Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[Nofear]

6 hours ago, Thinking said:

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

“That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.”

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Well documented by whom?  The church does not publish financial info.  They are very exercised about keeping it all secret and hidden.  But if we can trust the group called The Widow's Mite then yes, about a billion a year of tithing over and beyond what it takes to run the church is invested in EPA.

18 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Technically the income from EPA is not tithing because tithing is what members give annually.  But all the growth in EPA comes from tithing so what is the difference?  It is still coming from tithing donations ultimately.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

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

I guess one can argue it either way.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes.  But it all came from tithing ultimately.  We can parse this all we want.  Hinckley said it came from other business arms of the church.  That was not true. EPA is not a business. It is a fund that manages the excess tithing that the church receives annually that is more than it needs to operate.  Ultimately al the church has comes from donations.  So why did Hinckley feel a need to parse this?  My guess is he knew members would be upset.

[Teancum]

18 hours 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.

[Stormin' Mormon]

42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Technically the income from EPA is not tithing because tithing is what members give annually.  But all the growth in EPA comes from tithing so what is the difference?  It is still coming from tithing donations ultimately.

I work for a local government.  My salary literally comes from the taxes levied by my town and state.  But when I go to Taco Bell to get a Beefy Crunch Burrito, no one can argue that I'm using taxpayer's dollars for my personal benefit.  

My salary is only two steps removed from the taxpayer--it goes from taxpayer to the government to my bank account.  And yet, no one has ever argued that my Taco Bell addiction is a misuse of taxpayer dollars.  Interest on EPA investments have a similarly attenuated relationship to tithing, but with an extra step added--it goes from the tithe payer to the church to EPA, which then generates interest.  (And, I have to note, the interest does not sprout from the principal like a tree sprouting from a seed; it is a payment from a third party that's not even in the tithe payer-to-EPA chain of custody).  

So, what's the difference?  How come my Beefy Crunch Burrito doesn't come from tax dollars, but EPA interest earning do come from tithing?  

 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[webbles]

33 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes.  But it all came from tithing ultimately.  We can parse this all we want.  Hinckley said it came from other business arms of the church.  That was not true. EPA is not a business. It is a fund that manages the excess tithing that the church receives annually that is more than it needs to operate.  Ultimately al the church has comes from donations.  So why did Hinckley feel a need to parse this?  My guess is he knew members would be upset.

President Hinckley also said that it came from the "earnings of invested reserve funds".  The trial judge and the appeals dissent understood that to mean funds from EPA that originated from tithing but aren't tithing.  The majority in the appeal read that to mean it was reserves from the other business arms of the church.  And part of the reason they read it that way is that they don't see the church's income to include tithing.

I don't see President Hinckley being disingenuous.  If he honestly doesn't see the "earnings of invested reserve funds" as being tithing, then he isn't saying something wrong.  If I was in his place, I'd probably say the same thing.  Yes, it is earnings on tithing money, but I don't see it as tithing.  You do and Nielsen gave an affidavit saying that others in EPA see the same way you do.  So a jury might be given the chance to decide whether the "common member" believes it that way.

[ttribe]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Well, as it turns out, the Church's MOST profitable venture (Ensign Peak) doesn't pay any income taxes.

[helix]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Hinckley said it came from other business arms of the church

He absolutely did not say that.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

But all the growth in EPA comes from tithing so what is the difference? 

But not all the growth comes from tithing. It also comes from the interest being added back in or kept in, however you want to describe it. 
 

Quote

The church does not publish financial info.  They are very exercised about keeping it all secret and hidden.  But if we can trust the group called The Widow's Mite then yes

 

I find it highly problematic to condemn someone of lying or fraud based on someone else’s  educated guesses instead of actual fact. Why wouldn’t church leaders take excess from businesses owned and also put that excess in EPA as well rather than have other funds for that purpose?  Is there a tax issue preventing that?  Seems like a duplication of effort that would not be cost efficient. 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I work for a local government.  My salary literally comes from the taxes levied by my town and state.  But when I go to Taco Bell to get a Beefy Crunch Burrito, no one can argue that I'm using taxpayer's dollars for my personal benefit.  

My salary is only two steps removed from the taxpayer--it goes from taxpayer to the government to my bank account.  And yet, no one has ever argued that my Taco Bell addiction is a misuse of taxpayer dollars.  Interest on EPA investments have a similarly attenuated relationship to tithing, but with an extra step added--it goes from the tithe payer to the church to EPA, which then generates interest.  (And, I have to note, the interest does not sprout from the principal like a tree sprouting from a seed; it is a payment from a third party that's not even in the tithe payer-to-EPA chain of custody).  

So, what's the difference?  How come my Beefy Crunch Burrito doesn't come from tax dollars, but EPA interest earning do come from tithing?  

 

Why can't the people (members) save their money in an account to earn interest and pay once annually? Maybe some already do, but it seems it was taught to pay tithing before the bills. 

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

But not all the growth comes from tithing. It also comes from the interest being added back in or kept in, however you want to describe it. 
 

 

I find it highly problematic to condemn someone of lying or fraud based on someone else’s  educated guesses instead of actual fact. Why wouldn’t church leaders take excess from businesses owned and also put them in EPA as well rather than have other funds for that purpose?  Seems like a duplication of effort that would not be cost efficient. 

I do have a concern of how tithing evolved to being income vs. interest. In my mind's eye I picture interest being what's left over after the needs of the family are met, such as food and bills, schooling, mortgage etc. This would be a much better plan since the church asks members to be self reliant, and not reliant on the church. Instead asking to pay 10 percent upfront of everything else isn't going to make a person very self reliant if they go to the church/government/family for help.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Well, as it turns out, the Church's MOST profitable venture (Ensign Peak) doesn't pay any income taxes.

Is Ensign Peak legally obligated to pay income taxes?

Do you voluntarily pay taxes you are not obligated to pay?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why can't the people (members) save their money in an account to earn interest and pay once annually? Maybe some already do, but it seems it was taught to pay tithing before the bills. 

While at the MTC I heard a speech to the missionaries where the speaker said he "pre-paid" his tithing in January. He and his wife decided how much they wanted to earn and then they paid 10% of that. The idea was since the Lord would never be in debt to his children, he'd then earn the appropriate amount that year. 🙄 I was taught a few rather goofy (and false) things in the MTC, this being one of them.

 

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why can't the people (members) save their money in an account to earn interest and pay once annually? Maybe some already do, but it seems it was taught to pay tithing before the bills. 

They can.  I know a lot of people who do.

We are taught to pay tithing first because that makes it psychologically easier to pay, but it's not doctrine, it's just a hack.  But if you are the kind of person who can easily save money and wanted to pay it all at once at the end of the year, you totally can and you would still be considered a full tithe payer that whole time.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I do have a concern of how tithing evolved to being income vs. interest. In my mind's eye I picture interest being what's left over after the needs of the family are met, such as food and bills, schooling, mortgage etc. This would be a much better plan since the church asks members to be self reliant, and not reliant on the church. Instead asking to pay 10 percent upfront of everything else isn't going to make a person very self reliant if they go to the church/government/family for help.

Can you explain why you define interest that way?  It's not the typical definition.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Nofear said:

While at the MTC I heard a speech to the missionaries where the speaker said he "pre-paid" his tithing in January. He and his wife decided how much they wanted to earn and then they paid 10% of that. The idea was since the Lord would never be in debt to his children, he'd then earn the appropriate amount that year. 🙄 I was taught a few rather goofy (and false) things in the MTC, this being one of them.

 

Oh my, I can't believe they taught that to the missionaries.  I'm pretty sure you can't force the Lord's hand through a loophole.

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you explain why you define interest that way?  It's not the typical definition.

Because it says it in section 119, verse 4. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/119?lang=eng

Maybe I should say surplus, since I thought they are similar in this context.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Tacenda

[webbles]

1 hour ago, helix said:

He absolutely did not say that.

He actually did.  In his first comment in 2003, he said (quoting from the appeals decision):

Quote

We feel we have a compelling responsibility
to protect the environment of the Salt Lake
Temple . . . The property needs very
extensive and expensive renovation. We
have felt it imperative to do something to
revitalize this area. But I wish to give the
entire Church the assurance that tithing
funds have not and will not be used to acquire
this property. Nor will they be used in
developing it for commercial purposes.
Funds for this have come and will come from
those commercial entities owned by the
Church. These resources, together with the
earnings of invested reserve funds, will
accommodate this program.

Now, the sentence after that can be read to mean it came from tithing investments or commercial entity investments.  The majority in the appeals read it as the later.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Why can't the people (members) save their money in an account to earn interest and pay once annually? Maybe some already do, but it seems it was taught to pay tithing before the bills. 

My father paid once every two years to maximize tax benefits and possibly interest income (he just mentioned he did it for taxes or my mom told me, I can’t remember which).  He never got criticized for it from what I was told. 

The impression I get of the teaching to pay tithing before the bills is not in timing, but in setting up a priority of importance, tithing as more important than one’s bills in one’s heart so to speak. This might work out for some as necessary to do on a monthly basis because they may not have enough for bills and need to know the shortfall so they can make needed adjustments in their spending to ensure they have the committed amount and are not turning paying tithing into an anxiety ridden scrambling at the last moment, wondering if they are going to make it experience or if life demands are high, to get help from the Church in a timely manner to cover it to prevent paying tithing from having unnecessary burdens attached to it.  
 

But for those who gave a steady income that generously covers their needs and are careful, I don’t see the Church’s teaching as requiring them to actually write the check or whatever first each month when they sit down to do finances or pay the monthly bills. For one thing, that technically would be impossible because many bills are paid throughout the month, like grocery expenses. My dad put tithing in his bank account with each paycheck or tracked it somehow and was always confident he would have enough to pay it.  I do believe he had an issue with giving up control, especially with money; it might have been better for him if he had paid it monthly, but he never himself as having a problem. 

Maybe he didn’t get the fullest of benefits of tithing that he could have because of his choice though. I think there might be a benefit to going through the actions of personal devotion that paying tithing can be.  The process can bring up reminders of our covenant with the Lord, our commitment to his work, our sacrifice, our gratitude.  If we consciously approach the action of paying tithing as a devotion and not just another bill to pay, we are creating more sacred time and spiritual awareness in our lives, imo.

As someone who doesn’t have an income myself and whose husband has handles that aspect of our relationship for most of our marriage (I originally did it because I am better at budgeting and tracking, but that somewhat obsessive ability actually caused quite a bit of strife because I got ticked off when my husband didn’t follow the plan), I don’t have that opportunity that often.  I don’t see paying tithing as a devotion as a requirement, but just a way we could enhance the spiritual side of our lives which may be met in other ways, so please don’t see it as a criticism of having tithing on automatic payments through the bank or such things.  

Edited August 10, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Nofear said:

While at the MTC I heard a speech to the missionaries where the speaker said he "pre-paid" his tithing in January. He and his wife decided how much they wanted to earn and then they paid 10% of that. The idea was since the Lord would never be in debt to his children, he'd then earn the appropriate amount that year. 🙄 I was taught a few rather goofy (and false) things in the MTC, this being one of them.

 

That comes across as bargaining with the Lord as well as dictating to him how his blessings should be delivered. 

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They can.  I know a lot of people who do.

We are taught to pay tithing first because that makes it psychologically easier to pay, but it's not doctrine, it's just a hack.  But if you are the kind of person who can easily save money and wanted to pay it all at once at the end of the year, you totally can and you would still be considered a full tithe payer that whole time.

I read in section 119 that it was to be paid annually. So I guess it's up to the members, but in one general conference talk the speaker chose to give an example of a family choosing whether to eat or pay tithing. This wouldn't be very wise, since if it's annually and if it truly was surplus, then no one would go hungry! Exclamation point because that's how angry I am that the over a hundred billion onto a trillion church is teaching this to the very poor. 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Tacenda

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

then no one would go hungry!

Unfortunately there are way too many families that go hungry even if they don’t pay tithing. 
 

And no one paying tithing should go hungry as any lack can be made up by help from the Church (I know some make the choice to go hungry rather than ask and I think that is unfortunate, but understandable).

Edited August 10, 2023 by Calm

[ttribe]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is Ensign Peak legally obligated to pay income taxes?

Do you voluntarily pay taxes you are not obligated to pay?

Thanks,

-Smac

Uhhh, my point was that they are not obligated. Not sure why you're having another knee-jerk reaction.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Uhhh, my point was that they are not obligated. Not sure why you're having another knee-jerk reaction.

It came across to me as a criticism since that was all that was said.  It seemed unnecessary to me to point that out.  I get that I am likely just going in a different direction of thought as you did, just explaining why I would have responded in a similar vein if smac hasn’t gone there first. 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Calm