California Federal Court

A Publicity Stunt Lawsuit

The Huntsman lawsuit is all fluff and no substance. The Church should move for dismissal.

Earlier this week, James Huntsman, son of the late billionaire Jon Huntsman, Sr. and brother of former Utah governor and U.S. presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, Jr., filed a federal lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“the Church”) demanding the return of charitable contributions he has made over the course of his lifetime.

Specifically, Huntsman alleges he has paid in excess of $5 million in tithing and is seeking its return plus interest. Huntsman’s lawsuit also demands exemplary and punitive damages to “punish” and make “an example of” the Church.

Huntsman sets the tone for his lawsuit in the very first paragraph by including a bizarre quote about honesty from early Church leader Brigham Young. Throughout the complaint, Huntsman put his personal outrage and the most salacious details in a bold-italicized font so that anyone perusing the suit could quickly get a sense of the purported “fraud” and “greed.”

For 13 pages, Huntsman rambles on without specificity, without evidence, and without explaining how he personally was harmed—the cornerstone of any civil action. In legal terms, Huntsman failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for fraud and thus his complaint is deficient. The Court will have no choice but to dismiss the lawsuit. Huntsman’s clumsy and bumbling complaint signifies to me that he filed this suit merely as a publicity stunt without any sincere intent to recover his monies.

The Court will have no choice but to dismiss the lawsuit.

In 2019, I worked as outside counsel for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an attorney with the firm Kirton McConkie. I worked on various legal matters for the Church, including sensitive litigation. While I will not divulge information about any specific cases, I can state with surety that requests such as tithing refunds are handled respectfully, sincerely, dutifully, and seriously until the matter is fully resolved.

In order to understand a tithing refund request, it is important to be familiar with how the law characterizes tithing. Tithing is classified as a “charitable contribution,” eligible for a federal tax deduction because the Church is a qualified nonprofit, religious group.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, “a charitable contribution is a donation or gift to … a qualified organization. It is voluntary and is made without getting, or expecting to get, anything of equal value.”

A charitable contribution is a gift, and, like any gift, under the law is an irrevocable transfer of a donor’s entire interest in the donated cash or property. Since the donor’s entire interest in the donated cash or property is transferred, it is generally impossible for the donor to recover the donated property.

James Huntsman knows his tithing donations were voluntary and fall under the legal definition of a gift. He knows the Church has no legal obligation to return his tithing. He knows that the return of his tithing has tax implications, and he would most likely have to file years of amended tax returns to remove any deduction claimed.

But most importantly, I believe Huntsman knows that if he had sincerely sent his tithing refund request to Church leadership, they would have absolutely worked with him toward a positive resolution. There is no plausible reason Huntsman needed to file a baseless, improperly pleaded claim in federal court other than in an attempt to embarrass the Church. The only person who should be embarrassed is James Huntsman.

About the author

Kate Taylor Lauck

Kate Taylor Lauck is an investigative attorney who specializes in child abuse. She holds a Master’s degree in National Security Strategies from the U.S. Naval War College and graduated cum laude from Georgetown Law in 2017.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Should the Church Pay Taxes?

Yesterday Paul Mero, a man I long admired, wrote an op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune titled, “LDS Church should surrender its tax-exempt status.” Since I’ve been on the record previously calling the argument that Churches should be taxed “a terrible argument.” I thought I should probably try and keep the conversation going with Mero. In his article Mero makes a few points: The Church can continue its mission with less financial means Members of the Church will continue to donate because of their faithfulness even if it is not tax deductible Tax exemptions don’t protect the religious from government interference The Church’s tax exemption gives church critics a platform to criticize the Church on. Mero clearly means well. He believes that the negative effects would be minor. But I believe where his argument falls flat is in the benefit it would provide the Church. The only benefit Mero can suggest is that, currently, some critics argue that the Church should pay taxes. Sure the Church would certainly be able to survive while taxed, but those funds would be taken away from accomplishing the Church’s mission. And the only accomplishment would be to take one issue away from critics. But this criticism is not virtuous. It is almost always a thinly veiled attempt at religious discrimination, arguing that religious nonprofits should be treated uniquely worse than all other nonprofits. (Religious nonprofits currently have some benefits others do not. But arguments to tax churches don’t seek to remove those minor additional benefits, but to take from them a major benefit that all other nonprofits have.) And this is very unlikely to reduce total criticism of the Church. No one who criticizes the Church for its tax status is likely to join if they start paying taxes. And there will always be some new issue to criticize whether real or invented that will immediately fill the gap. Criticism won’t go down, it will just move on to a different issue.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This