Bullying The Church Into Submission

[ERayR]

Can't be bullying in my mind when the Church will certainly refuse the "Donation".

I know that if I were the Bishop, I would be tempted to take the money but inform the person that it would not count toward tithing -- and ask if they still wanted to make a donation.

However, I am sure the Church would not want to include that in their funds.

It would not be accepted and would be immediately returned.

[JCNowandForever]

I know that if I were the Bishop, I would be tempted to take the money but inform the person that it would not count toward tithing -- and ask if they still wanted to make a donation.

Ok, say the Bishop was tempted to take the money asked the person if they still want to make a donation and the person says yes, and Bishop deposites the money as is with the Stipulation written on the back of the check. Even though the Bishop says it does not count towards tithing, wouldn't the Church still be bound by the stipulation in the event the stipulation happens years down the line (how ever unlikely)? Thus if one or the other happens down the line (ie, resignation or excommunication), the member has legal standing based on the stipulation and is able exercise his right for a refund, doesn't he?

[CASteinman]

Ok, say the Bishop was tempted to take the money asked the person if they still want to make a donation and the person says yes, and Bishop deposites the money as is with the Stipulation written on the back of the check. Even though the Bishop says it does not count towards tithing, wouldn't the Church still be bound by the stipulation in the event the stipulation happens years down the line (how ever unlikely)? Thus if one or the other happens down the line (ie, resignation or excommunication), the member has legal standing based on the stipulation and is able exercise his right for a refund, doesn't he?

Not sure that the Church would be bound by that or not. Possibly. But not certainly. Maybe not even likely. I understand that such notations must actually be a contract to be enforcable. This does not seem to fit. It would be an interesting case.

However, why would a person want to do that and not be counted as a tithe payer?

Edited August 21, 2012 by CASteinman

[ERayR]

Ok, say the Bishop was tempted to take the money asked the person if they still want to make a donation and the person says yes, and Bishop deposites the money as is with the Stipulation written on the back of the check. Even though the Bishop says it does not count towards tithing, wouldn't the Church still be bound by the stipulation in the event the stipulation happens years down the line (how ever unlikely)? Thus if one or the other happens down the line (ie, resignation or excommunication), the member has legal standing based on the stipulation and is able exercise his right for a refund, doesn't he?

I am not an attorney but from what little I do know i am not sure that is a legally binding contract. I could be wrong but I don't think the bishop has the authority to bind the church to a contract like that.

[JCNowandForever]

I am not an attorney but from what little I do know i am not sure that is a legally binding contract. I could be wrong but I don't think the bishop has the authority to bind the church to a contract like that.

It's like the same as putting "PAID IN FULL" on the back of your car payment check. And the dealer deposits it without question. The courts allowed the payor to claim that indeed the account is PAID IN FULL because the dealer acquiesced to the terms. It is a legally binding contract because both party agreed, even though one of the party didn't realized it.

[JCNowandForever]

Not sure that the Church would be bound by that or not. Possibly. But not certainly. Maybe not even likely. I understand that such notations must actually be a contract to be enforcable. This does not seem to fit. It would be an interesting case.

However, why would a person want to do that and not be counted as a tithe payer?

It could be varied reasons, not sure why. Maybe they just want to donate. Whatever the reasons behind such notations, it's still a valid donation with no tax implications. It's just the legal implications I'm curious about and I think (after taking just one Law 101 subject in college), I think it could be enforceable just like the "PAID IN FULL" example I posted in that both parties agreed to the stipulation when the monies are actually deposited into the bank account of the Church. I'd like to hear opinions from those who are lawyers, in this group...

[ERayR]

It's like the same as putting "PAID IN FULL" on the back of your car payment check. And the dealer deposits it without question. The courts allowed the payor to claim that indeed the account is PAID IN FULL because the dealer acquiesced to the terms. It is a legally binding contract because both party agreed, even though one of the party didn't realized it.

Even the "paid in Full" on the back of your car payment check is not binding if the one receiving doesn't have the authority to bind the transaction In other words if the loan officer or president of the bank took the check and noted acceptance of the notation it may be binding but if a teller accepted it it probably isn't. It depends on the authority of the parties involved.

[CASteinman]

It could be varied reasons, not sure why. Maybe they just want to donate. Whatever the reasons behind such notations, it's still a valid donation with no tax implications. It's just the legal implications I'm curious about and I think (after taking just one Law 101 subject in college), I think it could be enforceable just like the "PAID IN FULL" example I posted in that both parties agreed to the stipulation when the monies are actually deposited into the bank account of the Church. I'd like to hear opinions from those who are lawyers, in this group...

"Paid in Full" notation is only supposed to work if both sides agree. It is not supposed to be a unilateral writing. However, if a person cashes the check, and does not press the issue hard enough, they could lose support in the courts.

This is a matter of UCC. UCC does NOT regulate donations to Churches as far as I know. Its for commercial transactions. This would not apply to tithing checks. It would be a completely new concept and probably would not succeed.

Edited August 21, 2012 by CASteinman

[Libs]

Libs:

I didn't say that. I said I was as politically liberal if not more so than you. In other ways I'm probably more moderate, and my religion certainly is more conservative than yours. So I guess I'm just a moderately conservative liberal.

I'm glad you clarified that!

[Libs]

Can this be considered "bullying the church into submission"?

The following information is circulating in several forums in the internet in which members are paying tithing as a Conditional Donation with the following stipulations:

On the back of their tithing check, the following words are written:

“SUBJECT TO REFUND UPON REQUEST (SEE TERMS AND CONDITIONS).”

They said when they give the donations to their Bishops (or counselors), the check and the tithing receipts are enclosed with the following information:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

· This donation is a conditional donation

· This conditional donation is given voluntarily and will be used by the Church as it sees fit

· The condition to exercise for a complete refund of all conditional donations will never be exercise by this member while membership in the Church remains in good status.

· This member reserves the right to exercise a complete refund of all conditional donations upon termination of membership in the Church.

o Upon voluntary termination (resignation) of membership in the Church, this member reserves the right to exercise a request for a complete refund of all conditional donations.

o In the event of an excommunication action, this member reserves the right to exercise a request for a complete refund of all donations.

· All donations are conditional donations, unless otherwise noted.

What would the effect of this if members start to do this in large numbers? Would it be bullying?

Are people actually doing this?

[ERayR]

The only distinct possibility of it happening is when a member is excommunicated. But that is not like to happen every year a member files a return. It is a remote possibility.

I think that receiving a refund of a donations is no different from winning the lottery. Both are taxable income and are both are taxed in the year received, isn't it? I don't see why it affects prior year. Here's what I read from Turbo Tax help section about reimbursed donations:

About Reimbursed Deductions

If you are reimbursed or refunded for a deduction you took in a prior year, you may need to report it on this year's tax return as taxable income.

That's because you already received the benefit of the deduction in the prior year and the reimbursement you're receiving now would be like a double benefit if it wasn't taxable.

I would have to do some research, which I am not inclined to do right now, but the IRS has a habit of interpreting these things in a way that is most beneficial for revenue enhancement and if one took a tax deduction that resulted in thousands of dollars of refunds in prior years and these deductions were taken on a donation where the terms were yet incomplete they are certainly going to go back as far as they can to recover refund payments and interest and penalties. If one claimed it as income in the year received it would be incorrect as it in reality should not have been claimed in the first place. What would one call it "Refund of prior year charitable contributions". Boy talk about red flags and in an area where they are already vigilant.

Yes a refund received for a prior period expense must be reported as it would be be a refund of a benefit already taken. If it is only a nominal refund it usually recorded and reported as a reduction in current years expenses. However if substantial enough an amended return for the year involved is required. In my professional opinion, and i think in the IRS, a refund of several years charitable contributions would be substantial.

[ERayR]

Are people actually doing this?

I would think not because a bishop would not accept a donation with strings attached. A bishop is not authorized to bind the church to that kind of a contract. However such an endorsement might slip through if the counselor and the clerk receiving and recording donations do not see or understand but such a unilateral contract is unlikely to be enforceable.

[Libs]

I would think not because a bishop would not accept a donation with strings attached. A bishop is not authorized to bind the church to that kind of a contract. However such an endorsement might slip through if the counselor and the clerk receiving and recording donations do not see or understand but such a unilateral contract is unlikely to be enforceable.

Yeah, I wouldn't think so. Interesting about the tax issues, also.

[JCNowandForever]

Are people actually doing this?

Not sure...but I found out from the a Jehovah witness forum that this type of conditional donation are common and they said they were able to get it back upon request.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/206240/1/Do-those-who-make-conditional-donations-to-Watchtower-ever-get-them-back-on-request

[ERayR]

Yeah, I wouldn't think so. Interesting about the tax issues, also.

The umteen thousands of pages of code plus the mindset of the IRS makes it easy to get into some serious difficulties.

[ERayR]

Not sure...but I found out from the a Jehovah witness forum that this type of conditional donation are common and they said they were able to get it back upon request.

http://www.jehovahs-...back-on-request

i don't know what the Jehovah Witness organization is doing nor any of the details so I can't comment. I did do a quick search of conditional contributions and all the literature I find says such a contribution is not tax deductible until the conditions are completed. Such a condition as you have described is an open end condition that realistically can not be deemed to have been completed until the donor dies because until the donor dies there is still a chance that excommunication could take place. And as continued membership can not be guaranteed the condition has not been met.

[JCNowandForever]

i don't know what the Jehovah Witness organization is doing nor any of the details so I can't comment. I did do a quick search of conditional contributions and all the literature I find says such a contribution is not tax deductible until the conditions are completed. Such a condition as you have described is an open end condition that realistically can not be deemed to have been completed until the donor dies because until the donor dies there is still a chance that excommunication could take place. And as continued membership can not be guaranteed the condition has not been met.

I guess I think well need lawyers to chime in here to really take a good look at this.

Coz in my opinion, conditions are met upon donation being transfered from donor to donee. Here's my take line by line:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

· This donation is a conditional donation -- This defines the donation is for tax purposes .

· This conditional donation is given voluntarily and will be used by the Church as it sees fit - this again defines the donation for tax purposes because it shows the donor will not derived a benefit from this donation, thus tax deductible.. This allows the church to use the funds unrestrained.

· The condition to exercise for a complete refund of all conditional donations will never be exercise by this member while membership in the Church remains in good status. - this looks like the right to ask for refund is precluded because member is deemed in good status at the time of donation, thus the condition is met.

· This member reserves the right to exercise a complete refund of all conditional donations upon termination of membership in the Church. = Here the donation's condition is met because membership is not terminated at the time of the donation.

o Upon voluntary termination (resignation) of membership in the Church, this member reserves the right to exercise a request for a complete refund of all conditional donations.

= I guess when the right is exercised, then the taxability issue come up for the taxpayer. For the Church, donation is completed and the money is their, unless right to request is exercise?

o In the event of an excommunication action, this member reserves the right to exercise a request for a complete refund of all donations.

= Here excommunication doesn't occur every year in a taxpayer's lifetime, so the possibility of it happening in negligible, thus it's tax deductible in the year of donation.But If it ever happens, it's non-deductible in the year of excomm.

· All donations are conditional donations, unless otherwise noted. = same as line one above defining the donation for tax purposes..

[KevinG]

Terms and Conditions kind of defeats the purpose of tithing.

[JCNowandForever]

Terms and Conditions kind of defeats the purpose of tithing.

This doesn't necessarily have to do with tithing. It can be a donation, a gift, a contribution, tithing or otherwise. Conditional donations are allowed in all non-profit organizations.

[ERayR]

I guess I think well need lawyers to chime in here to really take a good look at this.

Coz in my opinion, conditions are met upon donation being transfered from donor to donee. Here's my take line by line:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

· This donation is a conditional donation -- This defines the donation is for tax purposes .

· This conditional donation is given voluntarily and will be used by the Church as it sees fit - this again defines the donation for tax purposes because it shows the donor will not derived a benefit from this donation, thus tax deductible.. This allows the church to use the funds unrestrained.

· The condition to exercise for a complete refund of all conditional donations will never be exercise by this member while membership in the Church remains in good status. - this looks like the right to ask for refund is precluded because member is deemed in good status at the time of donation, thus the condition is met.

· This member reserves the right to exercise a complete refund of all conditional donations upon termination of membership in the Church. = Here the donation's condition is met because membership is not terminated at the time of the donation.

o Upon voluntary termination (resignation) of membership in the Church, this member reserves the right to exercise a request for a complete refund of all conditional donations.

= I guess when the right is exercised, then the taxability issue come up for the taxpayer. For the Church, donation is completed and the money is their, unless right to request is exercise?

o In the event of an excommunication action, this member reserves the right to exercise a request for a complete refund of all donations.

= Here excommunication doesn't occur every year in a taxpayer's lifetime, so the possibility of it happening in negligible, thus it's tax deductible in the year of donation.But If it ever happens, it's non-deductible in the year of excomm.

· All donations are conditional donations, unless otherwise noted. = same as line one above defining the donation for tax purposes..

First in matters of tax it is irrelevant what your opinion is. What is relevant is what opinion the IRS holds unless and until a court rules. Next you are correct in assuming that a donation is tax deductible upon completion of the transfer from doner to donee. The IRS does not consider the transfer complete until all conditions are met and in this case all conditions can not be met until the time element has passed. i.e. ...must remain a member until death. If you care to spend a few hours look up the case law on this. The IRS stands on pretty firm ground by having the courts rule in their favor in this type of case.(conditional contributions)

Your analysis does support your position. The problem with your analysis is that as far as the IRS is concerned your analysis and a couple of bucks will buy you a soda.

Now if you ask me can you get away with this scheme as far as tax deduction is concerned I would answer probably as long as the amounts are not to great and you don't get audited. For one thing the IRS has no way of knowing what you have written on the back of your checks. However, if the amounts of contributions are significant you are almost certain to trigger an audit and if an audit is triggered for some other reason your documents stand a chance of being examined and rejected.

Finally as a matter of contract law I am fairly certain(I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY) this would not be binding on the church because the bishop, his counselor's, nor the ward clerks are authorized to bind the church to a contract.

[CASteinman]

This doesn't necessarily have to do with tithing. It can be a donation, a gift, a contribution, tithing or otherwise. Conditional donations are allowed in all non-profit organizations.

No... they are definitely not allowed in all.

[ERayR]

This doesn't necessarily have to do with tithing. It can be a donation, a gift, a contribution, tithing or otherwise. Conditional donations are allowed in all non-profit organizations.

No body is arguing that conditional contributions are not allowed. The question is when the donee gets to take the deduction.

It is well established tax law that the deduction is not allowed until control is relinquished and the transfer is complete. It is also pretty well established that control is not relinquished until the possibility of revocation is passed. Quite frequently some very "clever" fellows think they have a fool proof way around this but the IRS and the courts disillusion them. Almost never does the clever taxpayer win in these cases. The courts affirm that you can not have your cake and eat it too.

Edited August 21, 2012 by ERayR

[JCNowandForever]

No body is arguing that conditional contributions are not allowed. The question is when the donee gets to take the deduction.

Yes it has tax implications but it's minimal. As pointed out, the conditional event is unlikely to happen and thus it's deductible. Plus assuming the church deposited the check, in that instance the donation is complete, having passed from donor to donee. The Church now have complete control of the funds. But the more important issue here is its legal implication. The real question really is not about tax, it's about the legal standing of donor upon exercising its right to refund per stipulation--assuming Church deposited the funds (with these notations in the back). I think they are bound by these stipulations once they deposit the funds, similar to the "PAID IN FULL' scenario. (Interesting though, I see in one of our bank statements explaining a waiver on this PAID IN FULL notationss, in which the bank says it reserves it right to honor even when noted, suggesting that it had this previous experience in this type of transaction before).

[KevinG]

Terms and Conditions kind of defeats the purpose of tithing.

This doesn't necessarily have to do with tithing. It can be a donation, a gift, a contribution, tithing or otherwise. Conditional donations are allowed in all non-profit organizations.

I think you missed the point. God can do without our offerings and so can the church. Tithing is a law of sacrifice and obedience. Cain put conditions on his sacrifice and it didn't turn out so well for him.

[ERayR]

Yes it has tax implications but it's minimal. As pointed out, the conditional event is unlikely to happen and thus it's deductible. Plus assuming the church deposited the check, in that instance the donation is complete, having passed from donor to donee. The Church now have complete control of the funds. But the more important issue here is its legal implication. The real question really is not about tax, it's about the legal standing of donor upon exercising its right to refund per stipulation--assuming Church deposited the funds (with these notations in the back). I think they are bound by these stipulations once they deposit the funds, similar to the "PAID IN FULL' scenario. (Interesting though, I see in one of our bank statements explaining a waiver on this PAID IN FULL notationss, in which the bank says it reserves it right to honor even when noted, suggesting that it had this previous experience in this type of transaction before).

You do not seem to be comprehending. Just because the check passes does not make it a completed transaction. It IS NOT a completed transaction until the conditions are met or agreed upon by the parties involved. You are under the mistaken idea that just because the check was cashed the church has control of the funds. FALSE those funds still have strings attached and can be drawn back. In reviewing your conditions there is one condition that even IF the others were valid would invalidate the whole thing. Upon voluntary termination (resignation) of membership in the Church, this member reserves the right to exercise a request for a complete refund of all conditional donations. This condition is invalid because it imposes a condition beyond the control of the donee.

Continue to play your games but until you are able to read what I write with a modicum of comprehension I am through.

Edited August 21, 2012 by ERayR