Tax deductions for charity donation.........is it moral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KenLivengood
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KenLivengood

Guest
So last year was the first time that I started making charity donations through various organizations each month.

Now I get letters in the mail now showing how much I donated last year, and that they are tax deductable.

I’m hesistant to do this because I don’t know if it’s ethical or not.

It just seems weird to make a sacrifice by donating to a charity, just to ask the goverment for that money back at the end of the year.

What does the church say about this???

Kenny
 
Kenny,

If you donate $1000 to charity, the government does not take $1000 off your tax bill. The $1000 is just deducted from the amount of declared income on which you are taxed.

The Church is fine with this. That is why parishes send end of the year statements, much like the one you received from the charity you donated to.

Really, it’s a win-win situation.
 
I don’t think it’s immoral. With regard to taxes, I am most familiar with Jesus’ comment re: give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. You would be following the tax code and would not be lying or stealing or cheating.

If you are concerned about tithing or donating particular ratios of your income to charity, you could just donate the amount you receive back from the government. Thus, if you are taxed at 25%, and donated $100, then you “saved” $25 in taxes - you could donate that “savings” to charity. But I think that’s more than required.
 
40.png
KenLivengood:
What does the church say about this???

Kenny
I am sure the Church does not have an issue with this…
My DH and I just donated several parcels of land that we owned to the Parish that we belong to…and in turn we got a tax deduction for the fair market value 😃 (CHA-CHING!)…
 
40.png
KenLivengood:
It just seems weird to make a sacrifice by donating to a charity, just to ask the goverment for that money back at the end of the year.
That money that you’re asking the government to give you back was your money to begin with.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
MONTREAL (CP) - A Conservative MP’s suggestion that Christians are persecuted in Liberal Canada forced Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to confront his party’s reputation for social conservatism on the first day of its founding convention.

The issue hit Harper like a grim flashback from the last federal election campaign, when untimely outbursts from his backbenchers derailed what had been a smooth campaign.

Harper was asked Thursday about a comment from one of those social conservatives - Ontario MP Cheryl Gallant

-who sent out a flyer to her constituents complaining about “Christianophobia.”

“Is Christianity under attack in Canada?” the leaflet asked.

The response from Harper sounded familiar. As in the last election campaign, the Conservative leader did not defend his MP’s remarks but wouldn’t condemn them either.

“I’ll let Cheryl Gallant explain those remarks herself,” he told reporters at the start of the Tory convention.

“I haven’t seen them.”

And, just like the last election, the Liberals were waiting in the shadows and eager to pounce on every miscue by handing out transcripts and providing outraged spokespeople to comment.

Tory spokesman Mike Storeshaw pointed out that the flyer merely reprinted remarks Gallant made last December in the Commons.

“The moral outrage from Liberals is wearing a little thin,” said Storeshaw.

“Especially when it takes them three months to react. Where was the outrage three months ago?”

Gallant’s leaflet supported her complaint with a pair of examples, including the **Canada Customs and Revenue Agency threatening to revoke the charitable tax status of a Calgary bishop who denounced gay marriage./B]

“Hostility in Canada to Christian teachings about the sanctity of the family and life has resulted in persecution here at home,” said the flyer, which used quotes from a speech Gallant gave to the House of Commons last December.

“The government has launched a campaign of intimidation to silence churches by dispatching tax collectors to threaten the charitable tax status of denominations who speak out against the Liberal government.”

During the election campaign, Bishop Fred Henry sent a letter to all his Calgary parishes saying Prime Minister Paul Martin’s support of same-sex marriage made him a bad Catholic.

Charitable organizations are supposed to remain politically neutral and Henry was soon threatened by the revenue agency - but nothing came of the threat.

Gallant has kept a very low profile in the House of Commons since the Liberals won a minority mandate last June.

She was one of several social conservatives in Harper’s caucus who caused his campaign some misery just as it appeared the Conservatives might be amassing enough support to form a government. During the campaign, Gallant compared abortion to terrorist beheadings in Iraq (news - web sites).

Harper has attempted the tricky political balancing act of sidelining the more outspoken social conservatives without alienating the right wing of his party.

He avoided publicly rebuking those who made the remarks but at the same time quietly banished

most of them from his Opposition shadow cabinet. One of those MPs, Randy White, has said he will retire from politics.

Several Liberals are attending the Conservative convention - including Toronto-area MP Ruby Dhalla, who was eager to speak to the issue.

“The statement put out by Cheryl Gallant is absolutely ludicrous and it’s really a reflection of the extreme views held by the Conservative party,” Dhalla said in the convention hallway.

"We have Stephen Harper trying to paint a mask of moderation in terms of the values but Cheryl Gallant is really indicative of the views held by the majority of these people.

"The convention hasn’t even started and we’re already hearing these extreme views.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1365080/posts**
 
The church I attend does not issue tax receipts. Here is why.

It is because we have researched the regulations concerning registered charities and find that many of these regulations conflict with God’s Word. Most churches have not thoroughly read the government regulations and have unthinkingly gone along with them. The Bible teaches that God has ordained the home, the government, and the church-three spheres of authority. None of these God given authorities has a right to usurp the other’s authority (such as King Uzziah usurping their authority of the priests in II Chronicles 26:16-21). Caesar (the government) has his authority (Mark 12:17). The church belongs to Christ. He started it (Matthew 16:18); He purchased it with his blood (Acts 20:28); and He is the head of it (Ephesians 5:23). The Bible teaches separation of the church and state: each must respect the other’s authority. This doctrine is a historic distinctive of Baptist churches. Further, the bible says, “The tithe…is the Lord’s: it is holy unto the Lord” (Leviticus 27:30). The tithe belongs to God, not the government. Our premise is that the controls the government places on how registered churches use God’s money usurps the authority of the church.

Income tax began in the year 1917, as a temporary measure to finance the war. It appears that from the very beginning, the government gave credit for monetary gifts people gave to churches and other non-profit organizations. The government realized the good that these churches and groups did for the nation and wanted to encourage people to support them. Churches issued tax receipts with no strings attached. No problem. However, a few organizations began to abuse this system, so, in 1967, the government asked churches and other charities to file information reports on the tax receipts they issued. No problem. In 1975, a Revenue Canada discussion paper introduced “tax expenditure concept”: taxes the government does not receive because of tax receipts (now over $3 billion annually) should be viewed as a donation by the government to the charity. Thus, the government becomes the charities greatest contributor and controls need to be in place to insure that the people of Canada obtain maximum benefits from the governments’ support! That is a problem! This concept was adopted as policy in 1977. Controls were soon introduced, with more coming all the time. One of the newest controls is that receiptable giving must be “detached, disinterested generosity”. Your motive for giving is now scrutinized!

These unscriptural controls over churches include the following:
-How a church supports missionaries
-How a church spends money
-Permission must be granted to accumulate funds (i.e. a building fund).
-The annual report requires extensive and unnecessary information to be provided.
-Involvement in “non-charitable activity” is prohibited-such as endorsing or opposing a political candidate or opposing changes in the law or government policy (example: sexual orientation or pro-life issues).
-If a church’s registration is revoked they stand to lose all of their assets, which in effect would shut them down.

The following is our policy concerning receipts for income tax purpose:

Due to measures brought in by the Canadian Government in 1977, not to issue receipts for income tax purposes or be registered as a charitable organization with Revenue Canada. These measures give Revenue Canada the power to control how a registered church spends money, saves money, and gives support to missionaries. Revenue Canada also has the power to arbitrarily, without a trial, revoke a charitable organization’s registration and cause it to cease operation by means of “a special tax equal to the fair market value of all its assets”. We believe these controls violate the Biblical teaching of the separation of church and state and the Lordship of Christ… Therefore in obedience to the scriptures, cannot seek registration with Revenue Canada until the law should be suitably changed. After thorough research and considerable discussion, this policy was reaffirmed by majority vote on _ 1996.

As a church, we want to be free to obey everything God leads us to do. Neither can we accept support from the government (as Revenue Canada views it), nor the resultant controls. Believers in most nations of the world simply “give as unto the Lord” and trust the Lord to bless and provide for their needs. Certainly, in Bible times. the Roman Government did not give tax credit for tithes and offerings, yet believers were instructed to give, “…every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loveth a cheerful giver” (II Corinthians 9:7)
 
I wonder, if people would give the same amount if they didn’t get a tax receipt? Would they give at all. It is easier said than done. You cannot love both God and money.

Could Satan have any part of the “tax receipt”? So that it diminishes ones true spirit of giving? I wonder.
 
40.png
NiceFundamental:
The church I attend does not issue tax receipts. Here is why.

:7)
our church does give receipts because US tax law requires receipts for donations over a certain amount. the reason why is we obey Christ’s injunction to render unto Caesar.
 
Another good reason for not living in Canada
40.png
NiceFundamental:
The church I attend does not issue tax receipts. Here is why.

It is because we have researched the regulations concerning registered charities and find that many of these regulations conflict with God’s Word. Most churches have not thoroughly read the government regulations and have unthinkingly gone along with them. The Bible teaches that God has ordained the home, the government, and the church-three spheres of authority. None of these God given authorities has a right to usurp the other’s authority (such as King Uzziah usurping their authority of the priests in II Chronicles 26:16-21). Caesar (the government) has his authority (Mark 12:17). The church belongs to Christ. He started it (Matthew 16:18); He purchased it with his blood (Acts 20:28); and He is the head of it (Ephesians 5:23). The Bible teaches separation of the church and state: each must respect the other’s authority. This doctrine is a historic distinctive of Baptist churches. Further, the bible says, “The tithe…is the Lord’s: it is holy unto the Lord” (Leviticus 27:30). The tithe belongs to God, not the government. Our premise is that the controls the government places on how registered churches use God’s money usurps the authority of the church.

Income tax began in the year 1917, as a temporary measure to finance the war. It appears that from the very beginning, the government gave credit for monetary gifts people gave to churches and other non-profit organizations. The government realized the good that these churches and groups did for the nation and wanted to encourage people to support them. Churches issued tax receipts with no strings attached. No problem. However, a few organizations began to abuse this system, so, in 1967, the government asked churches and other charities to file information reports on the tax receipts they issued. No problem. In 1975, a Revenue Canada discussion paper introduced “tax expenditure concept”: taxes the government does not receive because of tax receipts (now over $3 billion annually) should be viewed as a donation by the government to the charity. Thus, the government becomes the charities greatest contributor and controls need to be in place to insure that the people of Canada obtain maximum benefits from the governments’ support! That is a problem! This concept was adopted as policy in 1977. Controls were soon introduced, with more coming all the time. One of the newest controls is that receiptable giving must be “detached, disinterested generosity”. Your motive for giving is now scrutinized!

These unscriptural controls over churches include the following:
-How a church supports missionaries
-How a church spends money
-Permission must be granted to accumulate funds (i.e. a building fund).
-The annual report requires extensive and unnecessary information to be provided.
-Involvement in “non-charitable activity” is prohibited-such as endorsing or opposing a political candidate or opposing changes in the law or government policy (example: sexual orientation or pro-life issues).
-If a church’s registration is revoked they stand to lose all of their assets, which in effect would shut them down.

The following is our policy concerning receipts for income tax purpose:

Due to measures brought in by the Canadian Government in 1977, not to issue receipts for income tax purposes or be registered as a charitable organization with Revenue Canada. These measures give Revenue Canada the power to control how a registered church spends money, saves money, and gives support to missionaries. Revenue Canada also has the power to arbitrarily, without a trial, revoke a charitable organization’s registration and cause it to cease operation by means of “a special tax equal to the fair market value of all its assets”. We believe these controls violate the Biblical teaching of the separation of church and state and the Lordship of Christ… Therefore in obedience to the scriptures, cannot seek registration with Revenue Canada until the law should be suitably changed. After thorough research and considerable discussion, this policy was reaffirmed by majority vote on _ 1996.

As a church, we want to be free to obey everything God leads us to do. Neither can we accept support from the government (as Revenue Canada views it), nor the resultant controls. Believers in most nations of the world simply “give as unto the Lord” and trust the Lord to bless and provide for their needs. Certainly, in Bible times. the Roman Government did not give tax credit for tithes and offerings, yet believers were instructed to give, “…every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loveth a cheerful giver” (II Corinthians 9:7)
 
Thanks dulcissima,

I guess I didn’t really understand how the taxes really work.

I was under the assumption that the money I was deducting was the same amount that I was getting back. Rather than listing the amount that I would not be taxed for, and getting the taxed percentage refunded.

Makes sense now. I don’t see a problem anymore.

🙂

Kenny
 
Kenny , as long as you don’t turn into the type of person who only donates to causes based on tax return impact it is perfectly moral.

We tithe plus. Not all my charitable giving shows up on my tax return but a lot does. The way I look at it the refund means that I get to send more of my money to causes I believe God would approve of and less to the government which will unfortunately do things with it that I don’t think God approves of.
 
Well, okay, render unto Caesar… but Caesar is a representative government that has decided not to tax those parts of your income that you give away to a charity. If you gave away everything, for example, the government wouldn’t come around expecting you to cough up more for them. You’ve done your part.

As stated earlier, giving to charity does not save you money. The money you give is gone. Your giving to charity can cost the government money, but the government has decided that this is worth it.

Let us say that the money you are considering donating would be taxed in a 25% tax bracket. The government looks at it this way. If Mr. Jones is not taxed on his $1.00 donation, we lose the 25 cents in tax, but a charity gets an entire dollar. That charity will then do good works that will not fall upon the government to do. In fact, because people also donate time to charities when the charities have the means to do good, the charity will probably do far more with the dollar than if the government got the entire thing… which is why the government excludes those charities who use too much of their income on overhead rather than on good works.

At any rate, the government has decided that it is in the common interest to encourage charitable giving in this way. You may decide to take the deduction or not, but if you do take it, you are not stealing. If you don’t take it, you are making a donation to the government. That is your choice.

If taking the refund bothers you, consider taking the deduction, and when your refund comes, forwarding the portion from your charitable deduction to the charity, too. (And by all means keep the receipt… it will increase your “charitable refund” for the next year!)
 
When I was younger, I used to donate in cash so it couldn’t be traced and I would never list it on taxes. When I was planning on getting married I suggested we make our donations in this fashion and my then fiance (now husband) disagreed.

When he explained why, it made a lot of sense to me and I changed my mind on the subject. Now I track all (most of) our donations. Basically what he said boiled down to: the more money you have in your pocket, the more you can donate. The government provides for this, so you aren’t cheating them, and the Church or whatever charity you are donating to benefits because you have more money to donate.
 
40.png
lifeisbeautiful:
Basically what he said boiled down to: the more money you have in your pocket, the more you can donate. The government provides for this, so you aren’t cheating them, and the Church or whatever charity you are donating to benefits because you have more money to donate.
Exactly. If you don’t take the deduction, you are not giving more to charity, but giving more to the government. That’s your choice, but it is still money out of your pocket that could be going to explicitly Christain charitable works that you are choosing to send elsewhere.

Besides, it is a fact that charities are more effective in using money in benefit of the less fortunate. If there is anything that could be argued to be immoral, it is not wanting to be bothered to claim money off of your taxes that you could have given to those who would make better use of the money.

I would not go so far as that, though. That ventures into the scrupulous.
 
Keep in mind that the tax code is not only a framework for calculating contributions to fund the gov’t. It exists as one of the most detailed and comprehensive social engineering documents around. It is and always has been used to reward behavior deemed benefical to the common good (marriage, child rearing, deferred retirement savings, investing in low income property, charitable contributions) and conversely to discourage socially destructive behaviour.

You are engaging in socially beneficial conduct when you contribute goods or funds to a recognized charitable organization. The government wants to encourage and promote that type of behaviour and therefore rewards your participation by giving you a deduction against the taxes you would otherwise owe.

So rather than think you are bucking the system, take heart in knowing you are contributing to its smooth functioning.
 
You’re not taking money from anyone by claiming a deduction. What you’re really doing is saying to the government, “look, we all know you should be funding this charity I’m donating to, but since you don’t, you can give me a tax discount for doing some of the funding for you.”
 
if you are considering a significant gift, such as in conjunction with estate planning, get the advice of your estate attorney and your tax accountant, because it will make a significant difference in how much money actually ends up in the hands of the charity.

for instance, when we inherited stock from a family trust, we naturally wanted to tithe it, but took the advice of the tax attorney handling the estate, and donated the stock that had appreciated the most. Our fist instinct was to sell everything and give 10% of the money to Catholic Charities. By setting up a charitable annuity and funding it with the actual stock, we avoided a huge tax bill on the sale of stock, and the charity gets thousands more.

the tax laws can be used to enhance your giving, but you have to find somebody who knows what they are doing.
 
40.png
KenLivengood:
So last year was the first time that I started making charity donations through various organizations each month.

Now I get letters in the mail now showing how much I donated last year, and that they are tax deductable.

I’m hesistant to do this because I don’t know if it’s ethical or not.

It just seems weird to make a sacrifice by donating to a charity, just to ask the goverment for that money back at the end of the year.

What does the church say about this???

Kenny
I could be wrong, but I believe the Church’s position is that people should pay the taxes they owe. It is not the Church’s position to that one pay more taxes than one owes. Everyone should pay one’s fair share of taxes. And one’s fair share of taxes is determined by government regulations and laws. If the government says deduct what one gives to charity, one should deduct what one gives to charity. This part of determining what one owes in taxes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top