|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Asking For Your Offering Back - 6/9/2008 11:46:35 AM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11693
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
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
But that is not what you said HERE, which is what we are telling you is wrong.
Everything we have posted and ever quote or link you have posted says "in the event the project is cancelled or abandoned."
That is quite different from "They have designated the funds to it and we discover we cannot pay our light bill our church has already decided and voted at a business meeting to take funds from whatever group and put it into the general fund."
Do you see the difference?
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Asking For Your Offering Back - 6/9/2008 11:53:56 AM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 3005
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
But that is not what you said HERE, which is what we are telling you is wrong.
I disagree. This IS what I was told after that post.
"If you specifically designated funds for a specific project, a church or charity must use those funds for that particular project or not use those funds at all. "
and
"That is not entirely correct. The members of the church can't vote for something that is contrary to law. They also can't vote away someone else's rights.
For example, if you are a donor, but not a member of the church, that vote is not binding on you.
There was actually an article in the WSJ today about this exact topic. I would like to it, but it is behind the paywall. It said exactly what phosadaud said, that charitable organizations must use donations for the specific thing they were donated for (unless they were not directed donations). It even listed some examples, including a school that got a donation that was contingent on them remaining a women-only school. When they decided to admit men, they had to disclaim the gift.
The law seems to be very clear -- if a donation is made to a specific project, it can only be used for that, unless the donor agrees to the change. And that means the specific donor, it is not "majority rules.""
and as I began to get more specific with you posted this concerning the clause "right to redirect"
You cannot vote in a clause that is contrary to law.
then you said
"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... "
_________
quote:
OK from what I understand it is going to depend upon how the chruch is set up to handle situations such as this.
In my church if someone gives money to say the "cemetary" fund. They have designated the funds to it and we discover we cannot pay our light bill our church has already decided and voted at a business meeting to take funds from whatever group and put it into the general fund. So what they are doing is not necessarily illegal.
I stand by my position.
If my church is ever in the position that we cannot afford to pay our operating expenses then we will not accept any "designated" funds. We will close out whatever designated fund(S) we believe are necessary and use that money to pay the power bill and whatever bills we have.
Now if you would have in "any" of your post to me said you could not use "part" of the fund and directed me back to that post of mine I would have to agree that this is incorrect. But none of you did.
I do know and understand "what" was being argued in this thread....the right of a Church to redirect designated funds.
< Message edited by P31W -- 6/9/2008 12:22:19 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Asking For Your Offering Back - 6/9/2008 3:27:11 PM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 3005
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
Oh yes my dear!!! As would some of the threads on this forum! 
My BF has her grandsons at her house this week. I told her that qualified as well.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
So my brain's being fried by the heat would count--right? 
