Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Actually, earnings on investments would be catagorized as "investment income" On IRS form 990, page 1 line 10

Unrelated business income would be its farming income, publishing income or other directly commercial activities. This would be reported on IRS form 990-T

Thank you for the correction.  Is "investment income" taxed?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thank you for the correction.  Is "investment income" taxed?

Thanks,

-Smac

Not for a tax exempt organization unless they qualify as a private foundation (the church wouldn't, too many donors).

Unrelated business income could be taxed.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Pres. Hinckley was speaking in his capacity as the leader of a religious organization.  He was speaking to the adherents of that organization.  He was using religious terminology in his comments.  I do not see how a federal judge could possibly "secularize" tithing without running afoul of the First Amendment.  And based on the questions posed yesterday by the Ninth Circuit, I think they harbor similar doubts.

And didn’t he make the distinction between the two by using two different labels, one “tithing” and the other “earned income from investments” (might not be exact as going from memory).  Since he didn’t say anything like ‘tithing, which include the earned investment income’, but used two labels, he had to have been talking about two different things….even if people didn’t notice.

Feel free to ignore this if there is a different quote from Pres Hinckley that is being discussed, just please point me in the right direction. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Just to clarify for myself…

The tithing donation that gets placed into the reserve fund is never taxed.  The earned investment income from that tithing always is.  The part of the fund that came from tithing donations isn’t taxed just because it got placed into a reserve fund investing in for profit businesses?

If correct, this seems to me to create a very clear distinction between the two as taxable and nontaxable funds.

I will defer to people more competent to speak on tax issues than me, but I think the above is substantively correct.

John tithes $1,000 to the Church.  This donation is not taxed at any point.

The Church gives a portion of this tithe, say $200, to EPA.  Still not taxed.

EPA invests the $200 in the stock market and realizes a profit of $50.  While the $200 is still not taxed, the $50 is taxed (as, per @Danzo, "investment income").

Is this correct?

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I get that the lawsuit according to the plaintiffs is about perceptions of reasonable members and not how the two categories are actually treated, but doesn’t it also depend on intent to mislead?

Yes.  Intent (in legalese, "scienter") is one of the nine basic elements of a fraud claim.  The statement not only has to be communicated, but it also has to be about a material fact, and the statement has to be factually false, and the person making it has to have said it (A) while knowing that it was false (scienter), or else B) made the statement recklessly.

Will Huntsman be able to marshal "clear and convincing" evidence that Pres. Hinckley intended to deceive Huntsman, or else spoke recklessly?  No.  But I think Huntsman doesn't care about that.  I think he is out to punish and embarrass the Church.  He has the money to burn.

1 minute ago, Calm said:

If the leaders understood the difference that seems to me so clear between what can be taxed and what can’t be, what would be the benefit to them to misrepresent this and present the two categories as if they were one?  

I think the allegation is less about taxable v. non-taxable and more about conflating "tithing" to include both "charitable contributions" and "earned income."  That the former is taxed and the latter is not is perhaps incidental to the fraud claim.

1 minute ago, Calm said:

More likely they would just wouldn’t think about it as relevant or would assume others would understand the difference. 

Without the intent to mislead, there is no fraud, correct, even if members got the wrong idea?

Yes.  Intent is required.  Moreover, the hearer must have actually relied on the statement, and that reliance must have been "reasonable."  My recollection is that several of the Ninth Circuit judges commented on the "reasonableness" element as requiring an inquiry that would violate the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  I think Judge Shelby said something similar in Gaddy.

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Did the plaintiffs provide any reason why the Church leadership or anyone for that matter would want members to confuse the earned investment income with the funds that came from tithing donations?  

Not yet.

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Given the amount of these funds weren’t even publicly shared, what possible purpose would there be for misleading?  

To induce people to pay tithing, perhaps?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

And even then, Nielsen's statement may be too nebulous or uncredbile.  It sure seems weak on its face.

Thanks for covering this. I have been wondering a lot about hearsay use.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Not for a tax exempt organization unless they qualify as a private foundation (the church wouldn't, too many donors).

Unrelated business income could be taxed.

Are you saying the earned income off of investing the funds in stuff like Apple and Microsoft coming from tithing donation’s is not taxed?  If so, there goes one of my ideas, lol. 
 

Duh…I just found out Microsoft came from combining microcomputer and software…how come that never occurred to me before?  How come I never wondered about the name before?

Edited September 26, 2024 by Calm

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church gives a portion of this tithe, say $200, to EPA.  Still not taxed.

EPA invests the $200 in the stock market and realizes a profit of $50.  While the $200 is still not taxed, the $50 is taxed (as, per @Danzo, "investment income").

Is this correct?

The $50 in this case would not be taxed. 

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you saying the earned income off of investing the funds in stuff like Apple and Microsoft coming from tithing donation’s is not taxed?  If so, there goes one of my ideas, lol. 
 

Duh…I just found out Microsoft came from combining microcomputer and software…how come that never occurred to me before?  How come I never wondered about the name before?

The dividend income from Microsoft and Apple (and other stocks) are not taxed for a tax exempt organization (unless they are a private foundation and then the tax is pretty low)

Microsoft and Apple pay tax on their earnings and profits (so the money is taxed in a sense) but the tax exempt organization does not pay taxes on the investment income received. 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure about that.  The judges seemed pretty skeptical of Huntsman's "secular definition" play.

That's true. And at the same time, Huntsman’s attorney didn’t explain the point very well.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, this is a pretty massive pivot for you, as you have long disputed the notion that the definition of tithing has any relevance to Huntsman's lawsuit.  Are you now conceding that it is relevant?  Even centrally so?

It isn’t a pivot at all. I’m still maintaining that the religious definition of “tithing” is irrelevant because that isn’t what the lawsuit is about.

The lawsuit is about the following secular facts:

• When people make charitable contributions to the Church, they classify the charitable contribution. This is a secular fact.
• One of the classifications they can elect is something called “tithing.” This is a secular fact.
• The Church sums up its annual income by source, and on its internal financial statements, there is something that says “tithing income.” This amount is literally calculated to the penny, by accountants, using standard accounting principles, and is based upon the actual charitable contributions it received that were classified by the donors as “tithing.” This is a secular fact.
• Auditors can verify that this number on the financial reports called “tithing" is correct by looking at the audit trail of tithing slips and various deposits and so forth. Secular fact.
• The Church claims that it puts the income from this source into something it calls a “tithing bucket” that is on its balance sheet. Secular fact.
• The money in this “tithing bucket” can be deployed in various ways. It can be converted to cash, and the Church could stamp a little “T” on the corner of every bill indicating how special it is. It could put the money in a savings account. It can by bonds with it. It can purchase Nvidia stock with it. They can do anything with that money that can be done with money. These are secular facts.
• What it does with this money is also a secular fact.
• If Hinckley or anybody else talks about how the church will use tithing, it is talking about how it will use the charitable donations it has received that have been classified as tithing. What drives this classification isn’t an esoteric religious principle that is outside the purview of a secular court. What drives it is the secular fact of how the donor classified it at the moment of donation. Secular fact.
• One can compare real-world promises about these real-world buckets of money to how the real-world buckets of money were actually deployed. This is a secular exercise.

 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The dividend income from Microsoft and Apple (and other stocks) are not taxed for a tax exempt organization (unless they are a private foundation and then the tax is pretty low)

Microsoft and Apple pay tax on their earnings and profits (so the money is taxed in a sense) but the tax exempt organization does not pay taxes on the investment income received. 

So the Church does not pay taxes at this point on any of the money that EPA manages?

That is what people are talking about then when they want tax exemption revoked and use EPA as the reason. That would be significant.

I need to pay closer attention.

Edited September 26, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

think the allegation is less about taxable v. non-taxable and more about conflating "tithing" to include both "charitable contributions" and "earned income."  That the former is taxed and the latter is not is perhaps incidental to the fraud claim

Good thing since it turns out not taxed, lol.  Learn something new every day and all that.

I still stand by the post of ‘two different labels means two different things’ and asking what benefit is there for church leadership to conflate the two in the minds of the membership for the Church?

Edited September 26, 2024 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

 

• The Church claims that it puts the income from this source into something it calls a “tithing bucket” that is on its balance sheet. Secular fact

 

This is where you lose the argument.  What the Church wants to call a "tithing bucket" is entirely up to the Church and is not a secular fact.  If it wants to limit the "tithing bucket" only to dollars that are the product of faith, sacrifice, and consecration, it can do so, but those are not criteria that a secular court can adjudicate.  

And you keep eliding over how utterly mundane and banal it is in the world of government and non-profits to have a separate bucket into which ALL the interest earned from ALL accounts are put, a bucket that carries NONE of the eligibility restrictions of the funding sources that generated that interest in the first place. There's no attempt to stamp a specific dollar with a "T" to mark it as a dollar that was tithed.  This is a ridiculous strawman, and it trivializes the accounting practices of tens of thousands of government and non-profit organizations around the country. 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The Church claims that it puts the income from this source into something it calls a “tithing bucket” that is on its balance sheet. Secular fact.

Wait…did he actually say that or was he talking metaphorically?  I think I am being confused by what is meant be “secular fact” which means to me ‘this is what happens’ and therefore the description is identical to what is going on…literal iow.

There is nowhere a label being used that says “tithing bucket” on it I am guessing. Did he claim “tithing bucket” was used by anyone besides himself in this moment in explaining how things worked to the court?  I would love it if the leadership’s nickname for EPA was “Bucket”, but somehow I doubt it. 

Edited September 26, 2024 by Calm

[Danzo]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

So the Church does not pay taxes at this point on any of the money that EPA manages?

That is what people are talking about then when they want tax exemption revoked and use EPA as the reason. That would be significant.

I need to pay closer attention.

If EPA only gets portfolio income (Dividends, interest and capitol gains) and they are wholly owned by the church, then there would not be any tax on that income.

The business that the church owns would pay tax on the income of that particular business. 

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If EPA only gets portfolio income (Dividends, interest and capitol gains) and they are wholly owned by the church, then there would not be any tax on that income.

The business that the church owns would pay tax on the income of that particular business. 

I have seen this explained before (EPA’s own tax forms).  I wonder why the penny didn’t drop till now?  Or maybe it did, but it rolled off the table and got lost. Hopefully it sticks this time. 

Edited September 26, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And didn’t he make the distinction between the two by using two different labels, one “tithing” and the other “earned income from investments” (might not be exact as going from memory).  Since he didn’t say anything like ‘tithing, which include the earned investment income’, but used two labels, he had to have been talking about two different things….even if people didn’t notice.

Feel free to ignore this if there is a different quote from Pres Hinckley that is being discussed, just please point me in the right direction. 

I've just thought of an analogy.

Biologists use taxomonic definitions when categorizing taxonomic rank:

Quote

In biology, taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis) 'arrangement' and -νομία (-nomia) 'method') is the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics. Organisms are grouped into taxa (singular: taxon) and these groups are given a taxonomic rank; groups of a given rank can be aggregated to form a more inclusive group of higher rank, thus creating a taxonomic hierarchy. The principal ranks in modern use are domain, kingdom, phylum (division is sometimes used in botany in place of phylum), class, order, family, genus, and species.

If a biologist is speaking of mammalia, he is speaking of a taxonomic rank ("class") which is right there in the middle (below domain, kingdom and phylum, but above order, family, genus and species).  Another example of a "class," apart from mammals, is reptilia (snakes, turtles, etc.).

Now, let's say that we live on Planet Frypton, where biologists have developed a taxonomic structure that only goes down four levels/ranks: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum and Class.  No further.  Biologists on this planet acknowledge that these classes have subcategories that are plainly distinguishable from each other, but they (the biologists) don't bother with specifying those subcategories with with the same sort of precision that they apply to the four established ranks.  They go to "class," and then they stop.  So even though biologists acknowledge that dogs and cats are clearly distinguishable from each other, biologists still categorize them at the "class" level (mammalia), and only go out of their way to differentiate that class from other classes (reptilia, etc.).  Regular Joes on this planet go about their lives and often create subcategories and names below "class," but those biologists pay no attention to that stuff, and keep their taxonomic structure as described above.

I think the IRS is somewhat similar when it comes to how it treats the Church's income.  The IRS looks at the Church's income and classifies it according to its taxonomic structure and designations.  So the Church has income which can be classified in ways such as (from ChatGPT) :

• (1) Charitable Contributions (Tax Exempt)
• (2) Passive Investment Income (Generally Tax Exempt)
• (3) Unrelated Business Income (Taxable)
• (4) Program-Related Income (Tax Exempt)
• (5) Rental Income (Generally Tax Exempt)
• (6) Royalties and Licensing Income (Generally Tax Exempt)
• (7) Gifts, Bequests and Inheritances (Tax Exempt)
• (8) Fundraising Income (Tax Exempt)

Note that nowhere here does the IRS have a formal category called "Tithing."  This is a religious term that, in most circumstances, falls into "Charitable Contributions."  The IRS also does not have a category called "Fast Offerings."  This is a religious term that falls into "Charitable Contributions."

The Church has a variety of other possible forms of donations ("General Missionary," "Ward Missionary," "Humanitarian Aid"), all of which would be categorized by the IRS as "Charitable Contributions."  Meanwhile, donations to LDS Philanthropies - a central point of emphasis in the MDL lawsuit - might be categorized by the IRS as a "Charitable Contribution" or else under "Gifts, Bequests and Inheritances."  I'll leave such things to IRS functionaries.

Here is my point: The IRS does not have defined categories or definitions for "Tithing," "Fast Offerings," etc. because the IRS generally doesn't need or want to bother with such matters. 

The IRS is like the biologists on Planet Frypton who don't care about any categorizations below "class."  While these biologists don't bother with differentiating cats from dogs (they're all just "mammals"), but they do differentiate mammals from reptiles (for example, biologists do differentiate between dogs and snakes). Similarly, the IRS doesn't bother with differentiating between "Tithing" and "Fast Offering" (they're all just "Charitable Contributions"), but the IRS does differentiate "Charitable Contributions" from, say "Unrelated Business Income."

Meanwhile, Latter-day Saints are like the Regular Joes on Planet Frypton (who, again, differentiate - for their own purposes - between dogs and cats).  Latter-day Saints, for our own purposes, differentiate between "Tithing" and "Fast Offering."  This is so even though the IRS does not bother with this differentiation (since they're all "Charitable Contributions").

Huntsman is essentially asking the courts - which like the IRS are governmental entities - to do the equivalent of re-defining dogs as reptiles, or turtles as mammals.  He wants the courts to essentially conflate, to treat as indistinguishable from each other, the Church's "Charitable Contributions" income from its "Unrelated Business" income.  He wans the courts to do this because that is how he sees these categories (he claims this, anyway - I don't believe him).

I think few Latter-day Saints bother to parse this sort of stuff out.  We have busy lives.  We pay tithing as a matter of faith, and we have no particular need to parse out a comment from Pres. Hinckley 21 years ago about the funding of City Creek.  James Huntsman is, of course, at liberty to burn through wads of cash, likely because he just wants a pound of flesh.  But in the end, I don't think it works. 

In the realm of biological taxonomy, dogs are mammals, not reptiles. 

In the realm of civil law, tithes are Charitable Contributions, not Unrelated Business Income or Investment Income.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 26, 2024 by smac97

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

The dividend income from Microsoft and Apple (and other stocks) are not taxed for a tax exempt organization (unless they are a private foundation and then the tax is pretty low)

Microsoft and Apple pay tax on their earnings and profits (so the money is taxed in a sense) but the tax exempt organization does not pay taxes on the investment income received. 

I think this is pretty unfair in a way, since those that aren't tax exempt pay a lot in taxes. The churches ability to avoid taxes should be expected to do a lot IMO!

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, donations to LDS Philanthropies - a central point of emphasis in the MDL lawsuit

This point hasn’t sunk in, so I am missing it. Can you (or Analytics) briefly remind me what the point of referring to this is?

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think this is pretty unfair in a way, since those that aren't tax exempt pay a lot in taxes. The churches ability to avoid taxes should be expected to do a lot IMO!

I wouldn’t mind in the least if such things (charities’ income from investment in businesses) became taxable, though I understand why it’s not (guessing because charities will eventually use the money to help others and maximizing a charity’s ability to do so is something that politicians and lawmakers who make the laws probably see as a good thing).  The universities, hospitals, etc that are tax exempt can keep tuition lower or not charge patients as much because they aren’t paying taxes to some extent.  Every option I can think of though to make it more ‘fair’ for wealthy charities and churches while protecting small ones gets messed up in the details on how to judge where one cuts off exemption though, so at this point I think the best way to promote charity work including religious education and services is to keep them all tax exempt.

There are also at times businesses run by churches that compete with for profit businesses. This is a grey area for me as well.  If a church owns a farm that is run by volunteers, it can sell its products for less than a farmer down the road who survives on their income.  I wonder how much this is an actual problem (I don’t care that much if it’s just a question of increasing the profit margin from good to great, but I do care when it threatens the ability of businesses in competition to survive, but I also think it a great thing for church volunteers to contribute in this way to their community and for churches to have tax exemption to help with their own survival as there are a lot of small churches out there.)

Tax question…do smaller businesses get taxed at a lower rate than larger ones similar to the different income brackets for individuals?  What if the profits are rolled completely back into the company?  Are those profits still taxed?

Edited September 26, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

That's true. And at the same time, Huntsman’s attorney didn’t explain the point very well.

I don't think he can.  The point is incoherent.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

It isn’t a pivot at all. I’m still maintaining that the religious definition of “tithing” is irrelevant because that isn’t what the lawsuit is about.

And yet the Ninth Circuit spent plenty of time discussing the definition of tithing (including whether there can even be such a thing as a "secular" definition distinct from its religious one).

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The lawsuit is about the following secular facts:

• When people make charitable contributions to the Church, they classify the charitable contribution. This is a secular fact.

Nope.  The classification of tithing as a "charitable contribution" is a conclusion of law, not a "fact."

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

• One of the classifications they can elect is something called “tithing.” This is a secular fact.

You elide past defining "tithing" by calling the donation "something called 'tithing.'"

And the government does not "call" such donations "tithing," except as to acknowledge the religious nature of the donation.  There is no "secular" definition of tithing which is numerically distinct from its religious one.  So I don't think you can call this "a secular fact."

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

• The Church sums up its annual income by source, and on its internal financial statements, there is something that says “tithing income.”  This amount is literally calculated to the penny, by accountants, using standard accounting principles, and is based upon the actual charitable contributions it received that were classified by the donors as “tithing.” This is a secular fact.

This "something" is defined by the Church, not the State.  So we still have no "secular definition" of "tithing" in view.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

• Auditors can verify that this number on the financial reports called “tithing" is correct by looking at the audit trail of tithing slips and various deposits and so forth. Secular fact.

Still no "secular definition" of "tithing" in view.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

• The Church claims that it puts the income from this source into something it calls a “tithing bucket” that is on its balance sheet. Secular fact.

Still no "secular definition" of "tithing" in view.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

• The money in this “tithing bucket” can be deployed in various ways. It can be converted to cash, and the Church could stamp a little “T” on the corner of every bill indicating how special it is. It could put the money in a savings account. It can by bonds with it. It can purchase Nvidia stock with it. They can do anything with that money that can be done with money. These are secular facts.

Still no "secular definition" of "tithing" in view.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

• What it does with this money is also a secular fact.

Still no "secular definition" of "tithing" in view.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

• If Hinckley or anybody else talks about how the church will use tithing, it is talking about how it will use the charitable donations it has received that have been classified as tithing.

Gotta love the passive voice.  "Charitable donations ... that have been classified as tithing."

Who did this "classifying"?  the Church or the State?

If the Church, then "tithing" remains defined, as it ever has, as a religious concept by the Church, with no numerically distinct and "secular" definition.

Again, the IRS doesn't use or define the worth "tithing" in its rules and regulations, except perhaps to acknowledge its religious meaning, and that such monies are "charitable contributions" under the law.

Still no "secular definition" of "tithing" in view.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

• What drives this classification isn’t an esoteric religious principle that is outside the purview of a secular court.

The Ninth Circuit isn't concerned about whether "tithing" is esoteric (as in "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest").  That is an embellishment of your own making.

Instead, the Ninth Circuit is concerned about whether "tithing" is a "religious principle," such that a federal court examining Huntsman's claims pertaining to it would run afoul of the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

And there is still no "secular definition" of "tithing" in view.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

• What drives it is the secular fact of how the donor classified it at the moment of donation. Secular fact.

Well, no.  Nobody is disputing that Huntsman donated "tithes" to the Church, or that he "classified" his donations as tithes.

Rather, the dispute is whether Huntsman can re-define "tithes" so that it has a "secular" definition wholly and numerically distinct from its religious definition, and whether federal courts can allow him to do this in litigation without running afoul of the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

And there is still no "secular definition" of "tithing" in view.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

• One can compare real-world promises about these real-world buckets of money to how the real-world buckets of money were actually deployed. This is a secular exercise.

The "buckets" were metaphorical only, not "real-world."

And there is still no "secular definition" of "tithing" in view.  

Meanwhile, you have not answered by CFRs.  Here they are again:

The first CFR:

Quote

Your 2nd definition, "the amounts of money stated on the Church’s secular income statements that represent the donations that were given to the Church" doesn't work.  It is just a wordy restatement of the religious definition (not unlike "charitable contribution"). An amount listed on some IRS form does not "define" tithing.  If you dispute this, then please produce these supposed "secular income statements" and point us to where these documents define the term "tithing."

The second CFR:

Quote

Your 3rd definition, "One of three 'buckets of money' on the Church’s balance sheet that can be spent on different projects," also doesn't work.  You appear to have culled it from the Church's attorney's oral argument at yesterday's hearing.  But he was merely speaking metaphorically.  Nobody in or out of the Church defines "tithing" as "one of 'three buckets of money.'"  Moreover, this phrase does not "define" tithing.   If you dispute this, then please produce the source of this supposed definition and point us to where this source defines the term "tithing."

The third CFR ("Chapter and verse, please, as to where you found these "secular" definitions of "tithing.") is duplicative of the first and second.

The fourth CFR: 

Quote

Quote

Likewise, a trier of fact can secularly evaluate whether the church really has an “interest on reserves” bucket of money that is distinct from the “tithing” bucket, and that the money for the mall really came out of the “interest on reserves” bucket. All of these things can be done secularly using already accepted and used definitions of tithing, without any concern about what “tithing” means in a religious context.

CFR.  Please point us to these "already accepted and used definitions {!} of thing."  Chapter and verse, please.  Where will Judge Shelby find these definitions?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think this is pretty unfair in a way, since those that aren't tax exempt pay a lot in taxes. The churches ability to avoid taxes should be expected to do a lot IMO!

It's not just churches but all tax exempt organizations.  These include trade organizations, hospitals, Colleges and Universities, Charities like red cross, veterans associations like american legion, local government organizations, school districts and fraternal organizations, just to name a few.  

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Meanwhile, donations to LDS Philanthropies - a central point of emphasis in the MDL lawsuit

This point hasn’t sunk in, so I am missing it. Can you (or Analytics) briefly remind me what the point of referring to this is?

I am referring to it because the MDL plaintiffs did, and to observe that the State can and does categorize different types of income in different ways. 

I don't know why they referred to it in their complaint, as I do not think they claimed to have donated to LDS Philanthropies.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cujo22]

Fascinating video. I love the hypothetical the church lawyer raises about blueberries. It so happens that a farm production consists of only berries that are blue in color. The leader of the farm speaks specifically about blueberries and blue raspberries and so on. What difference does it make if there are some employees that refer to ALL the berries as blueberries (or blue berries). Who cares? I guess Huntsman side is saying that the leader of the farm is now legally beholden to and liable for the employees' imprecise reference to just blueberries, that the leader of the farm can now be sued because he said they were raising blueberries and blue raspberries, but we have it on good authority from various employees in the building that the farm is only raising blueberries. 

[juliann]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

 

The second thing that’s changed is that again, thanks to David Nielsen, outsiders are now starting to pay attention to this, including members of the Church (some of whom are suing and others of whom quietly stopped paying), the general public, and the IRS. The unwanted transparency is doing the good things that transparency always does and is pressuring them to do more with the resources they have.

President Nelson deserves a lot of credit for the medical school. But David Nielsen deserves a lot of credit for it, too.

 

Soooo…you apparently think President Nelson woke up one morning a few years ago and said, “I’m going to build a medical school!  And it was a done deal? 
 

This constant carping on how someone else, whom you have no association with, should be spending their money is quite frankly…tedious and tiresome. Now the medical school isn’t BIG enough? Seriously? The church has to outdo every other school as it enters into new territory for it to count? That is just lame. 

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huntsman is essentially asking the courts - which like the IRS are governmental entities - to do the equivalent of re-defining dogs as reptiles, or turtles as mammals.  He wants the courts to essentially conflate, to treat as indistinguishable from each other, the Church's "Charitable Contributions" income from its "Unrelated Business" income.  He wans the courts to do this because that is how he sees these categories (he claims this, anyway - I don't believe him).

You have me confused here. Isn’t Huntman equating “charitable contributions” [tithing] and “investment income” [earned income off of the investment of contributions and reinvested earned income]?