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?72 responses total.
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.....).
You could also ask for a SASE for people who really want a written receipt.
Re #1: I do send the e-mail acknowledgement as quickly as possible, for the reason you state. But it would save time and money if I could send out paper receipts only at the end of the year. (And people who make more than one donation in the course of the year would only need to save one receipt.)
The email confirmation is all I'll ever need, aruba.
I would think that in most cases an "end of the tax year" reciept would be more than adequate. (Maybe even better, since you don't have as much time to lose it before you file your taxes.) I also think that a mention that paper reciepts are available for tax purposes attached to the e-mail acknowledgement and perhaps another toward the end of the last quarter should be enough. My opinion, of course, and I know nothing about these things.
Upon request or for individual donations morethan $250. end of year recepits are also available upon request.
A question I've been wondering about, and have been meaning to research. How do we handle auctions donations? Suppose Dee donates an object and Bee buys it for 10 dollars. Presumably, we need to figure out the value of the object, say V dollars, and Dee gets credit for a donation to Grex of V dollars, while Bee gets credit for a donation to Grex of 10-V dollars. That seems obvious enough. But how do we come up with the value V? And what if V is greater than 10? Should we always set the minimum bid at V dollars to ensure this doesn't happen? If we publicize the "value" of an object, would that discourage people from bidding above that value?
Grex can not put a value on goods donated (against IRS regulations) and the person buying the item cannot deduct what they pay. The only deductible quantity is the value put on the donated item by the donor and only the donor can claim that.
I searched around on the IRS site and found reference to the publication Rane mentioned. It's number has chenged and it's not on the web site, but I called up and ordered it, so in theory I should get it in the next 2 weeks. I also found (on the IRS site) what looks like a plain-English version of the rules on receipts, and I downloaded that but haven't yet digested it. At a glance, it appears that waiting till the end of the year may be OK for a "substantiation" receipt, which is the thing you use to claim a deduction on your taxes. However there is also the concept of a "disclosure notice", which is something you send donors to tell them how much the thing they got in return for their donation is worth, ala Rane's magazine example above. The disclosure notice must be sent out in a "timely" manner, which I think means we couldn't wait until the end of the year. I don't think we need to send out any disclosure notices, however, since we don't normally send out stuff in response to donations (other than a copy of the Grex handbook, which is small enough not to count). This is the part I want to make sure of, though, so I need to read the regs carefully. I'm thinking that the Accounting Aid Society, which we used to belong to, might be worth turning to for help. Perhaps they could give us some definitive answers. We might have to rejoin them, which would cost $25 per year. danr, do you have any thoughts on that suggestion?
Regarding membership donations, I'd say that paper receipts are only necessary when a donor requests it. As others have pointed out, a receipt is only necessary when a donation is greater than $250, and since this is the first request, I doubt that you'll get a whole lot more. When you send out the receipt is up to the treasurer, I guess, but I'd be mostly likely to send them out when I received the donation. That way, I'd have less paperwork to do at tax time, when I may or may not have the right information available. Asking the donor to supply an SASE, as marcus suggested, is also a good idea, especially if the donor is paying on a monthly basis. Re: the auctions. If what Rane is saying is true--and I have no reason to doubt him--the disclosure notice isn't necessary. The donor is the one to put a value on the item donated, and only the donor gets the tax deduction. This makes sense, actually. If both the donor and the purchaser were able to deduct, that would be a double deduction. I've received disclosure notices when I donated to WEMU in order to get one of their t-shirts. In this case, however, the shirts were purchased by WEMU and not donated to them.
We would need to *acknowledged* donations of goods, so that the donor has a record that that Item had been donated. A 'form' acknowledgement with a space for the identification of the item(s) would be fine, and it also permits repeating the IRS rules briefly on valuing the donation (that Grex can't and the donor is responsible for doing so).
BTW Rane, is that rule about the donor valuing the goods in that same publication you mentioned earlier (the one about disclosure and substantiation), or should I order another one too?
Yes, no. The form states "Valuation of the donated property is the responsibility of the donor."
OK, thanks.
back in resp:8 , Rane said that only the donor can claim the (donor-determined) value of a donation to the Auction. That is true, but might be misleading. If a bidder bids more than the fair market value of the item, the excess can be considered a donation by the bidder. I believe we can provide a fair market value in that case, but I don't think we are obligated to provide a disclosure notice for auction items.
The "excess" over the donor determined value can be considered a deductible donation by the donor. However *Grex* may not specify the "fair market value" or any other value of the donated item. We are excluded from doing that. (The temptation for connivance would be too great....non-profits would lean toward estimating 'fair market value' on the high side to make donors happier and thereby encourage more donations.)
I'm trying to figure out if membership donations are fully deductable.
People do receive something for their memberships - ability to initiate
telnet, ftp and irc sessions from their Grex accounts. It is hard to
estimate the fair market value of that increment in service that members
get beyond what other users get. Nobody sells it separately. The
definition of "fair market value" is "what a willing buyer would pay a
willing seller." I can't even begin to guess.
There is good chance that this can be treated as a membership package
benefit. In the IRS publication "Updates on Disclosure and
Substantiation Rules" it talks about "safe harbors" for kinds of
benefits that can be treated as being of zero value:
The fourth safe harbor involves membership package benefits.
Charities, such as museums, libraries, zoos, and arboretums,
typically use membership packages to build a following and base of
support. The benefits of a typical membership package may include
free parking, gift shop discounts, an admission discount, etc.
Charitable organizations which offer basic membership packages at $75
or less and include some or all of the following benefits can treat
such membership benefits as having insubstantial value and, hence,
need not value them. See Proposed Regs. 1.170A-13(f)(8)(i)(B) and
1.6115-1(b). The membership benefits are:
a) Any right or privilege, other than rights to seating at collegiate
athletic events, the contributor can exercise frequently during
the membership period. Examples of such rights and privileges
include free or discounted admission to organizations' facilities
or events, free or discounted parking, preferred access to goods
or services, and discounts on purchases of goods or services; and
b) Admission to events during the membership period open only to
members if the cost per person for the event, excluding any
allocable overhead, is within the limits for low cost articles.
For 1996, the limit for low cost articles is $6.70. See Rev. Proc.
95-53, 1995-52 I.R.B. 22.
Case (a) looks like it should cover memberships. This would mean that
membership fees are deductable from the donor's taxes.
A clarification on Rane's comment: Grex is not responsible for determining the fair market value of good and services donated to Grex. Grex is responsible for determining the fair market value of goods and services given by Grex to users. This is confusing in the case of auction items. I think T-shirt and mug purchases are not deductable at all.
Here's another description of the rules for deducting membership dues in
IRS Publication 526, "Charitable Contributions". I think it's a bit
clearer:
MEMBERSHIP FEES OR DUES. You may be able
to deduct membership fees or dues you pay
to a qualified organization. However, you can
deduct only the amount that is more than the
value of the benefits you receive. [...]
Certain membership benefits can be
disregarded. Both you and the organization
can disregard certain membership benefits
you get in return for an annual payment of
$75 or less to the qualified organization. You
can pay more than $75 to the organization if
the organization does not require a larger
payment for you to get the benefits. The
benefits covered under this rule are:
1) Any rights or privileges, other than those
discussed under Athletic events, earlier,
that you can use frequently while you are
a member, such as:
a) Free or discounted admission to the
organization's facilities or events,
b) Free or discounted parking,
c) Preferred access to goods or services,
and
d) Discounts on the purchase of goods
and services, and
2) Admission, while you are a member, to
events that are open only to members
of the organization if the organization
reasonably projects that the cost per
person (excluding any allocated overhead)
is not more than a specified amount,
which may be adjusted annually for inflation.
(This is the amount for low-cost articles
given in the annual revenue procedure with
inflation adjusted amounts for the current
year. You can get this figure from the IRS.)
This clarifies that the $75 limit is on annual memberships. Even people
who pay $6 a month pay only $72 a year, so we are under that limit.
Though none of the (a), (b), (c) or (d) examples really fits our
membership benefits, they certainly are not athletic events and they
certainly can be exercised frequently while a member.
So, personally, I'm pretty convinced that Grex membership donations are
fully tax deductable, and would happily deduct them from my taxes, but
I'm not sure I'm ready to announce to the members, as a spokesman for
Grex, that all members can deduct their membership dues. Would it be
possible to write to the IRS asking about this, and get a somewhat more
reliable opinion? I'm not sure where you would address such a letter.
On auctions, my guess is that we need do nothing if the item sells for $75 or less. If it sells for more than $75, we probably have to come up with a "fair market value" for the item and send a receipt to the buyer stating that value and saying anything above that value should be treated as a donation. I'm far from sure about this though.
Sigh....that's what I've been trying to tell everyone for months...but I am glad that Jan has so exhaustively quoted from the sources. Do NOT write to the IRS to ask about this. Just quote the relevant rules. It is *always* up to the donor to fit them to their circumstances. You do NOT have to come up with a "fair market value" for any donation, of any item of any size. MKC was recently donated 2.5 acres of land, worth thousands. It is up to the donor to value it for tax purposes. In regard to a donation that is subsequently auctioned to raise money...the donor is in exactly the same position of having to themsevles determine the value. The buyer gets NO deductibility from their purchase, no matter how much they pay. What the buyer pays is NEVER a donation.
Why do you think we shouldn't write to the IRS, Rane?
A member also gets the right to vote and make motions. I suppose it's technically possible to say that all of the $72/year of a membership could be squeezed into one of the exceptions. However, we're then saying that Grex membership is worthless! On M-Net, we don't claim that memberships or patronships are tax-deductible because we think those folks get things of value. Donations to our auctions are tax-deductible, but of course our receipts for those don't list the value. However, *purchases* of things from the auction are *not* tax-deductible because the purchaser gets the value of the goods s/he has bought.
You should not write the IRS because they will not take the time to look into the specifics of your situation, and usually just quote the book (and then the part of the book that maximizes their return). If this were a serious matter, a competent tax attorney is a better bet (they rely on return business - not something the IRS worries about). But the instructions are so clear in this case that one can hardly go wrong following them.
Well, I think it *is* a serious matter, and worth getting an official ruling on. I agree it may be difficult to get someone to give a straight answer, though.
I think Rane's point is that the response from the IRS is not an official ruling. That's probably something an accountant with a good understanding of 501(c)3 tax law would be better qualified to answer.
The answer is so well known, and so well described in the forms and booklets, that no further research is necessary. Steve is right in the sense that you will *not* get a tax attorney at IRS to answer your question - you will get one of a phalanx of ill trained flunkies paid to answer questions from the public. Sometimes they are right, of course. The only useful interaction with the IRS is satisfying their rigamarole, which Jan did admirably. There is now no more help at the IRS.
Hmph. Rane's convinced me on this one. Re 23: The value of a Grex membership, over and above what any user gets, is indeed pretty minimal. The fair market value of the right to vote and make motions in the governance of Grex is, IMO, zero. The internet access is not absolutely worthless, but given that most users, including almost all non-local ones, have better access which they use to get to Grex in the first place, it's hard to see that as a high-value item. Remember that web access, such as it is with lynx, is available to all users, as is email. How many ISPs even sell accounts with *just* telnet & ftp access to the web? We've always stated up front that the main benefit of Grex membership is knowing that you're helping to keep this system available to all. The claim that we're seriously in the business of selling internet access, or Wizard In Training manuals, is pretty laughable.
If it's the case that outbound telnet and ftp access is of low value now, perhaps it's time to consider modifying our policy to make these available to all validated users, not just members only, like we did for usenet news posting. The usenet posting policy is moot because we don't carry usenet news any longer, but doesn't the same principle apply? (Serious discussion of this point belongs in a separate item, I suppose.)
Rane:
- I agree that we do not assign "fair market prices" objects donated.
That is up to the donor. We are responsible only for determining
the fair market value of things we sell.
- I disagree that auction purchases are never deductable. Last year
Mark paid $60 for the "Grex Bat," a completely imaginary item. I'd
say that was 100% deductable. We regularly have essentially
worthless trinkets being bid fairly high for the shear fun of it.
I'd expect "Pandora's Mystic Box" to go for about 50 cents in a
garage sale. Bids are much higher than that and are probably
mostly deductable. There is currently an apple pie going for $25.
It's a great pie and I may bid it up some more, but that's probably
double what any reasonable accountant would call the fair market
value.
While it is true that many auction items go for prices at or below
their fair market values, it is also true that people quite often
pay more for things than they usually would because they want
to support Grex. I don't think a "no auction items are deductable"
rule works across the board.
Dave Cahill:
The right to vote and make motions has no value as far as the IRS
is concerned. They are only interested in the "services" that
members get. Luckily the IRS's idea of worth is not like anyone
else's. For example, your donations to your church may help save
your soul, but the IRS thinks your soul is worthless, so it is OK
to deduct the full value of those donations. In normal human
parlance, "fully tax deductable" is not equivalent to "worthless."
My (very unexpert) guess is that Arbornet's patronships are not
fully deductable. Their price is above the $75 cut-off and they
have more benefits. It's probable that they could be partly
deductable, because I think the fair market value is lower than
the price.
Dave Lovelace:
My understanding of "fair market value" is that it is not "what the
average person would pay" but "what some person would pay." I
think there are actually people who buy Grex memberships for no
other reason than to get the services. My guess is that there is
a small, but real population of people who would pay several dollars
a month for those benefits. This is why I'm reluctant to try to
defend the full deductability of Grex memberships on the basis of
the "de minimus" exception (which is used for bookmarks, bumper
stickers and address labels that charities send you). I think
the "frequently exercisable" case works better.
At the last meeting, the board approved renewing our membership in the
Accounting Aide Society. We may be able to get some more expert advice
on this from them.
My understanding is that this is exactly the kind of questions they answer at the AAS.
Re #30: in every case, if Grex can say that nothing of value was provided in exchange for the donation, the donation is deductible. No one would consider the auctioning of a "grex bat" however as providing something of value in exchange for the donation. Markets work by competitive bidding. If someone wants something badly enough, they will pay a high price for it. There is no *inherent* value in an item except what someone will pay for it. Who can say that someone paid more for an item in an auction than that item cost is paying it because they want it, or because they want to make a donation? Which assumption do you think the IRS will adopt? A possible interpretation is that trinkets or items of small cost value are being given as a gift to the person making the largest donation for it. (Call it an auction if you wish...but not to the IRS?). There is a term for that kind of 'value'. So, I will concede that there is probably some way to proceed to acknowledge some of the amount paid in an auction to be deductible, but I'd like to see the rules documented and tested.
Well, I got Pub 1391 from the IRS, and it clarifies some things, but unfortunately not anything that we actually needed clarification on. It contains lots of examples of different fundraising events, but none that come very close to the auction. The nearest is "Example 9", in which people donate objects sold in a bazaar. The objects are sold for a price set by the charity to be near their fair-market value. The purchasers can't deduct the items, but the donors can. That differs from the auction in that we don't set prices in the auction and some few items do go for far beyond their fair market prices. My guess is that we should say "book value for this item is $20" when we put objects up for description, but doing that would likely tend to stop the bidding at $20. Not only would it tend to dampen the bidding, but I'd find it very hard to come up with sane values for many of these items. I'm beginning to think that the "auction purchases are generally not tax deductable" stance might be the best. Most of the time it is true. It seems to me pretty rare for items to go for much more than their fair market value. Exceptions are items like the Grex Bat and cruises on imaginary yachts which plainly have no real value since they don't exist.
I think your analysis is correct, Jan.
Me too.
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.
I would like to talk to the Accounting Aid Society before stating anything confidently.
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.
It has been said many times that there is NO "rule" that receipts have to be sent for donations. However you will quickly stop getting many donations if receipts are not sent at all, and sending receipts with an acknowledgement of the gift is more likely to please the donor and possible encourge future gifts. It is a very small minority of donors that actually feel indignant about being sent receipts. They can either be specially accomodated, or ignored. Sending at least e-mail receipts to all donors and the required documentation to larger donors (as required for deductions for tax purposes) is also a simple policy for the treasurer to follow.
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.
I won't be the treasurer next year, but with regard to my habits, you are mistaken, Sindi, when you say it would be easier to send out receipts as requested than it is to send them out in a batch. It really wasn't much trouble at all once I got going, and it would be more trouble to send out receipts one at a time.
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.
The receipt I got was nicely printed. Given that Mark has written a fair amount of software to automate some of the Treasurer work, I wouldn't be suprised to learn that it is easier just to print all receipts for a certian minimum amount than to pick and choose. Add labelling for address (I don't have the envelope so I don't recall) might be involved as well
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.
That $75 is per donation.
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?
If I make a donation of any size to any organization, I expect a receipt as both a courtesy and for tax purposes. I don't want to try to set up a large number of different rules for different organizations, which I have to keep track of to know whether I have to ask or they will automatically send a receipt. I want it automatic, or I won't donate.
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.
What is wrong with the treasurer sending out a receipt by email to everyone who donated during the year, since presumably even people who donate under $75 might appreciate the thank-you note, listing their total donation, and asking them to email back if they want a paper receipt? And pointing out that anyone who itemizes can use cancelled checks as proof of contributions under $250. Even people who donate under $75 might want to itemize, the cutoff figure is not logical, why assume the larger donors will be itemizing and the smaller ones will not? The logic of this whole situation escapes me. Rane, are you insisting that everyone get a paper receipt just in case they itemize and don't get cancelled checks, just to save you teh effort of writing back in response to an email telling you how much you donated? Do YOU want to sit down and write out receipts on paper for every single donor? Why is the treasurer's time worth so much less than that of the other members or donors? It is quicker to write an email to the treasurer than for the treasurer to print out a letter and stick it in an envelope and address and stamp it. If the whole point is to thank people, why thank only people who donate over $75? If the point is to obey the rules for a nonprofit, why send receipts to people who have no need for them? If this is a volunteer organization, why burden the treasurer? Mark said he spent five hours writing up 19 receipts. That is about 15 minutes per receipt. Why do a few donors think their time is so much more valuable than Mark's?
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.)
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*)
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.
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?
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.
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?
New user was jdeigert's idea.
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?
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?)
re 61 Yes, I have a great deal of objection to it.
Me too. This should look like a thank-you note not an informed consent legal document.
Give it up, Sindi.
For the FIFTH time, "give it up" - is this clear enough?
Let's give it up for aruba! Ye-haw!
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.
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!)
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.
Sindi, you may not be trying to be annoying, but you're doing a very good job of it anyway.
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).
You have several choices: