- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I generally read stuff by Jana Riess, and I generally like her point of view (you may have guessed that from other posts :shh: ). Somewhat related she wrote this week about a church financial issue in Australia:https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/11/01/jana-riess-lds-church-finances/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/11/01/jana-riess-lds-church-finances/ Unlike Riess, this one is a little clickbaity in that it takes her a bit to get to the meat of the issue, but it is this:
Quote:The reporters assert that the church created what The Age referred to as “a shell company” to exploit a loophole in Australian law. Australia does not give any kind of tax exemption for donations to churches or houses of worship. But it does give a tax exemption for donations to “charity,” things like homeless shelters and schools and hospitals.
The reports are stating that the church created a “charitable trust fund” and directed Australian Saints to send their tithing and other donations to that trust fund rather than to the church itself. They could then claim the tax exemption for contributing to a charity.
But if I am understanding it correctly, Australian law then requires the registered charities to distribute much of that money within Australia and to have that distribution overseen locally, with all decisions made by Australians who run the charity from within the country.
Instead, what appears to have happened is that Australians’ tithing dollars got centralized in Salt Lake City under the larger umbrella of the denomination’s charitable arm, which then disbursed the funds as it wished.
Riess concludes:
Quote:This kind of financial practice looks terrible for the church. It feels covert and deceptive. Creating a “charity” that appears to be in name only is unfair to other religions in Australia that have played by the rules. It’s unfair to the Australian government, which has been shortchanged millions in taxes. And it’s unfair to those tithe-paying Latter-day Saints Down Under who had a right to assume their tithing was going where it was supposed to.
I agree. The church is apparently following the law, and I’m sure their Australian version of Kirton McConkie* is on top of any loopholes in the law. But just because they’re living the “letter of the law” doesn’t make it the right thing to do and it doesn’t necessarily look good for the “good name of the church.”
Side note, also pointed out in the article is another case of the number of church reported members vs. self reported members in Australia.
*Kirton McConkie does seem to involve themselves with international law to some extent at least, but it’s also very likely they have close connections with law firms in other countries who represent and/or advise the church.
DarkJedi wrote:
“This kind of financial practice looks terrible for the church. It feels covert and deceptive.”I agree. The church is apparently following the law, and I’m sure their Australian version of Kirton McConkie* is on top of any loopholes in the law. But just because they’re living the “letter of the law” doesn’t make it the right thing to do and it doesn’t necessarily look good for the “good name of the church.”
This reminds me of Elder Packer’s talk.
He spends the entire talk describing how all members have a covenant duty to “be selective” in telling only the faith promoting parts of the LDS history and experience. Hiding facts from members until their “faith” is strong enough to bear it, fells “covert and deceptive.”
Anyway, it just makes me feel that this attitude of doing whatever is legally allowed to build up and benefit the church organizations as a way of demonstrating loyalty might be a cultural hallmark of being a church employee.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.