# New IRS Rule on Giving Cash at Church



## bookslover (Dec 18, 2006)

Living in the LA areas as I do, I attended the famous John MacArthur's church this evening. In their bulletin, there was this notice:

_New federal legislation has changed the required donation documentation. Starting in 2007, all cash donations must have receipts for tax deductibility.

To receive the required written receipt from the church, please place your cash donations in a giving envelope that includes your name and address.

We will credit your giving record for proper receipting._

So, apparently, church folks just can't toss a few bucks anonymously into the plate anymore (and then claim a deduction on their taxes for it), since the IRS says that all cash giving must now be receiptable (if that's a word).

I suppose it'll cut down on the number of people who claim, at tax time, that they gave $500 to their church in cash during the previous year, and didn't have to be able to prove it in order to get the deduction. Of course, someone who would do that, but be lying, has other problems...

Anyway, a heads up, FYI.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Dec 18, 2006)

Yet more evidence of our decline into Police State America.

Though it is true that someone who would lie about their contributions to their church has problems.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 18, 2006)

The more reason for churches not to inc. and ppl not to claim their tithes.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Dec 18, 2006)

Is it technically giving when you get it back? 

Sounds ridiculous to me.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 18, 2006)

If the gov't allows deductions and we can make our money stretch further by deducting through the IRS - this seems to be good stewardship..not neccessarily cooperating with AntiChrist. 

That our gov't still allows this practice is a sign that we are not as degenerate as we could be...i.e. this law that allows deductions is a good thing for the church. 

To require a receipt is not evidence that Big Brother is ready to beat in your door with steel toes boots (..just yet)...


----------



## CDM (Dec 18, 2006)

Exagorazo said:


> Is it technically giving when you get it back?
> 
> Sounds ridiculous to me.



You don't "get it back" (dollar for dollar) you lower your taxable income by reporting your giving.


----------



## lv1nothr (Dec 18, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> The more reason for churches not to inc. and ppl not to claim their tithes.


----------



## KenPierce (Dec 18, 2006)

*Church Incorporation*

Whether or not a church is incorporated is immaterial to whether gifts are tax deductible.

Church incorporation is a way for a church to limit its liability if it is sued. If a church is unincorporated, and is sued by someone who is injured on the property, etc., not only can the church qua institution be sued, but each individual member, as well.

Incorporation does not bind a church in any way. Not-for-profit incorporation does, however, prohibit a church from campaigning for or against any particular candidate, though not from stating a candidate's positions, or dealing with issues.

In my humble opinion, churches need to be very careful about political pronouncements anyway. Our teaching ought to be prophetic and ethical, but not entangled in the affairs of the world (spirituality of the church).


----------



## BJClark (Dec 18, 2006)

Shouldn't the burden of proof fall on the tax payer for any contributions they make and then claim? 

I mean if I am going to give a contribution and then turn around and claim it, then the burden of proof is on me to prove I gave incase of an audit.

Say a person claims they gave $200 a week to their church, yet only gave $20 a week, if they get audited--who should be the one required to prove they actually gave $200 in cash each week? If the burden of proof falls on the IRS, how are they supposed to find the proof? are they just supposed to take the persons word for it? Would you take their word for it, 'just because they go to church and claim to be a Christian?' 

Wouldn't keeping receipts just be another way of being held accountable, and honest? So I'm curious what the problem with this is, it's not necessarily about being accountable TO the government, it's about keeping records for yourself...just in case.

As we all know the heart of men is wicked, knowing that, is it any wonder SOME people may claim to give more 'in cash' donations to their church than they actually gave?


----------



## gwine (Dec 18, 2006)

I write a check each week for my offering during the worship service, but give cash for the Sunday School offering. It's only a dollar, so fifty dollars a year that I can't deduct isn't going to matter.

But as a closet conservative libertarian, I have always wondered about the idea of the tax deduction for any charities, not just the church. I take advantage of it because there is no reason not to keep my tax bill down, but I wouldn't lower my amount of giving even if the IRS were to eliminate the deduction. After all, it only shows up as a tax refund and I don't plan my life around how much I get back. The idea is to make the number zero. Of course, I'd rather get a thousand dollars refund than owe one dollar.

I think it would be good if the system were scrapped, but not so churches could get into the political system, since that is not their purpose, but because they would be free from some of the government regulations (precious few, I would imagine.) Maybe that last reason is a pipe dream.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Dec 18, 2006)

There are only two reasons, maybe not even good ones, that this concerns me. One is that it seems that now the churches have a greater burden in regards to their record keeping with having to give out all of those new recipts and all. And two, I have a problem with a government that thinks they have to know where all of my money is and is going in the first place. Not that I have anything to hide, I just don't see where it is their business in the first place where my money goes. But then I'm one of those libertarian types that believes that the IRS should be outlawed and that the income tax is legislated robbery.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 18, 2006)

Paying taxes is like paying a user's fee for living in a reasonable country... 


Your trash is usually picked up, the roads don't flood with garbage when it rains and hundreds don't die when mountains of trash landslide and crush squatter's villages (all realities of where I am living). There are fines for littering but the streets are clean.

For all of its faults America is very beautiful, clean and orderly, safe and generally a good place to live with an inobtrusive gov't by comparison.



Taxes are not evil in and of themselves....

The gov't isn't doing this as another means of looking to see where your money goes. 


You are free to give cash to the church and stay out of the gov't radar, but if you want the tax deduction from the gov't for charitable giving (which many countries do not have and it is yet another blessing of living in America) then you are free to choose to give by a receiptable method and get some perks and stretch your dollars further.



Give unto Ceasar, pray for them, and be glad that our Ceasar doesn't have the teeth that Nero did.


----------



## gwine (Dec 18, 2006)

trevorjohnson said:


> Paying taxes is like paying a user's fee for living in a reasonable country...
> 
> 
> Your trash is usually picked up, the roads don't flood with garbage when it rains and hundreds don't die when mountains of trash landslide and crush squatter's villages (all realities of where I am living). There are fines for littering but the streets are clean.
> ...


Right on, Trevor. This is why I use the word libertarian in lower case. Government is ordained by God and we are commanded to pray for them, but like you said we can stay out of their radar in some ways. 

I like to think all my tax money goes to support my relatives who are on Social Security, in the military or in school mooching off the system, besides giving us good roads, trash pickup, clean water . . . .


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 18, 2006)

GWINE:

Wooohooooo. 

I like your affirmation. 

I was expecting to get bashed for cozying up to Big Brother. A post like yours can make a brother's day ever once in a while...especially when my recent weeks on the PB have held a lot of quarrels.


Yes, in the history of the world evil empire has succeeded evil empire. Leviathian's teeth for Americans are not very sharp at present, thank God, and we have so much to be thankful for in our country.



I was in the military for 5 years, so brother, you paid my salary for a long time.


----------



## Gregg (Dec 18, 2006)

MrMerlin777 said:


> And two, I have a problem with a government that thinks they have to know where all of my money is and is going in the first place. Not that I have anything to hide, I just don't see where it is their business in the first place where my money goes. But then I'm one of those libertarian types that believes that the IRS should be outlawed and that the income tax is legislated robbery.



Should we then fund our military and nations infastructure from cookie, potluck, and bake sales?


----------



## lv1nothr (Dec 18, 2006)

*With all due respect*

I don't think the original post had to due with rendering unto Ceasar or that those of us who don't think the church should incorporate are some sort of rebels against the govt. But I do believe that the govt. as institued by God is to protect righteousness. To punish evil doers and reward good. In this day where good is called evil and evil good it is hardly that, in my opinion of course. But as it was in the O.T. where the people wanted a King they could see to rule over them, so it is in our day. We are to pray for them, for our land, that there would be a turning back to God. To obey all ordinances of man, in the Lord!!! 

I'm not sure I make the connection with good stewardship...Tax collecting even in the Bible was always corrupt, so why are we looking to that system for good stewardship..???

I'm not saying don't pay wage tax...but why are we to look to Ceasar to get back from Ceasar what we are giving to God? 

The correction of the Lord is for all men...govt. included, and the Word of God should not be silenced. 

Proverbs 3:7- 11 
Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. 8It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones. 9Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: 10So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine. 11My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: 

Psalms 37:25 
I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread. 

Respectfully yours In Christ,


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 18, 2006)

Flat tax?


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 18, 2006)

KenPierce said:


> Whether or not a church is incorporated is immaterial to whether gifts are tax deductible.
> 
> Church incorporation is a way for a church to limit its liability if it is sued. If a church is unincorporated, and is sued by someone who is injured on the property, etc., not only can the church qua institution be sued, but each individual member, as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## inspector (Dec 18, 2006)

My sister is an IRS auditor and she is saying that we are ok for this coming filing. She said that as a general rule of thumb, it is not a red flag to claim up to ~$75 a week with no receipts required, so long as you keep track of the dates of those amounts given.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 18, 2006)

inspector said:


> My sister is an IRS auditor and she is saying that we are ok for this coming filing. She said that as a general rule of thumb, it is not a red flag to claim up to ~$75 a week with no receipts required, so long as you keep track of the dates of those amounts given.



For 2006 returns, there is no problem. The old way was to either keep a log of gifts or get receipts. Any one contribution of less than $250 did not require a receipt. So, if in 2006 you gave $249 cash each week, and kept a log of it, you comply with the regs. (Which is not to say you won't get audited, just that you have a defense).

What is different starting in January 2007 is that keeping a log won't cut it. From a new IRS publication:

Recordkeeping Rules

A donor cannot claim a tax deduction for any contribution
of cash, a check or other monetary gift made on
or after January 1, 2007, unless the donor maintains a
record of the contribution in the form of either a bank
record (such as a cancelled check) or a written communication
from the charity (such as a receipt or a letter)
showing the name of the charity, the date of the contribution,
and the amount of the contribution.


http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf


----------



## Ambrose (Dec 19, 2006)

Suppose you had a friend, Randolph Snodgrass, who was thinking about starting a new country. He planned to call it the land of Randolph. It was his desire that his new country would be a very religious one.

Pretend Randolph has presented to you the following proposed policies on churches for your evaluation. Think of it as a period for public comment before they appear in their final form as public law - speak now or forever hold thy peace.

*The land of Randolph shall welcome all churches of Jesus Christ. In order to exist, a few minor details must first be attended to, however.

1. The church must make application to Randolph, or such person as Randolph shall designate, to exist as a church.

2. If application for a church to exist is approved, said existence is under the jurisdiction of Randolph and subject to all extant and future legislation, decree, and edicts of Randolph.

3. Randolph, out of the abundant grace of himself, bestows a conditional exemption from taxation upon approved churches of Randolph.

4. By applying for existence, churches of Randolph agree to zippest their lips regarding any political opponents of Randolph. They also agree to withhold comment on any pending legislation, decree, or edict of Randolph. They agree not to promulgate religious evaluations of civil statutes, candidates, or pending referendums. Any violation of this prohibition shall result in the revocation of the privilege of tax-exemption, and a probable fine for failure to register as a lobbying organization.

5. Churches of Randolph agree to record all financial transactions and report on the same to Randolph or his designated representative on Earth.

6. Churches of Randolph agree to designate members of their conditional Body (corpus - corporation) to act as volunteer tax collectors, and to withhold such taxes as Randolph shall designate from all employees of the church.

7. Randolph, out of the abundant grace of himself, shall conditionally allow all taxpayers to deduct from their personal tax returns any contributions made to approved churches of Randolph, subject to a threshold percentage of the taxpayers adjusted gross income.

8. No church shall be able to outsource the stewardship of their God’s money to the pagan moneylenders, without prior approval from Randolph. Randolph’s approval shall be marked with the sign and seal of his greatness and an Employer Identification Number (EIN). The EIN shall be used by the church to obtain a checking account, so that Randolph can easily find, review, and monitor the transactions of the church. (No pagan money lender shall grant a church checking priveleges without Randolph’s approval, upon penalty of revocation of their license to exact usury from Randolph’s sheep and the banishment of said moneylenders from the limited surety of the FDIC.)

9. Randolph, out of the abundant grace of himself, shall allow licensed ministers of approved churches of Randolph to enjoy the privilege of conditional exemption from the 15.3% Ponzi Scheme tax, though only on their wages as hirelings of approved churches of Randolph. (Cf. Detail #4, and hail the wisdom of Randolph in creating a web of regulations which ensure the peaceable continuance of his kingdom.)

10. Randolph, out of the abundant grace of himself, shall allow churches to support their clergy financially as long as such clergy pay tribute to Randolph on said support. Churches and their clergy shall be allowed to pay lip service to the idea that the money belongs to their God, so long as in practice recognize that the money belongs to Randolph through continued payment of the first fruits of that money to Randolph, in recognition of his ultimate sovereignty over their money.

Also, Randolph wants the churches to know that they have nothing to fear, for Randolph is a great friend of churches. Randolph just wants to make sure that the churches are using his money (or whatsoever thing Randolph shall designate as money) for approved purposes and paying all applicable tithes and tribute due him.

Hath he not been gracious to taxpayers in granting them deductions in exchange for reporting to Randolph exactly how much they contributed to their local churches? And hath he not been gracious to the churches for allowing them to exempt their income (except it be unrelated business income) from taxation in exchange for reporting to Randolph how much its members have contributed, and how much its clergy have been paid? And hath he not been gracious to the churches in allowing them to carry on banking in exchange for reporting to Randolph the location of their financial ledger? And hath he not been gracious to the banks in creating an additional marketing segment for their services in exchange for making available the financial records of churches under their care? And hath he not been gracious to the clergy in exempting a portion of their income from taxation in exchange for agreeing not to speak to political issues? Yea, in all these things Randolph hath been abundantly gracious.*

Randolph thought it might create a bit of a backlash, so he’s considering changing his name to something like “Uncle Sam”, “The IRS”, “The State” or something that would be more palatable to the God-fearing people of the USA.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 19, 2006)

You just proved my point. What happened to their so called "separation of church and state"...it's sacred in every sphere but the spere of the church?


----------



## satz (Dec 19, 2006)

I honestly think christians think too hard about these things.

The bible says to pay taxes, we should pay them. 

The bible says we are to be waiting for Jesus Christ to return from heaven for his children, not trying to dream up what a perfect government here on earth would be like.

I believe that government and tax laws will be 'reformed' after Christ returns and not before that. In the mean time I believe in comparison to other governments in history, we should be thankful for the ones we have. Tax deductions are neither a right, nor necessary for a christian. They are a benefit offered by the government and I am not sure they are wrong to set the rules associated with it.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 19, 2006)

victorbravo said:


> For 2006 returns, there is no problem. The old way was to either keep a log of gifts or get receipts. Any one contribution of less than $250 did not require a receipt. So, if in 2006 you gave $249 cash each week, and kept a log of it, you comply with the regs. (Which is not to say you won't get audited, just that you have a defense).
> 
> What is different starting in January 2007 is that keeping a log won't cut it. From a new IRS publication:
> 
> ...




The upshot of all this is, each church now has a choice: (1) it can still accept loose cash in its offerings, but must insist that all such loose cash must be put into an offering envelope, with the giver's name and address written on it; or (2) it can announce that, as of the first worship service of 2007 (which is January 7th, by the way), the church will no longer accept loose cash in its offerings, that all giving must be done by check.

Either way, every church is going to have to announce the new IRS ruling from its pulpits in the two remaining Sundays BEFORE the turn of the year, because the new ruling takes effect as of 1/1/07.

So: either start stocking up on giving envelopes and start taking them seriously, or ban loose cash altogether. Either way, I think this ruling protects both the church, as a church, and the individual member of the congregation, too.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 19, 2006)

There are still those of us that will give cash without an envelope or identification of some form one way or another.

Also, another good reason that more and more churches are meeting in homes (not supporting house churches that are loosely organized if at all) and pastors have supporting jobs outside of ministering.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 19, 2006)

Not been following this thread but as far as the below, while Paul would forbear taking support from the Corinthians, he makes it clear that it is just and right to be supported by the church for preaching the word. And I really don't want a minister who needs the week to prepare for the next Lord's day, to have to have other employment and cares. So I guess I don't agree it is a "good" reason. Scripturally the norm is the pastor is supported by those to whom he ministers, and this is clear whether one agrees the tithe is required or not. *1 Corinthians 9:1-14.*


LadyFlynt said:


> There are still those of us that will give cash without an envelope or identification of some form one way or another.
> 
> Also, another good reason that more and more churches are meeting in homes (not supporting house churches that are loosely organized if at all) and pastors have supporting jobs outside of ministering.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 19, 2006)

Hmm, I've known many pastors who have had dual occupations and done just fine. And some churches are simply too small to fully support their pastor.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 19, 2006)

Well, personal opinions aside per if a pastor can handle it _fine_, Paul regarded support as the norm.


LadyFlynt said:


> Hmm, I've known many pastors who have had dual occupations and done just fine. And some churches are simply too small to fully support their pastor.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 19, 2006)

ah, but does it state monetary support?

Throughout the ages ministers were supported also by the bringing of food and by the provision of a house on another's property. Pretty much however a person was able to support their minister.


----------



## KenPierce (Dec 19, 2006)

*Biblical Rationale for Full-Time Paid Pastors*

Colleen,

I am surprised at your take. Bi-vocational is acceptable if absolutely necessary, but not ideal. The Scriptures are clear: those who labor in word and doctrine ought to make their living by it, as did the Levites of the Old Testament. 1 Cor 9:14

Those who labor in word and doctrine are worthy of the "double honor" (that is, they are to be paid). The congregation honors the faithful laborer by rewarding him with his hire (don't muzzle the ox, etc.). His worth to them is shown by their willingness to support him, sacrificially, etc.

To me, it makes sense that a pastor should live at about the median level of his congregation, and set a model for them of what a life of modesty and stewardship look like. IF all the congregation has to give are eggs and wool, and they live off that, then the pastor should too.

If a congregation is unable to pay its pastor, that is one thing. If a congregation is unwilling, that is another altogether.

John Currid, in his commentary on Leviticus, reiterates the old saw, "Lord, make our pastor humble, and we'll keep him poor." That is a sad indictment of the church, is it not?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 19, 2006)

Oh, I am definately not unwilling or advocating NOT paying the pastor. My point is that not everyone is always capable...and some congregations are simply very small. I have been in churches where the pastor was never paid (some had pastors with millions from their own business and some had pastors that make their living off of odd jobs), where pastor's held a secondary paying job, and where pastors were salaried at a portion that was greater than most of the congregation (this became an issue of contention in one church where half the congregation could literally not "promise" an increase in giving). So is there any "right direction" on this?


----------



## BJClark (Dec 19, 2006)

bookslover;

The individual also has a choice...

If they choose to give a cash donation and want to take the deduction on their taxes, then they need to keep records.

If they choose to give a cash donation and don't want to take the deduction, then they don't need to worry about keeping records. 

I guess I don't understand what all the fuss is about...if you don't want the govenment knowing where your cash is going....don't claim the deduction.

Which is the point...of what the law says:



> Recordkeeping Rules
> 
> *A donor cannot claim* a tax deduction for any contribution
> of cash, a check or other monetary gift made on or after January 1, 2007, *unless the donor maintains a record* of the contribution in the form of either a bank record (such as a cancelled check) or a written communication
> from the charity (such as a receipt or a letter) showing the name of the charity, the date of the contribution, and the amount of the contribution.]





> The upshot of all this is, each church now has a choice: (1) it can still accept loose cash in its offerings, but must insist that all such loose cash must be put into an offering envelope, with the giver's name and address written on it; or (2) it can announce that, as of the first worship service of 2007 (which is January 7th, by the way), the church will no longer accept loose cash in its offerings, that all giving must be done by check.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Dec 19, 2006)

Here in the UK, you don't get anything back for what you give to the church (if it is a registered charity as most are).

The church gets it back! Therefore your £1.00 in the collection is worth £1.27 - not 27p back to you, but to the charity to whom you gave it.

JH


----------



## KenPierce (Dec 19, 2006)

*The Tithe as SUpport*

Colleen,

Thanks for the clarification. 

Maybe this is a good benchmark. Ten families ought to be able to support a pastor at the median level of the congregation, right? Ten families tithing = one salary.


----------



## crhoades (Dec 19, 2006)

KenPierce said:


> Colleen,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> Maybe this is a good benchmark. Ten families ought to be able to support a pastor at the median level of the congregation, right? Ten families tithing = one salary.


 
Then comes utilities and church building payments etc. And don't forget his book budget...


----------



## bookslover (Dec 19, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> There are still those of us that will give cash without an envelope or identification of some form one way or another./QUOTE]
> 
> While I sympathize, the problem here will be: when the new rule is announced, someone might say, "Oh, that's OK. I'll still put cash into the bag/plate because I don't want to take a deduction anyway." So, he throws his cash in the bag, and it doesn't get recorded as being from him. But, later on, he might change his mind and deduct it from his taxes.
> 
> In this case, under the new rules, (1) this individual could get nabbed by the IRS for trying to claim a deduction without the now-required proof and (2) the IRS could come back to the church and say, "Why didn't you document this guy?" and the church could wind up being fined or something.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 19, 2006)

Okay, then the problem is with the person coming back. Make a decision and stick to it. To me, it's just not charitable giving if you expect something back from it...but that is MHO. But I do get what you are saying.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 19, 2006)

BJClark said:


> bookslover;
> 
> The individual also has a choice...
> 
> ...



Yes, but, practically speaking, what this will boil down to is the church providing the documentation at the end of the year, because the church is collecting all the money in the first place and is keeping all the records already, so it's just easier for the church to do it - especially because the church does not want to get "stuck" by the IRS because some church member keep his records up to snuff.

Besides (it must be said): frankly, most church members will expect the church to do it, anyway, and provide them with a copy of their giving record at the end of the year - which most churches do, already.


----------



## gwine (Dec 19, 2006)

crhoades said:


> Then comes utilities and church building payments etc. And don't forget his book budget...



And of course we are assuming that those 10 families make the same amount.




> In this case, under the new rules, (1) this individual could get nabbed by the IRS for trying to claim a deduction without the now-required proof and (2) the IRS could come back to the church and say, "Why didn't you document this guy?" and the church could wind up being fined or something.


I wouldn't think the church would be in trouble at all. The burden of proof would be on the individual because the church would not be obligated to show from whom it got the money - only that it received the money.


----------



## BJClark (Dec 19, 2006)

bookslover;



> Yes, but, practically speaking, what this will boil down to is the church providing the documentation at the end of the year, because the church is collecting all the money in the first place and is keeping all the records already, so it's just easier for the church to do it - especially because the church does not want to get "stuck" by the IRS because some church member keep his records up to snuff.



Maybe this would be a good lesson they could look at teaching concerning accountability...



> Besides (it must be said): frankly, most church members will expect the church to do it, anyway, and provide them with a copy of their giving record at the end of the year - which most churches do, already.



Honestly, I don't expect my church to keep track of my giving...most of the churches I been a member at in the past didn't (if they did I never received a statement) the church I belong to now...does...the first time I got a statement concerning my giving from them I was actually surprised, they send them out quarterly. I've always kept my own records, and it's something I teach my kids---keep track of your own giving. 

Especially nowadays with everything being computerized, you never know when a system may crash and records are lost...or gets a computer virus that when the system is backed up it infects the backup records...In the past I've worked in accounting..and anything could happen...including the person doing the records input making an error and putting in the wrong amount or under the wrong persons name.


----------

