|
Grex > Coop10 > #119: How often should the treasurer send out paper receipts? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 23 new of 72 responses total. |
mary
|
|
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 51 of 72:
|
Mar 31 04:16 UTC 1999 |
Most organizations send "form" receipts with the amount (and name and
address) put in by computer. They never see a human hand (unless to
stuff, stamp, and mail them).
I overstated my response to not getting receipts, but it hardly ever
happens so the question is moot. I don't expect receipts for dues to
many organizations unless I donate more than the nominal dues (but
I deduct the deductible portion of all such dues - I keep a membership and
subscriptions file).
|
cmcgee
|
|
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).
|
aruba
|
|
response 53 of 72:
|
Mar 31 15:03 UTC 1999 |
Honestly Sindi, I have to agree with Colleen. I think if saving the
treasurer time and stress were really your agenda, you would have dropped
this a long time ago. I spent far less time, and worried far less,
sending those 23 receipts than reading these items you entered. In fact I
felt pretty good about it until you began this campaign.
I concede your point that there is no IRS regulation requiring us to send
out receipts. I'll even agree that I don't think R. Sue Dodea's arguments
for sending them are very convincing.
We still have to establish a cutoff somewhere. Several people said they
appreciated receiving the receipts they got automatically. One did not.
I think that means sending the receipts did more good than harm. If we
were spending hundreds of dollars to make those few people happy, I would
accept that as an argument against it. If we were pouring toxic waste
into the Huron river, I would accept that as an argument against it.
But in fact Grex spent nothing, since I donated the postage and supplies,
and the net damage to the environment was that 23 pieces of paper and 23
envelopes were either filed or recycled.
I'll be happy to establish a "do not send receipts" list in my database,
and make sure not to send receipts to people who ask to be added to it.
I haven't seen any new ideas in these items for a while, so I think that
the next step is a member vote. In other words, Sindi, I'm asking: is it
your intention to keep badgering everyone until you get your way, or do
you really think you can convince 50% of the members that the policy
should be changed? If the latter, then call for a vote. If the former, I
think I'll forget this item.
|
keesan
|
|
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.)
|
pfv
|
|
response 55 of 72:
|
Mar 31 18:38 UTC 1999 |
Geezus, keerist..
Y'all been over this time and again and the answer was: "it's
easier to do.." - By the very guy that DOES THE JOB..
Would you PLEASE knock it the hell off, already?
(geezus.. talk about beating a dead goddamned horse! *sigh*)
|
keesan
|
|
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.
|
keesan
|
|
response 57 of 72:
|
Mar 31 20:38 UTC 1999 |
I mentioned to Jim (jdeigert) that Mark had suggested keeping a list of people
who do not want receipts but donated $75 or over. Jim suggested instead
keeping a list of people who do want paper receipts, and making this part of
newuser - a section near the end in which people are told that grex is now
a nonprofit organization and that donations (including membership donations)
are now tax-deductible. That for amounts under $250 a cancelled check is
adequate, but if you want to be put on the list of people who automatically
getpaper receipts to check a box to that effect and you will get paper
receipts for as long as you continue to donate (no need to ask for them every
year). He also suggested that old members be able to enter this information,
or change their status, with the change program.
Since, as Mark pointed out, most poeple have no need for paper
receipts, this would avoid sending them out unnecessarily. It would also
avoid discriminating between people who donated different amounts of money
- why should some members have to ask for receipts while others do not? Does
donating more money make someone more important?
The information entered in the change program does not have to be
public, as far as I understand (like password, accessible only to staff).
People who have already stated a preference for paper receipts in this
item, or by already requesting them in some other way, would also be placed
onto the `send receipts' list without having to ask, so that Rane and Mary
will get their receipts with no further effort on their part.
Jim thinks doing this with the newuser program would be one more
reminder to people that we operate on donations. A subtle reminder to people
that this is a member driven organization. And each member is important.
And yes, donating members are more important than nonmembers, but not more
important than each other. (No first and second class donors).``
The $75 cutoff I think originally had something to do with Ms. Dodea's
interpretation of that written statement business for when a check was partly
in payment for goods or services, and is probably not relevant as far as who
to send receipts for donations not for goods or services. Has anyone actually
sent in a check partly for membership donations and party for goods?
|
scg
|
|
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 59 of 72:
|
Mar 31 22:01 UTC 1999 |
Sindi, do you really think newuser needs to be longer? Do you think
that people logging into Grex for the first time know whether they're
going to want paper receipts if they ever donate at some time in the
future?
Do you think it's worth anyone's time to add code to newuser and test it
and maintain it, then force every person coming to Grex in the future
to answer it, and add more new code to the treasurer's programs (if he's
using programs on Grex to keep track of Grex income -- which he may very
well not be doing), in order to save some percentage of 23 envelopes
mailed out per year? (I think aruba said 23, but didn't go back to
look.)
The simplest means for you to save the approximately 2 envelopes per
year that you are trying to save is for you to volunteer to be treasurer
next year, isn't it? You wouldn't ask anyone else to do all the work
-- and there will be a *lot* of it -- for something that is only
important to you. Would you?
|
keesan
|
|
response 60 of 72:
|
Mar 31 23:20 UTC 1999 |
New user was jdeigert's idea.
|
keesan
|
|
response 61 of 72:
|
Apr 1 00:37 UTC 1999 |
Jim did not realize that adding one short paragraph to Newuser would
be a lot of work. I told him that I did not see the point in asking
thousands of new users to state whether they wanted a receipt when most of
them would not be donating anyway. He still thinks that if newuser
does not somewhere state that grex is a member-supported organization
run entirely on donations, it should be included in there somehow.
My most recent suggestion was not to change policy (go ahead and send
out paper receipts to people who donate $75 or over) but to inform all donors
of just what the current policy is so that people who automatically got
receipts could decide if they did not want them, and the majority, who did
not automatically get receipts (but are just as likely to want them for tax
purposes) would be told that they had to ask for them.
The points to be included in a short paragraph added to the form email sent
out to acknowledge receipt of any donation would be:
Grex is now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and therefore anyone who itemizes on their
federal tax forms can claim donations to grex as a deduction.
Cancelled checks are considered adequate proof of donations by the IRS for
amounts under $250.
Paper receipts will be automatically sent out to anyone donating $75 or more
unless they request not to be sent one.
Paper receipts will not be sent out to anyone donating under $75 unless they
request them.
The request to not receive or to receive paper receipts will be valid
indefinitely.
I expect Mark could word this more concisely. It would not require a whole
lot of time to add this paragraph to a form letter, and could conceivably save
writing a few paper receipts and also avoid offending people donating amounts
under $75 who wanted a receipt and wondered why they did not get one.
Does anyone supporting the current policy have any objection to informing
donors of the details of this policy?
|
other
|
|
response 62 of 72:
|
Apr 1 02:36 UTC 1999 |
I propose that the treasurer be the sole voice in determining what practice
to employ in issuing receipts for donations, subject to all applicable laws
and policies determined by the majority of members of Cyberspace
Communications, Incorporated.
(seems rather silly to codify the existing practice, when it is the sole
common-sense option anyway, but what the hey, huh?)
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 63 of 72:
|
Apr 1 04:10 UTC 1999 |
re 61 Yes, I have a great deal of objection to it.
|
mary
|
|
response 64 of 72:
|
Apr 1 12:49 UTC 1999 |
Me too. This should look like a thank-you note not an
informed consent legal document.
|
dpc
|
|
response 65 of 72:
|
Apr 1 15:35 UTC 1999 |
Give it up, Sindi.
|
pfv
|
|
response 66 of 72:
|
Apr 1 18:49 UTC 1999 |
For the FIFTH time, "give it up" - is this clear enough?
|
robh
|
|
response 67 of 72:
|
Apr 1 19:57 UTC 1999 |
Let's give it up for aruba! Ye-haw!
|
keesan
|
|
response 68 of 72:
|
Apr 2 16:46 UTC 1999 |
The treasurer did not make this policy, it was voted on by the board members.
The reason for sending out the receipts was not as a thank-you note, it was
due to the fact that Sue Dodea was insisting that grex, as a nonprofit, was
required to send out paper receipts for every single donation. She probably
misinterpreted the IRS rule about written statements for amounts over $75 that
were partly in payment for goods or services. The board members were
concerned about the IRS auditing grex. This was not meant as a way to thank
donors but as a way to ensure that the IRS would not bother grex.
Since it is a great deal of work to write out 100 or so paper receipts,
they decided on a compromise situation of sending out receipts only to people
donating over the membership amount. (I don't follow the logic of this one).
It has since turned out (people seem to agree with me on this one) that
the IRS does not require nonprofits to write out receipts for all donations
- as confirmed by the IRS itself, National Charities Bureau, and United Way.
What is required is that donors who either donate $250 or up or who
do not receive cancelled checks back have some other written proof of their
donations. Everyone seems to agree on this one, too.
I don't understand how people who donate under $75 are any less likely
that people who donate over this amount to be (a) itemizing and (b) not
receiving cancelled checks back. Or why people who donate over $75 need a
paper thank you but people who donate less than this need only an email thank
you. Or why people need to be thanked at all for contributing to an
organization which benefits them directly and would not exist without their
donations. The cutoff point may have had something to do with that $75 rule
(for donations partly for goods and services) but that has turned out to be
irrelevant.
If Mark is going to be writing out a certain number of receipts, and
has stated a clear preference (see 0) for not writing them to everyone,
wouldn't it make more sense to write them to people who need them, or want
them (for whatever reason), and keep a list of such people? He would only
have to be informed once, nobody would have to bother telling him every year,
and donors of smaller amounts would not be treated differently than those
people who happen to have more disposable income.
If someone can give me a good reason why people donating larger amounts
are either more in need of written proof of donations or more deserving of
paper thanks, I will drop this issue, but the $75 cutoff and the vote to
automatically send out receipts in the first place seem to be based on a
misinterpretation of an IRS rule. Either send paper to everyone (which Mark
said he did not want to do) or only to people who need it.
Could someone else who attended that board meeting give their
interpretation of what the actual reasoning was behind the vote?
I am not trying to annoy people, I am simply trying to point out that
the policy decision seems to have been based on erroneous information. And
that the result, if you agree that paper receipts are something valuable that
will make people happy, is to make only richer people happy, and grex is
supposed to be democratic.
Do all the over-$75 donors other than me have mortgages and most of
the other donors rent? Is this group really statistically more likely to be
in need of the paper receipts? Maybe there is some information I am missing.
I apologize if I have made some error in my reasoning, please point
it out, but I really think the current policy was made on the basis of
incorrect information.
|
pfv
|
|
response 69 of 72:
|
Apr 2 17:38 UTC 1999 |
Geezus KEERIST on a gawdamned POGO STICK! How many "keatings" now?
I itemize everything. I already heard enough to know the
treasurer is happy with his system.
WOULD you PLEASE drop IT?
At LEAST take it to EMAIL and bug him THAT way.
(somebody sic Richard on 'er before I have to port my gawddamned
bbs-filter!)
|
remmers
|
|
response 70 of 72:
|
Apr 2 17:41 UTC 1999 |
Re resp:68 -
Yes, Grex is supposed to be democratic. By that logic, if there's a
concensus of user opinion that something should be done a certain
way,then that's the way it's done. It seems to me that, after much
discussion, a clear concensus has emerged in this item. I'll add my
voice to that concensus.
|
scg
|
|
response 71 of 72:
|
Apr 2 19:48 UTC 1999 |
Sindi, you may not be trying to be annoying, but you're doing a very good job
of it anyway.
|
keesan
|
|
response 72 of 72:
|
Apr 2 22:03 UTC 1999 |
I am trying to get some facts straight, if you find facts annoying I
apologize. One fact that does not seem to be straight is that it was not
Mark's idea to send receipts to everyone who donated over a certain amount,
as was suggested in #69 (I think it was) but rather a vote by the board, based
on probably erroneous information. I will quote Mark (response 0):
Just the other day I received the first request for a receipt to enable
someone who donates money to Grex to deduct it on their taxes. (The
request was contingent on our becoming a 501(c)3 organization, of course.)
That started me wondering whether I will need to send out receipts for
every single donation we receive. Right now I do send e-mail to
acknowledge every donation, but sending out that many paper receipts would
be a significant amount of work and expense, and I suspect most people
wouldn't really want them anyway. (Everyone who takes the standard
deuction, for instance, might as well just throw them away.)
What does everyone think - do I need to send out paper receipts for every
check? My suggestion is that at the end of the year I send e-mail to
everyone who donated throughout that year, telling them that they are
entitled to a receipt if they'd like one. Then I'll send them out to
those people that request them.
Another question I need answered is what needs to be on the receipt in
order to make it acceptable to the IRS. Anyone know?
#1 Rane Curl(rcurl) on Fri Jul 10 01:12:16 1998:
Request IRS Catalog No. 20054Q (or its most current incarnation). It
may be on the web. The title is "Charitable Contributions - Substantiation
and Disclosure Requirements".
Written acknowledgements are only *required* for donations in excess of
$250. For that reason, I would opine that e-mail acknowledgements for
smaller donations would be fine, especially coupled with an offer to
provide a written acknowledgement. The acknowledgement should, in any
case, be sent as quickly as possible, if only to indicate appreciation
for the donation (and keep them coming.....).
------
I am entirely in favor of Mark's suggestion and emailing him is not
appropriate here, as he not implementing his own preferences but carrying
out policy voted on by the board. Rane initially was also in favor of
Mark's suggestion, for the record. (I have not reread the next 68
responses, anyone who wants feel free to summarize them).
Re 'democracy' and 'consensus'. There is a difference between a consensus
by a small portion of a group and a consensus by the entire group. How
many members are participating in this discussion? I think maybe 25%, and
they are probably not representative of the group average. About 20 out
of about 100 members donated over $75 (20%), and I would bet more than 20%
of the people taking part in this discussion donated over $75.
Therefore the under-$75 people are not properly represented and I do not
consider this quite democratic. (Of course they are choosing not to
partipate....).
I am no longer objecting to this policy, whether or not I find it logical,
and I had not realized that Mark was already planning to let people know
that paper receipts were available on request. I would appreciate if he
would also let people on the 'automatic receipt' list know that they can
request not to get them and that paper receipts are not needed if you get
back cancelled checks. And I am also suggesting that the treasurer keep a
list of people who have requested receipts and add them to the automatic
list rather than having them request receipts again every year. I do not
feel that people should be treated differently depending on how much they
have chosen to or are able to donate. If Rane does not want to have to
request a receipt every year, why should other people? They may only
donate $60 while he donates more, but this $60 quite possibly represents a
larger fraction of their income. This is also what Jim meant by
'second-class citizen' (I think that was his term).
End of discussion (unless anyone wants to refute any of the facts).
|