RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics



Message

P31W -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (5/29/2008 7:35:46 AM)

quote:

For example, if you are a donor, but not a member of the church, that vote is not binding on you.


Yes it is. As long as you made the contribution "after" the vote. Remember some churches have no "membership" rolls. All people who walk in the door are considered to be members but have no voice in the operation of the church. This is not about majority rule rather it's about having certain legal documents in place so that a donor has the ability to "know" their right.

Reread what Lifeway has put out.

http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/files/lwcf_pdf_hamilton_designatedfundmanagement.pdf

I believe the legal terms used in our minutes and at the meeting were "the chruch reserves the right to redirect designated funds".... I would not put my life on that but I "think" that is how our area churches were told to phrase it.

quote:

I talked with the pastor today. He told me that the official fund drive will end, but the project it was earmarked for will continue. It's just been postponed due to recent staffing changes. When things settle down, the church board will look into working on the project again.


If this is the case it is "probably" against the law for them to refund your money. They are going to hold that money in trust for that project.



SonInMe1 -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (5/29/2008 8:12:53 AM)

Could there be something your church would do with the money you would not approve of?

While we can earmark our donations for a specific cause or ministry, in my church the tithe goes to fund the workings of the church and offerings are for things like the building fund etc. Then they have other ministries like the food pantry that are once in a while events they "showcase". ( They set up a table and people who are interested can sign up or donate goods.

To me, the bottom line would be what the money eventually went for would almost have to be worthwhile.



Random -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (5/29/2008 9:47:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: P31W

quote:

For example, if you are a donor, but not a member of the church, that vote is not binding on you.


Yes it is. As long as you made the contribution "after" the vote. Remember some churches have no "membership" rolls. All people who walk in the door are considered to be members but have no voice in the operation of the church. This is not about majority rule rather it's about having certain legal documents in place so that a donor has the ability to "know" their right.



That may be true, assuming you had the opportunity to know that information before you gave. However, if that decision was made after you donated, I don't think it is binding.



Random -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (5/29/2008 9:51:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SonInMe1

Could there be something your church would do with the money you would not approve of?



Yes. My wife and I made a pledge for our church's building campaign. We have been meeting in a school for about 7 years now, and have finally found land and are building our own building.

I think this is needed, especially since I volunteer on the tech team and I know the hassles involved in setting up and tearing down EVERYTHING for every service (we can't leave stuff up because the school uses the space during the week).

After my pledge is up, if they end up not using the money to build a building (in the same approximate geographic area) I would not approve. For example, if they decided to use the money to start a school or something.

I don't think that's at all likely, but it is an example of something where I would feel like they misled everyone if it did happen and would not approve.



P31W -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (5/30/2008 8:16:34 AM)

Random,

I had a long discussion with my pastor over this yesterday. Man did I find out alot of dirt! ROFL He is also concerned that I am wanting to use "designated funds" for some reason. LOL I asked about the cemetary fund and he went NUTZO!!!! [:D][:D] It's fun messing with a preacher!

Anyway,

About 40 years ago a family (large extended family )became upset with the pastor. Instead of giving money to the general fund they put it in the building fund. After a year or so that family and the pastor had a huge falling out. That family ended up leaving the church. There was and currently is about twenty five thousand dollars in the "building fund".

Our church is falling apart around us yet we cannot by law touch that money. So we have hired a laywer to take the matter before a Judge to get his permission to release the money.

In the meantime we have learned a lesson over this matter. Now we have the 'right to redirect" all designated funds OTHER THAN funds given to our missionaries....those are funds we take "on behalf" of the mission board so it's really "their money" and we have "no control" over that money ever - we are their agent for collections - that's all.

You and your church may want to investigate having the ability to redirect funds. I can see how it could be beneficial to your congregation as a whole. Of course redirecting funds is not a matter to take lightly but sometimes it can help your church survive instead of going backwards. Why should you have the utilities shut off while the "music fund" has 20,000 sitting it it's account?



1love1God1way -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (5/31/2008 12:18:13 PM)

It's a good thing it's not our money to begin with.



Ps103 -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/1/2008 11:30:56 AM)

quote:

Now we have the 'right to redirect" all designated funds OTHER THAN funds given to our missionaries....those are funds we take "on behalf" of the mission board so it's really "their money" and we have "no control" over that money ever - we are their agent for collections - that's all.


And, as long as no one squawks, you will probably be fine.

If, however, it came down to someone's being upset by designated funds going to other than what they designated and decided to sue the church, there would be a problem, because legally, I do not see a "leg to stand on" here.

You cannot vote in a clause that is contrary to law. I think that is what Random is saying.



P31W -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/2/2008 9:48:14 AM)

quote:

You cannot vote in a clause that is contrary to law.



It's not contrary to the law.

Of course I would not encourage any chruch to simply do what they hear discussed on an internet forum.

What our church did was have a lawyer who specializes in Church law help us. (he is the lawyer for our association - that's a couple of hundred church) We did not make those moves without good legal counsel.



P31W -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/2/2008 10:34:15 AM)

http://www.poplarbranchbaptistchurch.org/NEWBYLAWS.html

This is not my church but it does show what many churches are doing and have done.


5. Designated / Restricted Funds: The church may, with the approval by its members voting in conference, arrange to receive designated funds for the specific purpose to support specific projects and missions.
Legal Rule for Designated Funds
Where funds are accepted subject to the donor's designation of the use of the funds, the church is under a legal duty to preserve those funds and use them only for the designated purpose. The church must be sure to separately account for these funds, and the actual money must be preserved, not merely a paper accounting. Thus it is usually best to keep such designated funds in a separate account.

5.1. Designated (Restricted Use) Funds shall be receipted and disbursed through separate ledger accounts. The Church Treasurer shall establish and oversee one or more separate accounts for all designated funds.
5.2. Designated funds should not be accepted for projects not previously approved by the church.
5.3. Money designated to a "budget line item," shall be deposited into the restricted checking account previously described, and used for its designated purpose. Money placed into the designated account shall be used first. Funds needed in addition to designated amount will be spent from the church's general budget and reflected upon in the appropriate line item budget report. When said purpose has been accomplished and / or if any funds remain in excess, the amount shall be transferred to the church's general account without credit given to the line item. This shall be done before or at the end of the church's financial fiscal year.
5.4. Designated funds (except budget line items) received in excess of those
needed to complete the project, which they were intended, will by recommendation of the finance committee, and by vote of the church, be diverted to another area of need.

Church Discretion Over Designated Funds

It is the expressed intent of the Poplar Branch Baptist Church Inc. to use all designated gifts for the specific purposes and projects designated, the final authority for the use of all gifts to the church rests with congregation. In exceptional circumstances where the designated purposes are no longer feasible, or has been completed, or for other good cause, the church membership may redirect such gifts to other appropriate ministries or projects, retaining to the extent deemed feasible, the basic original purpose of the designation.



Random -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/2/2008 10:52:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: P31W


It is the expressed intent of the Poplar Branch Baptist Church Inc. to use all designated gifts for the specific purposes and projects designated, the final authority for the use of all gifts to the church rests with congregation.


Actually, the final authority rests with the courts. Saying you are the final authority does not make you the final authority. If a donor gave to a specific cause, then they used it for something else because "the congregation said it was okay" the church would likely lose any resulting lawsuit. There are dozens (if not more) of precedents for this.

It is no different than a sign in a parking lot that says "Store not liable for accidents/thefts in the parking lot." They may or may not be liable, but liability is based on the law, not the sign. The sign does not change anything.



P31W -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/3/2008 12:27:00 PM)

quote:

Actually, the final authority rests with the courts


That is if it goes to court.

quote:

Saying you are the final authority does not make you the final authority.


True. Look at the parents in Texas who had their children removed from their homes without sufficient cause.

quote:

If a donor gave to a specific cause, then they used it for something else because "the congregation said it was okay" the church would likely lose any resulting lawsuit. There are dozens (if not more) of precedents for this.


"IF" it were a simple matter of the governing body deciding to redirect funds then I would agree with you. (to be honest with you I think it would be supid for them to do that and pretty much ruin their reputation among the people who gave them money)

But

If it's not a simple matter of the governing body saying it's OK to use the money for something else instead it's for some very legitimate reasons.....

This is the part you stopped copying at. Notice the due dillengence here.

"In exceptional circumstances where the designated purposes are no longer feasible, or has been completed, or for other good cause, the church membership may redirect such gifts to other appropriate ministries or projects, retaining to the extent deemed feasible, the basic original purpose of the designation"

If the case did go to court I do believe if the Chruch followed the guidelines posted above it would be OK. I think the "other good cause" would be the one I would be most careful about.

quote:

It is no different than a sign in a parking lot that says "Store not liable for accidents/thefts in the parking lot." They may or may not be liable, but liability is based on the law, not the sign. The sign does not change anything.


I think we all agree the sign is not breaking a law. But it does give a measure of protection for the store incase someone has their purse stolen from the parking lot.

Just like being "incorporated" in a family business gives a certain "degree" of protection. The "ultimate" authority is going to lie with a judge somewhere.

I think we agree on the basics here. I am looking at it from a stand point of a Church acting in good faith and having it's legal ducks in a row.



P31W -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/4/2008 9:06:25 AM)

quote:

There are dozens (if not more) of precedents for this.


I have a question for you Random.

Are you talking about Chruches who have the "right to redirect" clause in their bylaws and/or also on the donations envelopes or slips as well? (in other words the donor knows, has the ability to know and gives the money anyway of their own free will)

Or

Are the cases dealing with Chruches who do not have the right to redirect clause and go ahead and redirect anyway?



Ps103 -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/4/2008 11:54:24 AM)

quote:

quote:

quote:

Actually, the final authority rests with the courts


That is if it goes to court.


That is what we are telling you.

Chances are pretty good that no one will take it to court--especially if you point to the clause in the by-laws or the disclaimer on the envelopes or whatever.

But, if someone comes along, donates money to a designated fund and later finds out the money was used contrary to what they designated and decides to take it to court, the church will not only lose the lawsuit, but also probably lose its tax-exempt status.

Attorneys do not always give advice that will hold up in court.[;)] And, unless you have this guy on retainer, he isn't going to be the one that suffers. He could always say you misunderstood his advice if called to testify...

In one of my former churches, the pastor wanted to raid the Memorial Fund (which had very specific condition for use) to pay bills. His theory was that the church had needs that were not being met, and the Memorial Fund had more money in it than would ever be used for the designated uses. He also had his eye on the Building Fund. He had the idea that we could pass a resolution declaring that in an emergency, designated funds could be transferred to the General Fund by majority vote or something like that. Maybe he talked to the same "church law specialist" you are talking about? Who knows.

The upshot is that the church finance officer was an accountant--who just happened to be a former Internal Revenue Service Agent--who laid out the consequences of such an action.



Ps103 -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/4/2008 12:54:53 PM)

P31--

You do realize that the document you linked to HERE says, in each example given, that moneys in the designated funds will go into the General Fund only in the event that the fund is closed, correct?

It in no way says the church can decide to use moneys specified for say, the Missions Fund, to pay the light bill.

In order to do that, the church would have to close the Mission Fund entirely.

The document you linked does give control of the money for designated funds to the committee which administers it--so I cannot donate 20 grand to the church's Building and Grounds Fund and demand that it be used to plant palm trees all around the church. I can make the suggestion, but if the Building and Grounds Committee does not take my suggestion, I cannot demand my donation back.



P31W -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/4/2008 1:05:35 PM)

quote:

But, if someone comes along, donates money to a designated fund and later finds out the money was used contrary to what they designated and decides to take it to court, the church will not only lose the lawsuit, but also probably lose its tax-exempt status.


I cannot take a forum discussion to the association's lawyer and our chruch for discussion. If you have anything that tells me that what the lawyers are telling not just my church but from what I found yesterday churches all over the church is false please provide the information for me. Otherwise for myself I have to trust the folks who are professionals and who advised us.

quote:

Attorneys do not always give advice that will hold up in court. And, unless you have this guy on retainer, he isn't going to be the one that suffers. He could always say you misunderstood his advice if called to testify...


He is our association's attorney. That means he is the attorney for several hundred church in a multi-county area. This is what he specializes in.

quote:

In one of my former churches, the pastor wanted to raid the Memorial Fund (which had very specific condition for use) to pay bills. His theory was that the church had needs that were not being met, and the Memorial Fund had more money in it than would ever be used for the designated uses. He also had his eye on the Building Fund. He had the idea that we could pass a resolution declaring that in an emergency, designated funds could be transferred to the General Fund by majority vote or something like that. Maybe he talked to the same "church law specialist" you are talking about? Who knows.


Don't think so. What he wanted to do was "change the rules" after the money had been donated. If you read earlier we have a building fund that was started many years ago BEFORE we voted to add the clause to our by-laws. The lawyer is now working to have a "judge" release that money so that we can redirect it for other uses. That was money given under "a set of terms" that did not allow for us to redirect the funds .

Notice paragraph 3 http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/files/lwcf_pdf_hamilton_designatedfundmanagement.pdf



quote:

The upshot is that the church finance officer was an accountant--who just happened to be a former Internal Revenue Service Agent--who laid out the consequences of such an action.


I would have called him on that myself. It's a form of fraud.



P31W -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/4/2008 1:11:50 PM)

quote:

You do realize that the document you linked to HERE says, in each example given, that moneys in the designated funds will go into the General Fund only in the event that the fund is closed, correct?


I don't agree that it says "only". I believe it tells the donor what would happen to the money in the event that the specific fund "were" to be closed out completely.

quote:

The document you linked does give control of the money for designated funds to the committee which administers it--so I cannot donate 20 grand to the church's Building and Grounds Fund and demand that it be used to plant palm trees all around the church. I can make the suggestion, but if the Building and Grounds Committee does not take my suggestion, I cannot demand my donation back.


That is true no matter if the money was designated to a specific fund or not. Part of being a "non-profit" and a donor being able to take the deduction means that we (donor) "give up control" over that money to the non-profit.

If you give money to the general fund you can suggest a protion be used for trees in the front of the church but you cannot "make" them do that. You could however "demand your money back and even go hire a lawyer and try to sue the church". I don't think you would win but in this country you certainly have the right to try.



P31W -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/4/2008 1:14:25 PM)

BTW,

I am enjoying the stew out of this thread. This is my kinda fun stuff. Detective, legal, money, church.....oh what fun stuff...all my favorite topics!!!! (reminds me of our old Crown days when we use to play detective)[:D]

Honestly if any of you have anything in the form of something "legal" that I can take before my church board and give to our associational director to show that what we and others are doing is illegal or stupid please give the link so I can download the information.



P31W -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/5/2008 7:23:30 AM)

quote:

In the case of designated funds, if the church decides not to do the project (for instance, a new building), they can return those donations (and should offer IMHO) or the donors can release the church of the obligation to use it for that project and those funds become "undesignated" or "designated" for something else.


Notice what Kristin said above. Notice how the donor has the right to allow the church to use those funds for other purposes when the designated funds cannot be used as planned. In the case mentioned above the "permission" is granted AFTER the funds have been donated.

With my church and others permission is given BEFORE the funds are donated. If the donor does not want to agree to this they simply don't have to give. We have broken no tax or legal code in making this agreement with the donor before they give any money. (if any of you believe we have please post the tax or legal code so I can take it to the approprate authorities)

+++++++++++++++++

Again, I am not trying to encourage a Chruch or Charity to believe what I am saying. However I do believe it's a wise move and one that should be investigated further by some churches and charities under the advise of a good CPA and Lawyer who specializes in non-profits.

As a donor this is something you might want to investigate before you give designated funds in the future.



phosadaud -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/5/2008 10:17:05 AM)

I think the difference of opinion is that if I designate $100 to go to a certain project and that project doesn't happen, I can allow the church to use that $100 for some other purpose. I cannot however vote to allow the church to use the $200 that "Joe" designated.

I'll try to remember to look up some tax decisions that address this - it won't happen today though. Sorry!



P31W -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/6/2008 7:23:38 AM)

quote:

I think the difference of opinion is that if I designate $100 to go to a certain project and that project doesn't happen, I can allow the church to use that $100 for some other purpose. I cannot however vote to allow the church to use the $200 that "Joe" designated.

I'll try to remember to look up some tax decisions that address this - it won't happen today though. Sorry!


Joe and you and anyone else who gave to the fund gave up his/her right to have a say in how the money is going to be spent in the even that the designated project does not go through. He did that "before" he gave the money. He gave the "church" the right to redirect the funds when he made the donation.

I've been reading a couple of law sites concerning this matter of the Church retaining the right to redirect the designated funds. One firm suggested and I believe it's a great idea....on the donation envelopes have the policy stated and the donor sign the envelope. This is protects the church incase the donor tries to claim they didn't know the policy.



SonInMe1 -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/6/2008 8:14:52 AM)

My first church collected donations to support a hospital being built in the Phillipines.

It was a 100% fraud. While I say you should trust your church...do it wisely.



P31W -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/6/2008 8:19:18 AM)

What happened to the pastor? Did anyone have him arrested?



SonInMe1 -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/6/2008 8:22:41 AM)

It came out eventually and of course this wasn't the only thing he had done.

Nasty lawsuits etc. Front page news in a small city.

A true mess.

( Saying much more I think would constitue gossip, but all I can say is...financial accountability for a church is high on my list. )



phosadaud -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/6/2008 3:38:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: P31W

quote:

I think the difference of opinion is that if I designate $100 to go to a certain project and that project doesn't happen, I can allow the church to use that $100 for some other purpose. I cannot however vote to allow the church to use the $200 that "Joe" designated.

I'll try to remember to look up some tax decisions that address this - it won't happen today though. Sorry!


Joe and you and anyone else who gave to the fund gave up his/her right to have a say in how the money is going to be spent in the even that the designated project does not go through. He did that "before" he gave the money. He gave the "church" the right to redirect the funds when he made the donation.

I've been reading a couple of law sites concerning this matter of the Church retaining the right to redirect the designated funds. One firm suggested and I believe it's a great idea....on the donation envelopes have the policy stated and the donor sign the envelope. This is protects the church incase the donor tries to claim they didn't know the policy.


OK, I've been reading up in our tax books and basically, it all depends.

First, if you have a project, you can make a statement with any solicitation of funds that in the event a project is cancelled, the church can apply the funds to another project. This is not the same thing as saying the church can use whatever funds they wish in any circumstance. I cannot see any case law that would make that ok (there may be, but I can't find it). This is only in case a project is cancelled. And it MUST be clear to the donor BEFORE they contribute any funds. However, the donor could still restrict their donation and the church could choose to either allow that or refuse the funds. You should consult an attorney for help in what needs to be said.

Second, there are some different requirement depending on which state you live in, in the case of what options a church has if a project is abandoned. That means, you need to find out what the laws are in your particular state. In some cases, a church who can't find all donors to get their written release, may be able to petition the court to allow them to use those funds in other ways. Before doing this, find out what the laws are in your particular state. HOWEVER - even in states where this can be allowed, this does not apply to all designated funds: only to "institutional funds".

In other words, always consult an attorney before you do anything or it could bite your church in the posterior big time.

And just a reminder: If the project is not abandoned (it is only delayed or whatever), it is actually harmful to the church to return funds and creates all kinds of tax issues for individuals so churches should not return funds for projects that are not permanently cancelled.

And, for donors out there, if you do get contributions returned for a project that was cancelled, please note that you may need to file an amended tax return or include the returned funds as income. Please consult your accountant to know which.



P31W -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/9/2008 7:43:03 AM)

I agree with you 100%. That is exactly what I have been saying all along." it is going to depend upon how the chruch is set up to handle situations such as this." There is nothing illegal or contrary to law about it having in place the right of a church to redirect funds.

Note my post 17

Churches that solicit funds for designated projects face difficult choices when they abandon the project and are left with the task of disposing of funds donated for that project. These problems can be avoided if the church simply includes a statement similar to the following when soliciting funds for a specific project:

"By contributing to this project, donors acknowledge that the church has the authority to apply contributions designated for this project to another, related purpose in the event that the project is canceled."

Such a statement should be printed on special offering envelopes used for the project, or on any other materials so long as they provide adequate notice to donors of the policy and reflect donors' consent to it.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/cbg/churchlawtax/articles/ask_churchtreasurdonorrefund.html



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI