Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

Seems 2 of the 3 judges agreed that tithing and money earned on invested tithing are both tithing. 
 

If that point of view, is upheld in the lower court, Huntsman wins. 

I think it would go to a jury trial if no further appeals change anything.  They aren't saying that tithing and invested earnings are tithing.  Only that a "reasonable juror" could be persuaded.

They gave 4 possible ways a reasonable juror could be persuaded that the statements were fraudulent and only of them deals with whether invested earnings is considered tithing (#3 on page 27).

[bsjkki]

48 minutes ago, webbles said:

I think it would go to a jury trial if no further appeals change anything.  They aren't saying that tithing and invested earnings are tithing.  Only that a "reasonable juror" could be persuaded.

They gave 4 possible ways a reasonable juror could be persuaded that the statements were fraudulent and only of them deals with whether invested earnings is considered tithing (#3 on page 27).

It's still ridiculous. If the fraud is based on a misunderstanding on what is considered tithing that isn't fraud. (In my personal non-lawyer opinion.) Does the average church member consider earnings on their tithing as tithing? Do you?

Edited August 8, 2023 by bsjkki

[webbles]

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It's still ridiculous. If the fraud is based on a misunderstanding on what is considered tithing that isn't fraud. (In my personal non-lawyer opinion.) Does the average church member consider earnings on their tithing as tithing? Do you?

I, personally, do not consider earnings on the tithing to be tithing.  I have no idea what the average church member things.  Nielsen (the EPA whistleblower) gave an affidavit that said that fellow employees of EPA called all the funds "tithing" (both original tithing and investment earnings).  That's part of the reason the court ruled that a "reasonable juror" could see it that way.

[Stormin' Mormon]

If I accidently drop some coins on the sidewalk on my walk to the office, and a few minutes later, a homeless person picks up those coins, I am not credited with doing a good deed.  There was no act of volition, of will, of consecration on my part.  

Similarly, what makes tithing tithing is the act of volition behind it.  Someone consecrated those dollars, someone sacrificed, someone made a conscious decision to remove those dollar from their own bank account, and dedicate them to the Lord.  There is no act of volition behind the accrual of interest, no consecration, no sacrifice.  Tithing is the result of human agency; interest is not.  Tithing is sacred; interest is not. 

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[bsjkki]

23 minutes ago, webbles said:

fellow employees of EPA

So, he would have to name them and get them to testify to that. Could he have misunderstood their intent. 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

If I accidently drop some coins on the sidewalk on my walk to the office, and a few minutes later, a homeless person picks up those coins, I am not credited with doing a good deed.  There was no act of volition, of will, of consecration on my part.  

Similarly, what makes tithing tithing is the act of volition behind it.  Someone consecrated those dollars, someone sacrificed, someone made a conscious decision to remove those dollar from their own bank account, and dedicate them to the Lord.  There is no act of volition behind the accrual of interest, no consecration, no sacrifice.  Tithing is the result of human agency; interest is not.  Tithing is sacred; interest is not. 

 

Another reasonable person might ask if there was no tithing money given to EPA, would there be a 100 billion (or whatever the number) stock portfolio?

If you plant a seed and that one seed produces 100 seeds, than could a reasonable person determine that the 100 seeds are an increase of that one seed?

I think you have to remember that not all jury members might see things as a member of the Church might see things

[helix]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you plant a seed and that one seed produces 100 seeds, than could a reasonable person determine that the 100 seeds are an increase of that one seed?

I think you have to remember that not all jury members might see things as a member of the Church might see things

Should it be the government's job to regulate the term "tithing" for a religion?

Should the government allow fraud lawsuits if a former disaffected member says "After leaving that church I feel like they should be all called tithing seeds and my definitions make the church deceptive"?

Should a jury be allowed to decide what is a faith's definition of tithing over the objections of that faith's own definition of tithing?

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by helix

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, helix said:

Should it be the government's job to regulate the term "tithing" for a religion?

The courts are given the task of allowing a jury to determine whether fraud has been committed no matter who commits it. Just because you are a church doesn’t give you a free get out of jail pass.  Or do you believe a church should be allowed to do whatever the hell it wants?

8 minutes ago, helix said:

Should the government allow fraud lawsuits if a former disaffected member says "After leaving that church I feel like they should be all called tithing seeds and my definitions make the church deceptive"?

People in this country have a right for their day in court.  The ruling wasn’t a ruling on whether a fraud has been committed.  The ruling was that a case may be heard.  How it turns out is not the decision of government but rather a jury that will hear both sides of this dispute 

8 minutes ago, helix said:

Should a jury be allowed to decide what is a faith's definition of tithing over the objections of that faith's own definition of tithing?

 

Part of the court case will be about exactly what the church considers tithing when that tithing was paid.  Yes the jury has to also consider past statements and teachings.  

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

The courts are given the task of allowing a jury to determine whether fraud has been committed no matter who commits it. Just because you are a church doesn’t give you a free get out of jail pass.  Or do you believe a church should be allowed to do whatever the hell it wants?

People in this country have a right for their day in court.  The ruling wasn’t a ruling on whether a fraud has been committed.  The ruling was that a case may be heard.  How it turns out is not the decision of government but rather a jury that will hear both sides of this dispute 

Part of the court case will be about exactly what the church considers tithing when that tithing was paid.  Yes the jury has to also consider past statements and teachings.  

I hope they concentrate on the meaning of interest vs. income.

[Teancum]

On 8/7/2023 at 11:09 PM, Tacenda said:

Well, this might open up a can of worms.

Indeed!

[Teancum]

On 8/8/2023 at 12:31 AM, webbles said:

I think you have this backwards.  The two judges say "But nothing in President Hinckley’s 1991 statement defines “income” of the Church as tithing contributions to the Church." (page 24).  They are arguing that when President Hinckley said that some income will be set aside in the reserve funds (which is what he later mentions in the 2003 statement), he was not talking about tithing but about other sources of income.

I do think it does come down to whether a "reasonable person" would understand tithing to include the interest or just the principal.  Back when this was first talked about, there were several posters who felt that both interest and principal should fall under the definition of tithing and others who argued the opposite.  That does feel like it will require a jury to decide.

I had a different position on this prior to knowing just how much wealth the church has accumulated.  Before I agreed that income from other sources like business endeavors, was not tithing.  Now that I know the EPA's funds came from excess tithing, over and beyond what was needed annually to operate the church, I have changed my opinion.  THe EPA funds came from tithing.  IMO any income that added to the fabulous growth of the EPA funds it directly related to tithing.  Thus to say the there was no tithing used for the mall is a false statement and I think the case has merits.

[Nofear]

10 hours ago, helix said:

Should it be the government's job to regulate the term "tithing" for a religion?

Australia doesn't. The Church can call its members donations tithing and be tax deductible so long as it meets the humanitarian/charitable use requirements. This even though "tithing" is used differently in the US and other countries. The governments should really not care one whit about the language or terminology employed by a church and only its outcomes. Does the Church reasonably use its funds in a manner consistent with general expectations of its membership. For my part the answer is heck heaven yeah.

[webbles]

I wonder if the trial court will still dismiss the lawsuit but for the reasons that Gaddy was dismissed.  In that dismissal, the judge rules that the allegations of fraud weren't specific enough.  Was that based on Utah law or a federal law?  Because it feels like Huntsman can't be anymore specific than Gaddy.

[Teancum]

On 8/8/2023 at 1:28 AM, Calm said:

I agree.  Tithing is what I give to the Church in my view.  What the church owns is not tithing, but just money in my view as they are not tithing it to anyone.

But all of EPA came from tithing. We can parse the words all we want.  But the church assets ultimately all come from contributions.  And EPA especially is funded by tithing that is in excess of annual operating budgets.  Money is fungible ultimately.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But all of EPA came from tithing.

Has this been documented?  No other funds were directed the EPA’s way?  Just curious.

Not that it makes any difference to my point, which is in my view since I am the one paying a tithe, to me it’s tithing, but the Church isn’t planning on using it to pay its own tithing, so it is no longer tithing imo, even if still needing to be treated with respect because of the sacrifices most people make to give it to the church.  It is not a contractual relationship as in they are required to use my money for what I expect them to use it for.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Calm

[ksfisher]

23 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Seems 2 of the 3 judges agreed that tithing and money earned on invested tithing are both tithing. 
 

If that point of view, is upheld in the lower court, Huntsman wins. 

I'm not sure I agree.  If someone was to give me $100, which I then put in the bank and earn $1 in interest,  is that $1 part of the gift?  I'd say no.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Money is fungible ultimately.

So why be picky about whether or not something is labeled as tithing or interest/income?

[ttribe]

I still don't see how this case succeeds. Intent is a major component of any fraud claim, and I'm having some difficulty coming up with viable and supportable ways for the Plaintiff to demonstrate that Church leadership intended to defraud him.

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I still don't see how this case succeeds. Intent is a major component of any fraud claim, and I'm having some difficulty coming up with viable and supportable ways for the Plaintiff to demonstrate that Church leadership intended to defraud him.

I agree, but the thought of getting a refund from all the money we donated is a nice thought. 

[smac97]

On 8/9/2023 at 12:50 PM, Teancum said:

Quote

I agree.  Tithing is what I give to the Church in my view.  What the church owns is not tithing, but just money in my view as they are not tithing it to anyone.

But all of EPA came from tithing.

This is infinitely regressive.

Tithing is a charitable donation by members of the Church to the Church.  If the Church receives $1,000.00 as a tithe and invests it, earning $200 in interest, that $200.00 is not tithing because it is not a charitable donation by a member of the Church to the Church.

On 8/9/2023 at 12:50 PM, Teancum said:

We can parse the words all we want.  But the church assets ultimately all come from contributions. 

But the Church's assets and income are not all "tithing."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 11, 2023 by smac97

[JustAnAustralian]

If interest earned on tithing is still tithing, does that mean that church members can validly claim additional tax deductions based on previous years donations?

[Stormin' Mormon]

20 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

If interest earned on tithing is still tithing, does that mean that church members can validly claim additional tax deductions based on previous years donations?

Or does it mean that the financial institutions that actually pay the interest on those tithing deposits can count those interest payments as charitable donations?  

Edited August 9, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Quote

If interest earned on tithing is still tithing, does that mean that church members can validly claim additional tax deductions based on previous years donations?

Or does it mean that the financial institutions that actually pay the interest on those tithing deposits can count those interest payments as charitable donations?  

Or does it mean that the Church's for-profit entities don't need to pay taxes, since the monies they are using "ultimately all come from contributions" (and are therefore charitable donations, and hence not taxable)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 9, 2023 by smac97

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I agree, but the thought of getting a refund from all the money we donated is a nice thought. 

Yeah...I'd be happy to have the cash back, but that kind of dream is generally associated with excessive alcohol use or recreational pharmaceuticals.

[Thinking]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

So why be picky about whether or not something is labeled as tithing or interest/income?

Had President Hinckley NOT said what he said, there would be no story. His statement opened the door for pickiness.