CUBS Donor Names

[aebrown]

Okay, then more directly, How is

Donor: Doe, John
Spouse: Doe, Mary

"problematic" for the IRS? I understand how:

Donor: Doe, John & Mary

would be for those filing separatly, but I don't see how the first one is. It still lists only one "donor." Or so it seems to me.

I personally don't think that there is any problem either way with the IRS. Of course, no donor should rely on my opinion in any decisions related to taxes.

But I still don't see the justification for changing the default. My reason is this: if a donation comes in with one donor's name on it (which is how each donation should be done, even though I know that many people don't do it right and include both names on the donation slip), then what gives the financial clerk the right to assume that the spouse's name should be associated with that donation? You're basically saying that this is a safe assumption, but I say that this should be an explicit decision.

[TinMan]

Okay, I understand that.

I think the justification is that the financial clerks assumption is going to be correct 99 times out of 100, and that one time can be easily changed at tithing settlement rather than changing the 99. I guess it just depends on which decision you see as "explicit." It seems to me that assuming two sealed tithing payers want to have seperate donation records when you set up the new donation record (which is how the default is now) is just a bad assumption. IOW: When you assume something and it is going to be wrong 99% of the time, isn't it time to re-evaluate your assumption process? So unless there IS some problem with the IRS or some other legal issue, I don't see why assuming the way that is correct most of the time is a bad decision.

I guess we just see it differently. So be it.

[RossEvans]

I personally don't think that there is any problem either way with the IRS. Of course, no donor should rely on my opinion in any decisions related to taxes.

But I still don't see the justification for changing the default. My reason is this: if a donation comes in with one donor's name on it (which is how each donation should be done, even though I know that many people don't do it right and include both names on the donation slip), then what gives the financial clerk the right to assume that the spouse's name should be associated with that donation? You're basically saying that this is a safe assumption, but I say that this should be an explicit decision.

I agree with aebrown on the tax issues, and accept the new way of recording couple donors as a done deal. My default assumption is that when the donor slip comes in captioned as "Doe, John & Jane" the donation should be attached to the head-of-household record, and the spouse box check on the donor record. Not so if the slips are singly captioned, as some members actually prefer.

My only gripe is this: Now that we have been granted the ability to check the donor record to include the spouse, after the CUBS conversion we have lost all record of those couples in the ward who used to have jointly captioned donor records in the pre-CUBS days. So the only way I can think of to recapture that information is to manually pass through the donor batch envelopes, spot those that are usually entered jointly, then find the donor record and check the spouse box. That is a non-trivial task.

[ckmcdonald]

My reason is this: if a donation comes in with one donor's name on it (which is how each donation should be done, even though I know that many people don't do it right and include both names on the donation slip), then what gives the financial clerk the right to assume that the spouse's name should be associated with that donation?

Does it associate the spouse with the donation? It appears it only states who the donors spouse is.

[eblood66]

Does it associate the spouse with the donation? It appears it only states who the donors spouse is.

I don't know what the IRS thinks, but I would assume that if the spouse is listed on the donation statement they were associated with it. Otherwise there is no reason why the spouse should be listed. If it was merely informational then it wouldn't have to be an option. MLS could just include the spouse on every donation statement.

[ckmcdonald]

I don't know what the IRS thinks, but I would assume that if the spouse is listed on the donation statement they were associated with it. Otherwise there is no reason why the spouse should be listed. If it was merely informational then it wouldn't have to be an option. MLS could just include the spouse on every donation statement.

Whether a church generate donation statement lists a spouse by name or not has no relevance to the couples legal marital status or if they are filing jointly or separately. I'm probably wrong but I don't see any way the listing of the spouse could have any tax code relevance.

If the Church intended that the spouse be "associated" with the donation when why not just list them as John & Jane Doe?

However, the Church only allows the association of a donation to one person. So I don't believe listing the spouse is intended in any way to be associating the spouse to the donation.

It is my understanding that the option to list the spouse is there solely to respect the spouse who in many cases slaves away within the home carrying an equal load of running a household/family yet appears to get no recognition on the donation statement if they don't earn an monetary income.