services for members themselves) and the funds are not actually coming from Salt Lake as previously stated (how do we know Salt Lake is covering the costs? Has this been speculation to explain how the Saints can get 100% or actually documented?) while this is technically accurate, it leaves out a crucial fact that the “surplus” is not just part of their tithing, but all of it apparently and it is only such a large surplus because the Church has funded the operating costs by other means (which is not the least issue legally or morally in my view btw).

It would be quite interesting to find out that some Saints are taking a hit on taxes so the rest can get the full amount.  That would, imo, avoid claims of legal maneuvering that shorts the government as the part that would have normally been taxed churchwide still got taxed.  If so though, I would think that would have been announced by the Church to avoid controversy.

I didn't read the letter as saying only surplus is used in Australia. It said that some countries have a surplus (Australia being one of them) and that the Church maneuvers money around because of this. That is to say, Australia, isn't unique.

What I suspect is happening is that the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints incorporated in the US "donates" operating costs based on some business algorithm. And the L.D.S. Charitable Trust Fund is used entirely for DGR (was it DGR? meh) approved purposes. Instead of viewing every place individually, the Church probably looks at the world-wide Church finances as fluidly moveable between countries and units according to needs or interests (much as fast offering in the US is technically all sent to HQ and each individual unit's record keeping is mostly a veneer of sorts). In Australia the "interest" would be letting members take a tax deduction much as they can in other countries. And Australia doesn't seem to mind at all. The humanitarian causes it gets supported are good stuff.


2022: The Church of Jesus Christ Australia had a reported income of some 40 million in "Donations" with operating costs of some 35 million (presumable in Australian currency). The previous year operating costs exceeded donations about 2 million (instead of a 5milion surplus).
2022: L.D.S. Charitable Trust Fund had an income of some 105 million. 

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Unless there are some members who have volunteered to donate the tithing that covers the operating costs (which are not tax deductible if used for services for members themselves) and the funds are not actually coming from Salt Lake as previously stated (how do we know Salt Lake is covering the costs? Has this been speculation to explain how the Saints can get 100% or actually documented?) while this is technically accurate, it leaves out a crucial fact that the “surplus” is not just part of their tithing, but all of it apparently and it is only such a large surplus because the Church has funded the operating costs by other means (which is not the least issue legally or morally in my view btw).

It would be quite interesting to find out that some Saints are taking a hit on taxes so the rest can get the full amount.  That would, imo, avoid claims of legal maneuvering that shorts the government as the part that would have normally been taxed churchwide still got taxed.  If so though, I would think that would have been announced by the Church to avoid controversy.

It could be that enough people never did take the tax break anyway.  I have heard sometimes people saying they wouldn't do deductions on taxes for it because it didn't feel right. Like you were getting a discount on tithing   

[Craig Speechly]

On 7/18/2023 at 12:29 PM, smac97 said:

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:

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: 

And here:

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:

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:

Yeah.  That.

Thanks,

-Smac

You forgot to mention that translate does not mean to actually translate. 
 

I stand by my earlier assertion 

[Craig Speechly]

On 7/18/2023 at 3:29 PM, Calm said:

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?

Guilty entities pay fines innocent ones don’t. The church has rightfully admitted that mistakes were made. Mistake, guilty, wrongdoing. We’re debating Symantec’s here. 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Guilty entities pay fines innocent ones don’t.

 That isn't true. Page 2 of https://www.stradley.com/-/media/files/publications/2017/10/securitieslitigationenforcementalertoctober2017.pdf

Quote

Roughly 98 percent of all SEC cases settle. Although there are myriad reasons behind that sizable percentage, suffice it to say that the competing incentives on both sides often have little to do with the merits of the case.

Also, entities that settle with SEC are prevented from saying whether they are innocent or not.  Page 3 of the same document

Quote

While the SEC gets to ignore the “neither admit nor deny” language of settlements through its press releases and public appearances, the affected respondent, who may well have settled for reasons having nothing to do with the merits, is precluded by regulation from saying so.

The entity also doesn't appear to have much say in what the SEC gets to say.  Page 2 again.

Quote

The SEC wastes no time in issuing a press release following a settlement, and, in the negotiation of such settlements, respondents have little, if any, input regarding the content of settlement agreements or the SEC’s public statements characterizing them.

(by the way, I actually do think the church made a mistake and broke the law.)

Edited July 22, 2023 by webbles

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

You forgot to mention that translate does not mean to actually translate. 

Not sure what you mean by this.

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

I stand by my earlier assertion 

An "assertion" being "a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Guilty entities pay fines innocent ones don’t.

This is a very naive and facile statement.  Innocent parties pay fines all the time.

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

The church has rightfully admitted that mistakes were made.

Yes.  

What the Church has not done, however, is admit to violating SEC regulations.  That was the assertion you made which I found to be problematic.

2 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Mistake, guilty, wrongdoing. We’re debating Symantec’s here. 

Semantics matter in the law.  Quite a bit, actually.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

13 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Guilty entities pay fines innocent ones don’t. The church has rightfully admitted that mistakes were made. Mistake, guilty, wrongdoing. We’re debating Symantec’s here. 

It's not simply semantics.  Words mean things.  There need not be any ill intent involved in a simple mistake.  I'm sure you make mistakes all the time.  I'm equally certain that [to put it mildly] you would be rather displeased if someone were to impute bad faith, malice, impure motives, and so on to you anytime you were to do so.

Entities that are sued or against which some other legal action is brought, but that are, at the same time, not liable for any civil wrongdoing nor are they guilty of any crime, pay Plaintiffs and other parties to an action ... all ... the ... time.  Most of us know that litigation is expensive, may be draining emotionally [for all parties], and is time consuming.  A party against whom action is brought may well conclude (and, indeed, often does conclude) that, in light of the costs, financial and otherwise, of seeing a particular matter through to its conclusion, it is simply better for one to cut one's losses.

I suppose if you insist on reading the phrase "without admitting wrongdoing" to mean its exact opposite, no one can stop you from doing that.  I, by contrast, am reminded of Alice's conversation with Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland :
 

Quote

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Kenngo1969

[2BizE]

USA SEC Fraud:  The church knowingly and purposefully deceived.

Here is a fair and balanced discussion worth watching:

 

Australia Scandal:  currently in Australia, donations to churches is not tax exempt.  Donations to Charities is exempt.  Charities receive tax exempt status must be run in Australia, meaning people in Australia must be making the decisions. The church set up a charity and asked members to pay their tithing to the charity rather than directly to the church with the idea they could receive tax exemption.  Some Australians feel this has given church members a tax exemption not allowed to other churches.  Somehow, this charity was set up with no paid employees, no website, and no expenses, yet received $93 million per year. 
The Australian government has not said anything other than it is investigating.

The recent changes to this process could be due to discussions with the church and the government, but for certain, the church looks really bad to the Australian people.

This 60 Minutes Australia segment lays out the concerns:

 

 

[Craig Speechly]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It's not simply semantics.  Words mean things.  There need not be any ill intent involved in a simple mistake.  I'm sure you make mistakes all the time.  I'm equally certain that [to put it mildly] you would be rather displeased if someone were to impute bad faith, malice, impure motives, and so on to you anytime you were to do so.

Entities that are sued or against which some other legal action is brought, but that are, at the same time, not liable for any civil wrongdoing nor are they guilty of any crime, pay Plaintiffs and other parties to an action ... all ... the ... time.  Most of us know that litigation is expensive, may be draining emotionally [for all parties], and is time consuming.  A party against whom action is brought may well conclude (and, indeed, often does conclude) that, in light of the costs, financial and otherwise, of seeing a particular matter through to its conclusion, it is simply better for one to cut one's losses.

I suppose if you insist on reading the phrase "without admitting wrongdoing" to mean its exact opposite, no one can stop you from doing that.  I, by contrast, am reminded of Alice's conversation with Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland :
 

 

Again we’re debating Symantec’s. But I’m happy to use a less charged word if that is what needs to be done to move the conversation.  
 

The church violated SEC regulations and was assessed a large penalty.  Were this a speeding violation for repeatedly going 120 mph in a 50 mph posted speeding zone over a 20 year period and the party wished to fight the tickets before a judge, the judge would ask the defendant to state whether they were guilty or innocent of the charges.  But within this group, using the word guilty is just too harsh a word to use to define the churches violations of SEC regulations.  So I’ll instead use violated. 

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

... The church violated SEC regulations and was assessed a large penalty.  Were this a speeding violation for repeatedly going 120 mph in a 50 mph posted speeding zone over a 20 year period and the party wished to fight the tickets before a judge, the judge would ask the defendant to state whether they were guilty or innocent of the charges.  But within this group, using the word guilty is just too harsh a word to use to define the churches violations of SEC regulations.  So I’ll instead use violated.

Your comparison of this incident and the proceeding that arose from it to proceedings in the criminal system is inapt.

[JustAnAustralian]

Are people still pushing that "cooking the Book of Mormon" segment?

It's pretty clear the people putting it together did very little research apart from interviewing a few jaded former church members.

[webbles]

5 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Australia Scandal:  currently in Australia, donations to churches is not tax exempt.  Donations to Charities is exempt.  Charities receive tax exempt status must be run in Australia, meaning people in Australia must be making the decisions. The church set up a charity and asked members to pay their tithing to the charity rather than directly to the church with the idea they could receive tax exemption.  Some Australians feel this has given church members a tax exemption not allowed to other churches.  Somehow, this charity was set up with no paid employees, no website, and no expenses, yet received $93 million per year. 
The Australian government has not said anything other than it is investigating.

The recent changes to this process could be due to discussions with the church and the government, but for certain, the church looks really bad to the Australian people.

This 60 Minutes Australia segment lays out the concerns:

The 60 Minutes Australia made a pretty egregious error around the 6:18 minute mark.  The previous speaker was talking about the "LDS Charitable Trust Fund" which does take in a lot of money ($240M last year).  But then, the show host switches to talking about LDS Charities Australia and says it is a shell company.  Those are two different organizations.  Their names are similar and they are both related to the church but they aren't the same thing. 

I think the speaker might know what he is talking about but the cut by the host gives the impression that they (60 Minutes) and the speaker are making the same mistake.

The LDS Charities Australia was created in 2012.  The LDS Charitable Trust Fund was created in 1979.  Members in Australia donate money to the LDS Charitable Trust Fund which has DGR status (since 2000), so members can get full tax deduction.  The LDS Charitable Trust Fund sends its money to at least three separate entities: LDS Charities Australia, LDS Educational Building Fund, and LDS Fast Offering Fund.  It started to send money to the LDS Charities Australia in either 2014 or 2015 (the financial report is from July to June so it spans 6 months of both years).  The amount that was sent from LDS Charitable Trust Fund to LDS Charities Australia has been: $26M, $50M, $65M, $70M, $68M, $116M, $60M.  That last entry is what people seem to think was caused by the "discovery" but it doesn't look that abnormal.  I'd say the previous year was more out of line and if you ignore it, then the decrease isn't as drastic as it seems.

Also, other churches can take advantage of this "tax exemption".  In fact, @Craig Speechly quoted from some source that even recommended churches to do it.

On 7/18/2023 at 10:55 AM, Craig Speechly said:

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.

He, unfortunately, hasn't provided a link so I'm not sure who is making the recommendation.  But it doesn't seem like the church is doing anything nefarious or illegal.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Again we’re debating….

Perhaps you missed the requests above.  Could you provide a link or reference to the tax info on tithing you provided above, please.  I want to bookmark it or at least be able to refer to it.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Calm

[webbles]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps you missed the requests above.  Could you provide a link or reference to the tax info on tithing you provided above, please.  I want to bookmark it or at least be able to refer to it.

I finally found the page that @Craig Speechly quoted.  It is at https://bristax.com.au/tax-articles/is-church-tithing-tax-deductible/.  Bristax appears to be tax accountants in Australia so I think they'd know the Australian tax law.  And it really does say that churches can create a charitable trust fund to make tithing be tax deductible.  There's an additional section that Craig Speechly didn't quote that talks about how to deduct tithing from your taxes.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

I finally found the page that @Craig Speechly quoted.  It is at https://bristax.com.au/tax-articles/is-church-tithing-tax-deductible/.  Bristax appears to be tax accountants in Australia so I think they'd know the Australian tax law.  And it really does say that churches can create a charitable trust fund to make tithing be tax deductible.  There's an additional section that Craig Speechly didn't quote that talks about how to deduct tithing from your taxes.

Well done.  Wonder why google didn’t pick it up for me.  How did you find it (always looking for ways to improve my technique).  Unfortunate it does not link to government sites.  Not sure it should be considered fully authoritative, but quite useful and imo summarizes well the material found in several places on government sites.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Calm

[webbles]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Well done.  Wonder why google didn’t pick it up for me.  How did you find it (always looking for ways to improve my technique).  Unfortunate it does not link to government sites.  Not sure it should be considered fully authoritative, but quite useful and imo summarizes well the material found in several places on government sites.

I tried several search engines with various bits of the text.  This has been a multi-day thing since Craig quoted it.  I finally found it with Bing and the phrase "Unlike donations made to registered charities, church tithing is not eligible for tax deductibility."

[Calm]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

I tried several search engines with various bits of the text.  This has been a multi-day thing since Craig quoted it.  I finally found it with Bing and the phrase "Unlike donations made to registered charities, church tithing is not eligible for tax deductibility."

Wow. You are much more determined than I am. 

[The Nehor]

On 7/22/2023 at 1:04 PM, Craig Speechly said:

Again we’re debating Symantec’s. But I’m happy to use a less charged word if that is what needs to be done to move the conversation.  
 

The church violated SEC regulations and was assessed a large penalty.  Were this a speeding violation for repeatedly going 120 mph in a 50 mph posted speeding zone over a 20 year period and the party wished to fight the tickets before a judge, the judge would ask the defendant to state whether they were guilty or innocent of the charges.  But within this group, using the word guilty is just too harsh a word to use to define the churches violations of SEC regulations.  So I’ll instead use violated. 

You left out the “no contest” plea available in some situations. This plea is, in very broad terms, what the Church agreed to. And yes, there are numerous reasons they aren’t specifically equivalent.

[Craig Speechly]

On 7/23/2023 at 11:43 AM, webbles said:

I finally found the page that @Craig Speechly quoted.  It is at https://bristax.com.au/tax-articles/is-church-tithing-tax-deductible/.  Bristax appears to be tax accountants in Australia so I think they'd know the Australian tax law.  And it really does say that churches can create a charitable trust fund to make tithing be tax deductible.  There's an additional section that Craig Speechly didn't quote that talks about how to deduct tithing from your taxes.

To be clear.  Tithing (Tithing funds are always used for the Lord’s purposes—to build and maintain temples and meetinghouses, to sustain missionary work, to educate Church members, and to carry on the work of the Lord throughout the world) donations are not tax deductible in Australia. Donations to specific governments authorized humanitarian charities are fully deductible. 

Australian members pay 10% of income not as tithing to church but as a donation to LDS Charities Australia. All funding for traditional tithing expenses (see above) are paid through non Australian funds directly from SLC. Australian members do not pay tithing, they donate to a humanitarian charity 

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Australian members do not pay tithing, they donate to a humanitarian charity.

This seems like a distinction without a difference.  Governments aren't interested in the nuances of religious terminology.  "Humanitarian charity" is more a legal/regulatory phrase than a doctrinal one (such as "tithing").

You seem to be equivocating here.  Saying "Australian members do not pay tithing, they donate to a humanitarian charity" is like saying "BYU running backs do not run wind sprints, they exercise.  The juxtaposition does not work.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

Australian members pay 10% of income not as tithing to church but as a donation to LDS Charities Australia.

Just to be clear, they pay to LDS Charitable Trust Fund.  That fund pays to a building fund, a fast offering fund, and the charities fund.