The Church loses a tax break case in New Zealand

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

The Church loses a tax break case in New Zealand

Post by _I have a question »

Inland Revenue has won a legal fight to tax donations of about $1.7 million a year given to Mormon missionaries.

In 2015, Inland Revenue tightened its rules to remove tax credits for donations by Mormon missionaries, their parents and grandparents towards traditional mission work.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, known informally as the Mormon Church, fought the changes, but last month they lost a High Court bid to overturn the move.

Donations by siblings and more distant relatives of the missionary, along with friends and other church members, will still qualify for a tax credit, the court ruled.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/110903 ... -donations

A spokesman for the church said they would appeal the ruling on behalf of people who make donations to their "charitable services".

"The church is disappointed with the High Court decision," he said.

It seems a bit petty by the NZ Inland Revenue to me.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: The Church loses a tax break case in New Zealand

Post by _Fence Sitter »

I have a question wrote:It seems a bit petty by the NZ Inland Revenue to me.


Why? If they are also taking the missionary as a deduction as a dependent, why should they get to double up on the tax credit by declaring money spent on their dependent as a "charitable contribution"?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: The Church loses a tax break case in New Zealand

Post by _Kishkumen »

Tax them. Tax the “donations” that amount to supporting one’s self or one’s (grand)child. Giving a tax break for missionary work to acquire more customers of LDS, Inc. is absurd.

That said, I fully support LDS, Inc.’s right to conduct business, attract customers, build shopping malls, sell tchotchkes, promise exaltation. But let’s tax them. Let them contribute more directly to the world outside their saintly bubble, on a more generous scale.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: The Church loses a tax break case in New Zealand

Post by _Maksutov »

Fence Sitter wrote:
I have a question wrote:It seems a bit petty by the NZ Inland Revenue to me.

Why? If they are also taking the missionary as a deduction as a dependent, why should they get to double up on the tax credit by declaring money spent on their dependent as a "charitable contribution"?

:surprised:

How is this treated in US taxes?
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_kairos
_Emeritus
Posts: 1917
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The Church loses a tax break case in New Zealand

Post by _kairos »

So my 19 yo whom we supported fully his whole life leaves for a mission - we claimed him as dependent / deduction on the irs 1040, plus that $400 per month my wife (i'm the nevermo) put on the tithing slip for missions was posted on schedule A as a charitable deduction to the church-this deduction backed up on the year end statement given her by the ward clerk.

any one else's mileage the same or did it vary?

k
Post Reply