response 36 of 72:

Aug 2 04:31 UTC 1998

it is precisely because of the GrexBat and items like it that I think it 
is important for us not to send out the (incorrect) message that the 
purchaser cannot deduct the price in excess of the fair market value. 

Let's just say that the purchaser can deduct that difference, if any, 
then. It becomes the purchaser's responsibility to argue the FMV with 
the IRS, should they audited. We have no responsibility to set it, as we 
would if it were something we were providing. like a subscription.

response 38 of 72:

Mar 26 23:00 UTC 1999

National Charities Bureau (after a long period of telephone tag) put me on
the phone with one of their 'analysts', who had never heard of any rule that
nonprofits have to send out receipts for all donations.  She only knew that
people who itemize taxes are supposed to provide written proof:  cancelled
checks are allowed for amounts under $250.  I asked if she had heard about
any $75 rule, and she will check and call back Monday morning.

In the section on Contributions (Recordkeeping).  "Generally, if you make a
charitable contribution that is more than $75 and is partly for goods or
services, the organization must give you a written statement that you should
keep".

I presume you only have to keep this statement if you are itemizing. 
The only logic I can think of to this would be if the organization also kept
a copy, and if a donor were audited, they might be asked to show it in case
someone was claiming, for instance, to have donated $100 to grex when part
of this was for a t-shirt, handmade envelopes, or homemade quiche.

I would therefore think that written statements for amounts over $75 would
only need to be provided to people who had purchased some goods or services
for part of this amount, and thus not to people like me (who contribute to
the auction with goods and services but have not bought anything).  This might
cut the list in half.   Plus send paper receipts to anyone else who requests
them (in case they are itemizing and don't get checks back or donated $250
or simply want to receive mail from Mark.)

I can also look online for Publication 526, Charitable Contributions (but I
think last time I looked it was long and complex and not helpful).

I will let you know if the National Charities Bureau comes up with anything.

response 40 of 72:

Mar 28 01:55 UTC 1999

But the only people who know whether paper receipts are actually required are
the donors themselves.  No way the treasurer would know whether they were
itemizing, and if so, whether they got cancelled checks back, and I can see
no reason for the treasurer to waste time writing out, addressing, and mailing
paper receipts to people who don't itemize or who get back cancelled checks
and have donated under $250.  It would seem a lot less total work for those
few people who want receipts to request them by email, than for Mark to write
out a bunch of paper receipts to people who don't want them.
        I will ask the IRS if that $75 figure is per 'contribution' or for the
entire year.  I doubt that there are many auction sales of individual items
over $75.  (Other than that computer that scg was outbid on.)
        People who find electronic communications to be less meaningful than
paper communications (emailed receipts instead of handwritten and
snail-mailed) are unlikely to be involved very heavily with a computer bbs.
I cannot see how an email thank you is worth less than a paper thank you if
you don't need the paper version for tax purposes.

response 42 of 72:

Mar 28 11:50 UTC 1999

I also don't think an emailed thank-you notes carry the same good feelings
that a handwritten, or at least a hand-signed note does.  If I were
treasurer, and this wasn't a huge use of my time, I'd think of it as a
worthwhile gesture.  The few people who didn't want paper receipts
wouldn't get them. 

Mark is going a great job here.  

response 44 of 72:

Mar 28 16:14 UTC 1999

Sindi, you're right that only the donors know whether they want receipts. 
That's a very good reason for sending receipts to everyone.  Pitching a
receipt because you don't want one is a *very* small cost, compared to having
to ask if you do.  What Rane said seemed to me right on target.

response 46 of 72:

Mar 30 17:42 UTC 1999

If $75 is per donation, there is no need to send receipts to anyone not
itemizing unless they send in a check over $75 that was partly for goods or
services.
        It seems like a lot less work for someone to request a paper receipt
than for someone to write an unnecessary one.  How long does it take to send
a one-line email?  Compared to printing out, signing, puttingin an envelope
and stamping?  And why should people who don't want receipts be the ones who
have to say so, rather than the few people who do want them?

        If anyone can prove that more than half of the people who got the paper
receipts needed them for taxes, i will drop this matter.  I am willing to
email them each individually to ask.  If you want to send paper to everyone
who donated $250 or over, go ahead.  Would everyone who got a receipt be
willing to state (in coop, if they participate) whether they itemize and if
so, whether they do not get back cancelled checks?

I don't itemize and I do get back cancelled checks.

Mark mentioned spending 5 hours sending out paper receipts.  How long could
it possibly take 20 people, or that fraction of 20 people who want receipts,
to ask for them by email?  All of one minute each?

How many people would be offended by having to ask for a paper receipt?

response 48 of 72:

Mar 30 20:32 UTC 1999

Well, I'm not going to threaten not to donate, but I appreciated getting 
the receipt from Grex this past year.   I had forgotten that I had 
given that much money to Grex in 1998.  I think this has been far 
too much energy expended to try to avoid the usage -- not the waste, 
but the legitimate usage -- of 20-50 sheets of paper.  

response 50 of 72:

Mar 31 00:35 UTC 1999

Sindi, I think you are so focused on what you want that you
aren't really listening to what others have said.  Your 
questions have all be answered at least once already.

response 52 of 72:

Mar 31 13:16 UTC 1999

I do not want Grex to adopt keesan's idea.  And I'm tired of one individual
trying to ram her personal philosopy down the throat of a group of people who
understand _exactly_ what she is proposing, and still don't want to do it.
(yes, I'm grumpy, but I haven't seen a consensus developing around her
proposal, and I would like her to realize that it takes more than one person
to change Grex's systems and ways of doing things).  

response 54 of 72:

Mar 31 18:05 UTC 1999

How about when you email people receipts, let them know that paper receipts
are not required by the IRS for itemizing unless you donate over $250 or do
not get back cancelled checks, but that you will automatically be sending them
out unless people let you know by email that they do not need them, and want
to be put on the no-receipts list?  That way people who don't need them but
like getting paper in their mailboxes won't have to do anything, and people
who have no use for them will not have to respond more than once, and
hopefully other people who do not itemize or who do get back cancelled checks
will email back to save the treasurer wasting time and paper on unwanted
receipts  (And wait a couple of weeks to hear back from people before sending
out the automatic receipts, that would have avoided the problem this year.)

response 56 of 72:

Mar 31 19:34 UTC 1999

I just reread item zero, in which Mark stated that he did not think most
people wanted receipts and that sending them out to everyone would be 'a
significant amount of work and expense, and that he already sent out email
to acknowledge every donation.  I am suggesting that he continue to send out
email to acknowledge every donation, and include in this acknowledgment the
statement that the IRS does not require paper receipts for donations under
$250 or for smaller donations if you receive cancelled checks (or any receipts
of you are not itemizing) but that anyone who wants a paper receipt will be
sent one upon request, and that anyone who donated $75 or more will be sent
one automatically unless they ask not to be sent one.  This should make Rane
and Mary happy, as they will get their paper thank yous without having to
email the treasurer, and it will let everyone know that they can deduct
donations to grex if they itemize and that all they have to do is ask for a
receipt if they donated under $75.  It will also give people who have no use
for paper receipts a chance to let the treasurer put them on a no-receipt list,
and hopefully cut the number of paper receipts in half. Thereby saving the
treasurer 'work and expense'.
        I was proposing this as a compromise.  I am sure Mark could write up
something more intelligible to the same effect, letting people know that in
most cases paper receipts are not necessary but that they are available upon
request to those people who only donated the basic dues ($72 or less), and
that people who donated more than this and prefer not to get the paper can
make a one-time request to get off the mailing list.  This should reduce the
amount of paper sent out without making more work for anyone.

response 58 of 72:

Mar 31 20:47 UTC 1999

Sindi, please drop it.

Mark has said over and over and over again that it's easier for him to just
automatically send the recipts out.  I'm sure he knows better than you do what
is easier with his particular way of doing things.  He's also said that
several people told him they appreciated getting the recipts, even though they
hadn't asked for them, while you were the only one who objected.  Having to
send out a bunch of e-mail messages and wait for the responses would be an
extra step, which is more work than he wants to do.  Also, it really isn't
any of Mark's business whether somebody itemizes on their taxes, or gets
cancelled checks back.  So please, drop it.  Being treasurer is hard enough
without being screamed at over and over again by the same person about the
same irrellevant thing.