Discontinuation of AMFA categories

I saw the new support article on the discontinuation of Authorized Member Financed Activities, which has very clear and detailed instructions regarding what to do prior to Aug 31st.

However, I must say that I was caught off-guard as I must have misunderstood the original announcement. I thought the announcement was that AMFA categories would simply be renamed/repurposed under a "Local" category in addition to the "other offerings" consolidation. But clearly with these new instructions, AMFA categories are going away entirely. That's the part that caught me by surprise and I am curious how I misinterpreted the original announcement.

Thankfully there is a good FAQ at the bottom of the article, because one of my top questions was indeed "Is it appropriate to receive contributions to Budget?" For the handful of months I've been a clerk this year, I've answered that question to my bishopric as "No" based on my understanding and assumptions of official guidance and written policy. The answer spelled out here however is yes, it is appropriate.

I'll be happy to correct my answers to my bishopric this weekend based on this latest info and follow the guidance with fresh perspective. But it has left me scratching my head on if I missed something from the previous documentation, just made a bad assumption, or if this truly is new clarification going forward.

Interesting. I've always thought the purpose of AMFA was to keep the money separate to make it easy for leaders and auditors to make sure money donated for specific authorized purposes wasn't being rolled into the general budget. However, I can imaging how trying to teach the ins and outs were an ongoing issue.

But in thinking about it, much of the same can be accomplished with dedicated sub-accounts. Failure to have a dedicated camp sub-account is likely to lead to unhappy auditors since then they'd be forced to do their own financial analysis to make sure policy is being followed. I'm also concerned that the change will make it that much easier for poorly trained leaders to just transfer a YM camp excess to the general YM activities. Both approaches require training.

mkmurray wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 3:30 pm I saw the new support article on the discontinuation of Authorized Member Financed Activities, which has very clear and detailed instructions regarding what to do prior to Aug 31st.

However, I must say that I was caught off-guard as I must have misunderstood the original announcement. I thought the announcement was that AMFA categories would simply be renamed/repurposed under a "Local" category in addition to the "other offerings" consolidation. But clearly with these new instructions, AMFA categories are going away entirely. That's the part that caught me by surprise and I am curious how I misinterpreted the original announcement.

Thankfully there is a good FAQ at the bottom of the article, because one of my top questions was indeed "Is it appropriate to receive contributions to Budget?" For the handful of months I've been a clerk this year, I've answered that question to my bishopric as "No" based on my understanding and assumptions of official guidance and written policy. The answer spelled out here however is yes, it is appropriate.

I'll be happy to correct my answers to my bishopric this weekend based on this latest info and follow the guidance with fresh perspective. But it has left me scratching my head on if I missed something from the previous documentation, just made a bad assumption, or if this truly is new clarification going forward.

The original bulletin was poorly drafted about this issue, on this I agree. But going forward hopefully things will be clearer.

The key to this change is that while contributions can be made to a Budget category for things that are authorized in the General Handbook, such as the one annual youth camp, the manner in which these contributions are made result in the contribution not being included on the Official Tax Statement. In other words any contributions made to budget categories will be tagged as not tax advantaged. This has already been done for returns of over payments of expenses and contributions to the FSY budget category. It is just now going to include authorized member contributions for those General Handbook exceptions, such as camps. The instructions state that a contribution to a budget category for an authorized member contribution, such as camps, will be done as in the past for the Other:AMFA. The Other section of the donation slip will be filled out with the purpose, such as YW summer camp, and the deposit either made to the YW budget category or to the unit created subcategory under the Young Women parent budget category.

The issue is how units track the contributions. If the contributions are deposited into a budget parent category, such as Young Men, it will become hard to know who has contributed to say, the YM high adventure camp. This is resolved by creating subcategories to track these contributions just as was done in the Other:AMFA subcategories. I have created a Young Men budget subcategory to manage and track contributions to YM high adventure, just as it was done in Other:AMFA.

Whether or not an auditor will be able to see 'unauthorized' contributions to a budget category is to be seen. I suspect there will be a flag of some sort for them to tell what contributions are not tax advantaged. If units create budget parent subcategories to track these authorized member activities then it will make it easier for the unit to track these contributions as well as the auditor to 'discover' them.

Going forward, I will use the same method in naming these budget subcategories as was done for the Other:AMFA subcategories.

Contributions to Other:AMFA never showed up on the tax statement either. So, no change on the tax front. The key statement on the tax form is "The Church provided no goods or services in consideration, in whole or in part, for the contributions detailed below but only intangible religious benefits." That's true of tithing but that's not true with AMFA.

I agree, best practice is to create the same accounts in budget. Such as "YM Camp" as a child to "Young Men". (Although an argument could be made that it should be kept completely separate so the leaders can better track the YM budget during the camp fundraising/spending cycle.)

All in all, while this sounds like a big change, it really seems to be a small one. The bigger issue will be understanding the reports. The ward's total budget might look great, but that's only because the donations are coming in to YW camp and the expenses haven't hit yet. Leaders are going to have to pay attention to the individual categories and not be blinded by a rosy bottom-line total.

Been clerking off an on for the past 25 years and I had the same understanding. Members do NOT donate to the budget, that's what budget allowance is for. OAMFA was there to keep budget funds and pass through funds separate. My take-away from the letter earlier this year was only the name was changing from Other to Local. So you're not alone there.

My concern now is former OAMFA funds will now be mixed together at year end with roll over budget funds. The Budget Start balance will be a mix of left over budget and former-OAMFA funds. In reality I suppose they always have been rolled over together since the funds are kept in the same unit checking account. One nice thing about the OAMFA categories was it would automatically separate the roll over each year. It appears clerks will now have to do that manually and readd the same amounts to their respective new year's budget so they don't get mixed in when allocating actual budget allowance funds. I can already see some unit leaders thinking they have extra budget funds to allocate to other budget categories. One more thing to be aware of when allocating the new year budget.

cjbeckert wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:50 pm My concern now is former OAMFA funds will now be mixed together at year end with roll over budget funds.

Good point. Unless it's changed so budget funds stays in it's category at year end instead of going to the parent, I can't see how it could be any other way. Without hardcoding the new camp categories, I don't think it's possible to treat the camps differently then the other line items.

Another issue is that it was well known that "Other" needed to be zeroed out and couldn't have a lingering balance. It will be interesting to see if that changes.

Yet another concern is what the stake sees. If one ward is desperately in need of funds and the budget of another appears to be flush, they may ask for a transfer. But it could be an artificially high balance due to the camp categories.

Shouldn't funds from members for a camp or conference be used for that camp or conference, so there would be nothing to roll over at the end of the year?

sbradshaw wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:15 am Shouldn't funds from members for a camp or conference be used for that camp or conference, so there would be nothing to roll over at the end of the year?

In theory, yes, and it usually is. But if all the funds aren't used, the surplus must stay in the same category and is only available for use for the same purpose the next year.

sbradshaw wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:15 am Shouldn't funds from members for a camp or conference be used for that camp or conference, so there would be nothing to roll over at the end of the year?

Generally true but if you have fundraiser that is more successful than expected you might raise more than is needed for that year and legitimately have something that needs to be rolled over.

However, more often I've seen leaders who want to cover the entire cost of the camp using fundraisers and member payments so the member payments are set too high. It takes training to make sure they understand that budget should be used first, not last.

sbradshaw wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:15 am Shouldn't funds from members for a camp or conference be used for that camp or conference, so there would be nothing to roll over at the end of the year?

Yes, but how is that going to be tracked/enforced with the camp funds now tucked away in budget?

russellhltn wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:05 am

sbradshaw wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:15 am Shouldn't funds from members for a camp or conference be used for that camp or conference, so there would be nothing to roll over at the end of the year?

Yes, but how is that going to be tracked/enforced with the camp funds now tucked away in budget?

Isn't everything going to be in Budget:Sub-accounts just as it was in Other:AFMA:Sub-Accounts?

lajackson wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:53 am Isn't everything going to be in Budget:Sub-accounts just as it was in Other:AFMA:Sub-Accounts?

It's been understood that "Other" needs to come back to zero. It was an easy red flag for auditors. Now, they'll have to try and find where the money has been put. If it's a sub account, then it's not to bad but still not standardized across the church, or even the stake. If it hasn't been broken out, then the auditor is going to be in for a long audit.

russellhltn wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:24 pm It's been understood that "Other" needs to come back to zero. It was an easy red flag for auditors. Now, they'll have to try and find where the money has been put. If it's a sub account, then it's not to bad but still not standardized across the church, or even the stake. If it hasn't been broken out, then the auditor is going to be in for a long audit.

The audit forms no longer have any question related to the Other or AFMA accounts, nor do they have anything about camp payments or fundraisers. Even if an auditor wanted to check this, I'm not sure where they would write up an exception. It doesn't fit into any of the questions.

eblood66 wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 2:54 pm The audit forms no longer have any question related to the Other or AFMA accounts, nor do they have anything about camp payments or fundraisers.

Interesting. However, it's probably too soon to add guidance relating to new "camp within the budget", just removing what no longer applies.

But I'm starting to wonder if this isn't a transition to something else.

Just a suggestion. How about creating sub accounts under the "Misc Account" that covers all the different camp expenses (ie. YW, YM, Primary). In this way the YW budget account would be separated from YW Camp and would help them to know how much the YW budget is versus the YW Camp account. Your thoughts?

Also, from a Stake prospective, I also have many "other" accounts that involve Multi Stake Activities which I will need to create sub-accounts for.

russellhltn wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:24 pm

lajackson wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:53 am Isn't everything going to be in Budget:Sub-accounts just as it was in Other:AFMA:Sub-Accounts?

Now, they'll have to try and find where the money has been put. If it's a sub account, then it's not to bad . . .

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been. Is there anything to keep a clerk from establishing the same sub-accounts under Budget that were established under Other:AFMA? Unless there is instruction to the contrary, that would be my starting position.

I have a question on this topic. The new instruction s include this for handling copayments for camp: "The process does not change: The member will still fill out a donation slip (“Tithings and Fast Offerings” form) and write the purpose on the “Other” space at the bottom of the slip (for example, “Young Women Camp”). The clerk will record it under the appropriate category using LCRF (for example, Budget: Young Women)."

But the online donation slip no longer has an 'Other category' and there never was a 'budget' category or a 'local' category. How do i as a clerk inform parents and how do I accept money into the new version of this process? Even if they give me a paper check (97% of our ward no longer do checks), I don't see how I can accept them in our donation processing stream. We only have access to the same categories that show on the donation slip online. (I have already submitted this question as a feedback on the website so this question in the forum is just for further discussion or answers from someone who has already figured it out.)

lajackson wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:28 pm Is there anything to keep a clerk from establishing the same sub-accounts under Budget that were established under Other:AFMA? Unless there is instruction to the contrary, that would be my starting position.

Nothing to prevent them, but apparently, nothing to require them. That's where the fun really starts.

I agree that creating them would be a good plan. I like kjheinz's the idea of keeping them separate and not a sub-account of YM/YW/Primary.

larry19810 wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:45 pm I have a question on this topic. The new instruction s include this for handling copayments for camp: "The process does not change: The member will still fill out a donation slip (“Tithings and Fast Offerings” form) and write the purpose on the “Other” space at the bottom of the slip (for example, “Young Women Camp”). The clerk will record it under the appropriate category using LCRF (for example, Budget: Young Women)."

But the online donation slip no longer has an 'Other category' and there never was a 'budget' category or a 'local' category. How do i as a clerk inform parents and how do I accept money into the new version of this process? Even if they give me a paper check (97% of our ward no longer do checks), I don't see how I can accept them in our donation processing stream. We only have access to the same categories that show on the donation slip online. (I have already submitted this question as a feedback on the website so this question in the forum is just for further discussion or answers from someone who has already figured it out.)

It's actually not a different process at all for the ward member under this change, just how we record it in LCR. Previously, members did not have a way to contribute online to a locally funded activity like a camp, only through a physical donation slip and envelope. The "Other" category online was never supposed to be used for this type of purpose. I believe that's one of the reasons for the consolidation of categories and name changes of "Other" to "Local," was to clarify this fact for members about what can and can't be done online. Unfortunately, physical checks and cash donations given in-person are the only method for the formerly named Authorized Member Financed Activities.

Someone please correct me if I misspeak.

russellhltn wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:08 pm I like kjheinz's the idea of keeping them separate and not a sub-account of YM/YW/Primary.

Clarifying question on that:
I wasn't aware top-level budget categories could be created. Is that what is being suggested? For example, a top-level budget category called AMFA as a peer to YM, YW, Bishopric, Primary, Misc, etc.?

If that's the case, I'd definitely prefer to do that instead of the sub-category method I have done currently. It would help everyone involved carefully remember the separate procedures and policies surrounding these funds compared to normal budget funds. I mean, unless we're supposed to view and treat these funds the same as budget funds...but I don't believe that's the case.

mkmurray wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:41 pm I wasn't aware top-level budget categories could be created. Is that what is being suggested?

I'm not sure of the answer to that question. The way I read his post, he's going to add these under "Misc Account". I assume there's such a category at the top level.

mkmurray wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:41 pm I wasn't aware top-level budget categories could be created. Is that what is being suggested?

He suggested making them sub-categories of Misc. You can't create top-level categories.

larry19810 wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:45 pmBut the online donation slip no longer has an 'Other category' and there never was a 'budget' category or a 'local' category.

Payments for camps must be made with a physical check or cash in an envelope, not online. This hasn't changed.

larry19810 wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:45 pmEven if they give me a paper check (97% of our ward no longer do checks), I don't see how I can accept them in our donation processing stream. We only have access to the same categories that show on the donation slip online.

You can deposit to a budget category in LCR but those don't show up as an option for members on the Donations page.

eblood66 wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:12 am

mkmurray wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:41 pm I wasn't aware top-level budget categories could be created. Is that what is being suggested?

He suggested making them sub-categories of Misc. You can't create top-level categories.

You are correct, you can't create a top-level category; however, in each of my wards their is a "Miscellaneous" top-level category. My suggestion was to add all your camps as sub level accounts under this "Miscellaneous" category if you wish to keep them separate from the organizations budget accounts. Either way the wards/organizations would learn to review their budgets with proper training.

From a Stake perspective, I have many accounts that would not necessarilly fall under a specific organization as the are Multi-Stake activities such as "Multi-Stake Single Adults" and "Coordinating Council Communications" and what ever other activity they may assign our Stake as the lead Stake in our area.

I hope this clarifies my suggestion.

Is it possible that a Local category is going to appear under the Budget category, and that we will be able to do everything under Local that we used to do under Other:AMFA?

If that were to happen, and if Local were also to appear at the Online Donation site, I would be in Heaven. Oooh, the possibilities are endless. Am I dreaming? If so, I hope I do not wake up anytime soon.

EDIT: Having read the instructions at the Help Center again, I believe it is safe to ignore this post, even if it actually is a nice idea.

lajackson wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:03 pm Is it possible that a Local category is going to appear under the Budget category, and that we will be able to do everything under Local that we used to do under Other:AMFA?

Could be. It could also be this is a transition for ending all fundraising for camps. Maybe that's why they never added "Other" to on-line donations - because they knew it would be going away soon.

At this point both are speculation. But I'm easily entertained by speculation.

I just went back and read the instructions at the Help Center again. Everything is to transfer from AMFA to one of the Budget categories. And if you do not like a category that is already in Budget, you may create your own custom sub-category under one of the standard Budget categories.

I have not been in Finances recently enough to know what the standard Budget categories currently are, but I think one of them is Miscellaneous (thank you kjheinz). That might be the place to recreate the old AMFA subcategories that do not fit under one of the other existing Budget sub-categories.

I know that reading the Help Center instructions is a dangerous thing to do, but it sounds pretty simple to me.

lajackson wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:29 pm That might be the place to recreate the old AMFA subcategories that do not fit under one of the other existing Budget sub-categories.

I'm pretty sure there's a Primary, YM, and YW category. So there's no problem of making Primary Camp, YM Camp, and YW Camp fit. (Reading the Handbook 20.6, it seems questionable if there should be any other AMFA category - at least at the ward level.)

The question is does it become to confusing by having each category's general activity budget with their camp funding. That's why I think putting them all under Miscellaneous is a better idea.

russellhltn wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:16 pm

eblood66 wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 2:54 pm The audit forms no longer have any question related to the Other or AFMA accounts, nor do they have anything about camp payments or fundraisers.

Interesting. However, it's probably too soon to add guidance relating to new "camp within the budget", just removing what no longer applies.

But I'm starting to wonder if this isn't a transition to something else.

I am thinking it is transitioning to elimination of fund raisers in general. I think the days of doing an annual fund raiser that raised a lot of money to fund camps for 3+ years is gone. I think the intent really has always been that the "OTHER" account should have been a temporary use account within the budget year. You raise money for the event and spend all raised for the event, in the same year. If you raised to much, the message should be to scale back your fundraising activities. This change puts more focus back on activities of the church should be covered by budget allocations, which the handbook clearly states as the preferred way of funding activities.

Apart from the unconfirmed theories of possible decommission/discouragement of reliance on fundraisers, we do know the original announcement indicated a need for more flexibility for Church leadership to determine the best usage for general donations (not Tithing and Fast Offerings); though perhaps that's only relevant at the level of Church headquarters and not all the way down at the local level?

Either way, the one lingering question I have is around the funds that are formally from AMFA categories and if their original specific donation purpose needs to still be honored? Many of us have talked about having sub-categories in order to properly track how these funds are different/separate from normal budget funds, which my local unit has chosen to do thus far. However, I can't deny that official guidance does indicate that is merely one optional way to do it.

The fact of the matter is that the funds are now in budget and that appears to be the most critical result in decommissioning AMFA. A recent conversation with my financial auditor and stake clerk seem to indicate that perhaps these legacy funds can/should now be used and repurposed according to Bishop discretion just like any other budget funds. Is this accurate? Are we no longer required to track original purpose of AMFA funds and then utilize only for that purpose? Is that retroactive for any current balance of former AMFA funds, or more of a "from now on" thing?

mkmurray wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 12:59 pmThe fact of the matter is that the funds are now in budget and that appears to be the most critical result in decommissioning AMFA. A recent conversation with my financial auditor and stake clerk seem to indicate that perhaps these legacy funds can/should now be used and repurposed according to Bishop discretion just like any other budget funds. Is this accurate? Are we no longer required to track original purpose of AMFA funds and then utilize only for that purpose? Is that retroactive for any current balance of former AMFA funds, or more of a "from now on" thing?

I haven't seen anything addressing how those funds can or should be used now that they are in budget. And as far as I know all the policy documents regarding rules for the Other accounts have been removed. So right now (again as far as I know), written policy is silent on the issue.

What we do know that that we should not deposit anything in budget other than camp payments and funds from camp fundraisers (i.e. the FAQs on the Discontinuation of “Authorized Member Financed Activities” Category). Camp payments and fundraisers can be deposited in budget but so far we haven't been told anything about making sure they are used only for camp.

Out of an abundance of caution, I'd consider the old polices to still be in place. Mostly because it's easier to mingle the funds later than the try to separate them once they've been mingled and allocated (or even spent).

russellhltn wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:33 pm Out of an abundance of caution, I'd consider the old polices to still be in place. Mostly because it's easier to mingle the funds later than the try to separate them once they've been mingled and allocated (or even spent).

I totally agree with this statement. Until we get more guidance, it is better to be safe then sorry.

Couple of comments:

1) I like the ability to have a sub account under YM and YW for tracking Camp payments and Camp spending. Now the YW President can simply look at her YW budget and see where she is - I don’t have to say “this is budget and this is ‘Other’.”

2) As for online - is it wrong to have a member contribute online - say to ‘Ward Missionary’ and then send a text to the ward clerk saying they intended the contribution to hit YM High Adventure Camp - and then the ward clerk going into the online donation and changing it to the High Adventure Camp along with proper documentation (ie, copy of text)? That makes the member’s contribution online - it does complicate the ward clerk’s job though because now they have to document the paper trail.

I had a couple of members last year hit a donation to ‘Other’ online last year - something like Book of Mormon or whatever was under the General Church’s Other. Then they texted me and said they couldn’t find the YW Camp under Other, but they did a contribution anyway under Other. I had to go in and fix it.

Is it wrong to have a member hit the wrong category and have the ward clerk fix it? Not looking for a knee jerk ‘oh no no’ reaction. The Church doesn’t have the ability to hit Other (now Budget) directly from online - is this a workaround or something we would get sent to purgatory over?

barneja wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 3:21 pm 1) I like the ability to have a sub account under YM and YW for tracking Camp payments and Camp spending. Now the YW President can simply look at her YW budget and see where she is - I don’t have to say “this is budget and this is ‘Other’.”

Unless the policy has changed, they still can't use camp money for other YM activities. As such, the bottom line total is deceptive. Until further guidance, I think it's better to have two separate ones. Otherwise, the leader may put you in the uncomfortable position of trying to pay general activities out of camp funds.

barneja wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 3:21 pmIs it wrong to have a member hit the wrong category and have the ward clerk fix it? Not looking for a knee jerk ‘oh no no’ reaction. The Church doesn’t have the ability to hit Other (now Budget) directly from online - is this a workaround or something we would get sent to purgatory over?

I don't have an issue with an honest mistake, but I wouldn't encourage it. If abased, it will end. Just like how the church cracked down on units that had way too many "clerks" to grant LCR access to people who shouldn't have had access.

barneja wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 3:21 pmIs it wrong to have a member hit the wrong category and have the ward clerk fix it? Not looking for a knee jerk ‘oh no no’ reaction. The Church doesn’t have the ability to hit Other (now Budget) directly from online - is this a workaround or something we would get sent to purgatory over?

There was a thread about doing this a while back which included responses from one of the church developers: https://tech.churchofjesuschrist.org/fo ... 34#p223934

Basically, they know that there are units doing this but it isn't approved (but so far there hasn't been any official message about it). So far they haven't decided to block the ability but it might happen if it's abused. I suspect that if they have to do that, then it will make it harder for clerks to correct real mistakes.

It's going to get ugly if a member makes a "camp" donation electronically and it ends up going somewhere else and can't be fixed. In the past, the fixes have rolled out without notice.

So to suggest using it could put you in a bad position if it turns out to be disabled.

barneja wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 3:21 pm Is it wrong to have a member hit the wrong category and have the ward clerk fix it? Not looking for a knee jerk ‘oh no no’ reaction. The Church doesn’t have the ability to hit Other (now Budget) directly from online - is this a workaround or something we would get sent to purgatory over?

Disclaimer: I am not a tax expert nor do I represent the Church on this policy guidance; nor do I even have 2nd-hand knowledge about any intention or purpose of the current state of these financial policies and software features.

----------

I do have a theory based on previous policy and some of the recent announcements and category modifications. I believe the challenge the Church faces is differentiating between money that is given as an offering donation vs. money that is paid for services rendered. I think this distinction is critical for tax purposes and these two means of financial contribution are intended to be kept separate for that reason, the former being tax deductible and the latter not being so.

I believe that is why there was originally an "Other" category kept completely separate from all other budget categories. However as we've seen recently, it seems the ever-changing needs for the Church require more flexibility for central Church leadership (and perhaps local leadership?) to utilize funds in less restrictive protocols and purposes. I think that is why there is renewed messaging around free-will offerings being given to the Church and used according to its sole discretion, and also why there are condensed, more general, and higher-level categories.

More specifically to online, electronic payments vs. physical envelopes handled locally, it appears to me intentional that the Church hasn't created a way to pay for local activity funding online (perhaps for tax status differentiation purposes?). Of all the contributions you pay online via the Church's website, those funds are centrally received and managed and often used for purposes much larger than your local unit level. This would even include the subsidized monthly missionary payment program as well, since it's not a direct correlation between the exact money you send and how much your specific missionary is then allotted wherever they are in the world. Perhaps one exception to this is Fast Offerings, but even then it seems the local balances allotted to your unit appear to flow in and out of its account based on local needs as well as excess funds.

For this reason, I believe that the Church intentionally left off Authorized Member Financed Activities from the online portal. First, to make it clear it is a physical payment made only at the local unit level for services rendered, not a true donation and therefore not tax deductible. And second, a reminder that such approved activities should be first paid for by available local budget funds as much as possible before asking ward members to make a supplementary payment. I wouldn't be surprised if the Church soon further reminds us of that second point and tells us to live a little more within our means instead of ever year expecting an annual fundraiser for those expensive camps and high adventures we sometimes push the limits on. Certainly a balance to strike somewhere in there; but if we aren't more prudent I could see the privilege being further restricted in the future?

Hopefully these thoughts are useful context. For these reasons, I personally discourage the workaround you mention. I think the ability to edit/correct a donation in this way is intended only for true mistakes made due to human error. I could be totally wrong, but I believe the lack of ability to contribute these type of local funds online is indeed intentional.

mkmurray wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:09 pm I do have a theory based on previous policy and some of the recent announcements and category modifications. I believe the challenge the Church faces is differentiating between money that is given as an offering donation vs. money that is paid for services rendered. I think this distinction is critical for tax purposes and these two means of financial contribution are intended to be kept separate for that reason, the former being tax deductible and the latter not being so.

I appreciate your response mkmurray -- and I probably agree -- but because I am a pain-in-the-neck and because I like to question things like this I'll continue . . .

For tax reporting I agree the church needs to differentiate on contributions. Tithing, Fast Offerings, Ward Missionary, are likely tax deductible -- while contributing to a camp would not be tax deductible. However, adjusting an online donation vs donating on paper will give the same answer. Either way (paper or adjusted online), the contribution that hits 'High Adventure' will be non-tax deductible. Once the Church left the 'Other' realm and intermingled the Other/Budet funds the only official tracking we have is when the initial funds enter the Budget category. Did it enter via a contribution from a member or from an allocation of Church funds? If it entered via a contribution -- whether by paper contribution or adjusted online contribution -- then it is not tax deductible. I agree that the contributor's initial online donation (to Ward Missionary or whatever) would have been potentially tax deductible; however, once it is reclassed to 'High Adventure' then it is no longer tax deductible.

Look -- the easier road is for us to simply tell members we only accept a paper check. My life is easier just following the yellow brick road and not making any waves. I just wonder if we would be of more service to our 'customers' if we looked into what would be acceptable? I am not advocating we do anything the church does not want done -- and maybe I should interpret the church not making this available is their way of telling us it is inappropriate to use the adjusted online approach. I am simply stopping to ask if we could simplify the lives of those making contributions. Not all of us have checks anymore -- some of us only have checks to pay for our youth activities because virtually every other company/entity on this planet accepts online payments for everything. For youth activities I personally write a check from my Bill Pay from my bank and send it to me because I don't keep paper checks any longer.

My theory on why we don't have online access for camp contributions? Ward Clerks are the ones who setup the Budget Categories for their local ward. We as clerks could potentially flag a budget sub-category that is marked for online donations that can be seen by members contributing online. However, what if one of us creates an improper sub-category (ie, 'Sub for Santa') that is visible for all to see? Wouldn't that put some pressure on our 501(c) classification? And sometimes we need to manage to the lowest common denominator of our customer's technology utilization. So, to keep it simple we simply tell our customers they need to contribute by check if they want to contribute to a camp.

You could ask why the Church then doesn't make a generic 'Local' category that hits our budgets where we (as clerks) can transfer the funds to the appropriate sub-category? Same reply -- we develop technology to the lowest common denominator. What if a family makes an online contribution for their 17-year old son's High Adventure, 15 year-old daughter's YW camp, and 14-year old daughter's YW camp, and 14-year old daughter's Oak Crest Camp? How does the clerk know what part of that online donation was for what camp? Gets confusing so the Church just says make them do it on paper where they can have evidence of saying "Mitch's High Adventure Camp, Brittany's Oak Crest, Brittany's YW Camp, etc".

Anyway -- it is all theoretical until the Church gives us guidance. In the mean-time I'll just stay in the camp with those of us saying to simply do paper contributions for camps and everything else can be online. I guess I don't like the 'just jump in the box' mentality sometimes even though I think the box is quite comfortable . . .

Again -- thank you mkmurray and others for your thoughtful responses.

barneja wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 4:59 pm Not all of us have checks anymore --

My "checking" account does not allow me to write personal checks. I had one that did, and the only checks I wrote for over two years were to the Church. Then I was forced for unrelated reasons to change banks and my current checking account does not allow for check writing.

So the workaround for me is to use my bank Bill Pay service and make the bank write and mail the check when there is not a category to use at the Online Donation site.

Some countries do not have checks at all. Somehow the Church has managed to adapt there. And I have told the story before of a General Authority Seventy called from Europe and assigned to Church headquarters who had to open a U.S. checking account to pay his tithing. He had not written a check in over 15 years, and he was instrumental in the effort to get online donations established by the Church in the U.S. I was able (almost) to end the use of my bank bill pay system.

I agree with your assessment that putting hundreds of local accounts online to facilitate donation would not only be difficult, but likely an unwanted flag for the U.S. tax system. There has always been a concerted effort to stop the tax deduction of all charitable contributions.

I am now in a position (i.e., old enough) to pay my tithing through qualified charitable distributions (QCD) from my individual retirement account (IRA). Oddly enough, the federal government requires my IRA custodian to write a paper check and mail it. There is no provision in the law for an electronic transfer of the funds.

We still live in a curious world. At least I do not have to go fishing to get money to split between my taxes and my tithes and other offerings. (Matthew 17:27; 22:21; Luke 20:25.)

I can only imagine how fascinating it would be to make my new Tithing Declaration. Well, bishop, I really prefer the Zoom Magnum Ultra Vibe Speed Craw Lure for all my tithing needs. You should try it. And the ward already has a Zoom account. [grin]