Investigation, secrecy, documents, Oh My!

[Maxel]

Hhm... That conclusion fits, john doe. I'd still like to know if the law pertains only to monetary contributions made to a certain government campaign, or to any efforts to support prop. 8 at all.

I also agree with your assessment of this being a mountain made out of a molehill. In addition, I think it is relevant where the money came from: tithe and offering money, money donated through the tithing system but specifically for proposition 8 (like putting 'proposition 8 campaign' in the 'Other' section on a tithing slip), or the business holdings of the church. It seems that if the money is donated in the last way than there's no legal case for the church being taken off its tax-exempt status- the hoped-for result of this investigation, for the church's opponents.

[Just_A_Guy]

They didn't report what they were supposed to report when they were supposed to report it. There is a pretty big gap between their initial amount of $2078 and $180,000. The current investigation looks warranted, considering these new numbers that are suddenly coming to light.

The thing to remember is that this report is *not* a result of the investigation. The final reports for all California ballot measure committees are due on February 2 (the Church submitted theirs three days early, I suspect because spokesman Scott Trotter got confused in a November press release and promised to release the report by its "due date" of January 30).

As I understand it (and I should qualify this by saying that a) I'm not licensed to practice law in California, and b) the law in this field appears terribly complex), there are special categories of expenditures that have to be reported immediately but others can wait until the final report. I wouldn't venture to guess which expenditures fall into which category, but the Church has had some pretty sharp legal minds working on this issue both in Utah and in California. I'm doubtful that they made any major mistakes.

[Maxel]

The thing to remember is that this report is *not* a result of the investigation. The final reports for all California ballot measure committees are due on February 2 (the Church submitted theirs three days early, I suspect because spokesman Scott Trotter got confused in a November press release and promised to release the report by its "due date" of January 30).

Uuuuhh.... That would clear the situation up, then. Thanks for posting that.

As I understand it (and I should qualify this by saying that a) I'm not licensed to practice law in California, and b) the law in this field appears terribly complex), there are special categories of expenditures that have to be reported immediately but others can wait until the final report. I wouldn't venture to guess which expenditures fall into which category, but the Church has had some pretty sharp legal minds working on this issue both in Utah and in California. I'm doubtful that they made any major mistakes.

QFT

[Just_A_Guy]

It seems that if the money is donated in the last way than there's no legal case for the church being taken off its tax-exempt status- the hoped-for result of this investigation, for the church's opponents.

I should also clarify that what's going on in California has *nothing* to do with the Church's tax-exempt status. It's a state-law issue; and even if they found wrongdoing all they could do is impose a fine.

Questions of the Church's tax-exempt status are addressed by the IRS, which as far as I know hasn't even publicly announced an investigation. The underlying issue of tax-exempt status isn't whether expenditures were reported in a timely manner; it's whether the Church's effort to pass Prop 8 constituted a "significant portion" of its overall activities. A recent law review article evaluated the question and basically answered "we're not sure".

My own view, based on somewhat cursory research, is that the Church has nothing to worry about from an IRS standpoint--it's hard to make a straight-faced argument that expenditures of less than $200K constitute a "significant portion" of the activities of an organization whose annual budget (as far as we know) is in the billions of dollars. It's the California proceeding where the Church may face some legal penalties, and then only if either a) the Church really did breach the law (unlikely, IMHO) or b) if Karger and his ilk succeed in converting a fact-finding investigation into a political witch-hunt. It's b) that worries me most.

Edited February 1, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[tefor]

As might be expected, the rabid anti-Mormon sociopaths are having a field day commenting on the SL Tribune site, howling for blood (and calling for all manner of vile acts to be perpetrated against our leaders). If these are the sort of people who supported SSM, then it's best for humanity that Prop 8 passed so that they can reveal themselves through their borderline subhuman behavior. It only proves Daniel Peterson's observation that Sodom and Cumorah are completely incompatible.

[LittleWyvern]

As might be expected, the rabid anti-Mormon sociopaths are having a field day commenting on the SL Tribune site, howling for blood (and calling for all manner of vile acts to be perpetrated against our leaders). If these are the sort of people who supported SSM, then it's best for humanity that Prop 8 passed so that they can reveal themselves through their borderline subhuman behavior. It only proves Daniel Peterson's observation that Sodom and Cumorah are completely incompatible.

Heh, if I judged humanity by the comments on the SLT, I would have lost faith in it a long time ago.

[john doe]

It doesn't matter what the story, the crazies who comment in the SL Trib find a way to blame the LDS Church. According to them, the church is the source of all evil in the world. They're bored religous bigots.

[Islander]

What is truly sad is that not the Attorney General or even ANYONE in Congress is saying a word about this ill-intended persecution. Nobody has questioned ANY of the other organizations that supported (financial and otherwise) Prop 8 which were many. Like I said, it is still OK to harass and persecute LDS. Just like 200 years ago, nobody cares.

[Maxel]

If anyone is interested, another thread discussing this topic is underway in the Current Events Forum. The link can be found here.