CUBS Donor Names

Working with a ward clerk, we discovered Donor Names can still be edited to reflect both the husband and wife's names as was previously the case. The Donor Name will still need to be associated with a member record.

It appears the only change was to reset all Donor Names to the name that is on the membership record.

We've been mulling this issue over and I haven't been able to find a suitable answer. According to one of the CUBS eDocs that we received, husband and wife names can not appear on the same donation. Like you mentioned, we have discovered that donor names CAN still be edited to show husband and wife, but our question is SHOULD they be.

It seems to me that it is only editing the name (middle) of the donor (i.e Jones, John Smith to Jones, John & Mary). Its not actually making a link to the donations of a spouse. Also, as mentioned elsewhere, it appears the spouse CAN make a donation and then be merged, as before, but SHOULD we doing this?

We have several members who've expressed significant frustration about not having donations and records be kept jointly, and are looking for the most appropriate way to handle their concerns.

quetzal513 wrote:We have discovered that donor names CAN still be edited to show husband and wife, but our question is SHOULD they be.

Note that the donor records still can only be linked to one membership record number. The tithing settlement and tax statements will still have that member's name listed.

I'm not sure why the CUBS conversion changed all the donor names to match the name on the linked membership record. I'm even more confused as to why they would go to that work and then allow it to be undone manually. The documentation said that it would not be possible, but either the documentation was wrong or the feature didn't get implemented properly.

In any case, I personally think that if the donor names were intentionally changed during conversion (and it seems pretty clear that they were), then we should stick with that convention and leave the names the way they are -- one name per donor record, which matches the name on the linked membership record.

Alan_Brown wrote:Note that the donor records still can only be linked to one membership record number.

And I believe it's always been that way. So no change there. The changing of the name is simply conforming to that.

I've never claimed to be a tax expert, but I'm unaware of anything that would cause a problem for anyone filing their taxes (at least in the U.S.). It is up to the member(s) as to how they want to apply the donation to their taxes.

OTOH, I can think of possible reasons why the church would not want to place two membership records on a single donation.

So while it may be possible to put two names on a donation, and it would make some members happy, I don't know as it's wise to do so.

It's an MLS limitation that you are still allowed to edit the donor name. There is no point in doing it, because if the donor is linked to the membership record, the donor record will be refreshed back to the name on the membership record after subsequent Send/Receive Changes.

The tax issue raises a question, if only to be clear about what I'm seeing.

In the US tax system, a couple can either file jointly, or file separately when they file their tax return. What can be done to ensure that if they also desire to have their own tithing and offerings, that the Tax Valid statement can be correct for each person? Is that what was intended by the changes mentioned here and in another thread? Or is something somehow set so that the donations are somehow being aggregated under the family name, usually under the head of household?

A separate tax valid statement for each spouse is desirable in the cases where the couple is filing separately rather than jointly. If a couple files jointly, which is common, I don't think it affects things to have things under one name and it could be either.

JamesAnderson wrote:What can be done to ensure that if they also desire to have their own tithing and offerings, that the Tax Valid statement can be correct for each person? Is that what was intended by the changes mentioned here and in another thread? Or is something somehow set so that the donations are somehow being aggregated under the family name, usually under the head of household?

Donations are made by an individual, and are credited to an individual. There is no way to aggregate donations under the family name. That has been the case for several years, since a donor record could only be linked to one membership record. But the ability to change the donor record to have two names on it, even though it could only be linked to one individual, made it possible to confuse who was the donor. The new system makes it crystal clear which individual made the donations.

Because of the previous possibility for ambiguity, it certainly may be the case that a donation was credited to the wrong person. In those situations (such as the case mentioned above where an active woman made donations, but they were recorded for a donor record linked to the inactive husband's name) clerks need to go back and correct the donations.

This requires a change in mindset by both clerks and some donors, but it's a good thing to make it clear exactly who the donor is, instead of hiding it in a link behind a donor record that might be worded differently. We just have to get used to it.

JamesAnderson wrote:What can be done to ensure that if they also desire to have their own tithing and offerings, that the Tax Valid statement can be correct for each person?

How are the donation slips being written? Are some "John Doe" and some "Jane Doe"? If so, then they should be handled as individuals. The fact they are married to each other doesn't matter.

If the slips say "John and Jane Doe", then you need to pick one name. (Usually the Head of House, but it doesn't have to be) and process the donation under that name.

Or am I misunderstanding the question?

RussellHltn wrote:If the slips say "John and Jane Doe", then you need to pick one name. (Usually the Head of House, but it doesn't have to be) and process the donation under that name.

In this particular case, I would suggest that you would want to contact the couple, tell them about the CUBS change that only allows the crediting of the contribution to one individual or the other, and ask them which they would prefer.

If you were to ask me that question, I would be fiesty and tell you that one half should be credited in my name and the other half should be credited in my wife's name, in order to meet certain legal requirements of the law.

You would then be very polite, smile, and suggest that, if we wished to have our contribution credited that way, from now on we would need to fill out two slips and write two checks, one in each of our names.

We would then both laugh, grumble about CUBS, and wander off to our meetings.

All kidding aside, though. You really should check with John and Jane Doe donors, let them know what has happened, and let them decide how to handle it. This will make it so much easier for them at tax time, for which we are not responsible, and into which we keep bumping because money is involved. But getting it right will make all the difference in the world to the members involved.

lajackson wrote:This will make it so much easier for them at tax time

It does? Without going too deep into taxes:

If they are filing jointly, I fail to see how the name makes a difference (as long as it's not someone else's.)

But, if they are filing separately, then yes, they probably should decide what name it should be under. But then if it was a joint name, I'd image there would be a problem anyway.

Or am I missing something? (Like waiting until tax time to decide how to divvy up the receipt.)

lajackson wrote:You would then be very polite, smile, and suggest that, if we wished to have our contribution credited that way, from now on we would need to fill out two slips and write two checks, one in each of our names.

Just to be nit picking - it is not necessary to write two checks because MLS can handle multiple donors from one check. What is important is that there be a donation slip for each donor.

RussellHltn wrote:Without going too deep into taxes:
. . . if they are filing separately,

Deep enough. Throw in community property laws, income based child support court orders, alimony, and a few other goodies and you're almost there.

jdlessley wrote:Just to be nit picking - it is not necessary to write two checks because MLS can handle multiple donors from one check. What is important is that there be a donation slip for each donor.

Excellent point. I had forgotten that. Although this, too, has interesting tax ramifications. But that is neither here nor there as far as MLS financial procedures go. The donation slips do provide clerks the best direction.

I think the main problem is one of members' expectations, and this change will probably surprise some folks. In the past, members who filled in slips captioned as "Doe, John & Jane" have been used to seeing their donation statements follow the same style. That is no longer possible.

Tithing settlement provides an opportunity to explain this change in person and answer members' questions.

I am half way through tithing settlement and have had the question come up twice about donor names. Both questions from stay at home moms.

For them it isn't a "tax question." It is a "value of women" question. When we handed the families their donor statements, mom gets a blank one that shows she has not paid any tithing in the year because it is all under the husbands name. In both cases, the wives are the ones that run the household finances, balance the family budget and see that the tithing is paid, yet seem to get no credit on the forms we hand out.

So my question is: Is the information here still accurate that with the new CUBS, I can have my clerk change the donor statement to show "Doe, John & Jane?"

TinMan wrote:So my question is: Is the information here still accurate that with the new CUBS, I can have my clerk change the donor statement to show "Doe, John & Jane?"

Not really. MLS will let you change the donor name, but the next time you do a Send/Receive, it will change it right back to the name of the individual on the linked membership record, so there's no point in doing it. I wish it didn't let you change it at all.

I know it can be an emotional issue, but we just need to kindly educate members that it is simply an accounting procedure -- it has nothing to do with a person's value. There's also nothing stopping a couple from making all the donations in the wife's name -- if they file taxes jointly it wouldn't make any difference. But that's up to the couple.

Thank you for the ideas. I will put them to the test...

TinMan wrote:Thank you for the ideas. I will put them to the test...

If you're thinking about fudging the receipts to make someone happy, I'd suggest you think again. There's a reason the church did that. It might very well be a tax reason. You don't mess with the IRS.

If these are stay at home moms with no income, then they wouldn't pay any tithing. If they were to donate Fast Offerings under their own name, then they wouldn't be getting blank sheets of paper at Tithing Settlement.

I have had the exact same comments as TinMan from sisters in my ward and, believe me, just saying "It's a new church procedure" doesn't get us very far at all. Frankly, it's a very blunt position and I wouldn't be surprised to see the policy change back in the future. From a sister's point of view, this is a real smack in the face: everywhere in church literature it says that sisters are of equal importance as brethren . . . except for tithing statements?
I agree that a family can opt to make all statements in the wife's name, but that's no solution really, it's just flipping it around and then husbands will be the ones left scratching their heads.
MLS should allow for a common non-tax related statement for a household and separate forms for tax purposes for single tax payers. My 2 cents.

timothy.fratta wrote:I have had the exact same comments as TinMan from sisters in my ward and, believe me, just saying "It's a new church procedure" doesn't get us very far at all. Frankly, it's a very blunt position and I wouldn't be surprised to see the policy change back in the future. From a sister's point of view, this is a real smack in the face: everywhere in church literature it says that sisters are of equal importance as brethren . . . except for tithing statements?
I agree that a family can opt to make all statements in the wife's name, but that's no solution really, it's just flipping it around and then husbands will be the ones left scratching their heads.
MLS should allow for a common non-tax related statement for a household and separate forms for tax purposes for single tax payers. My 2 cents.

This has already been done in MLS 3.3. You can edit the donor record (Add/Update Donors) and check the box to include the spouse on donor statements. The donations would still be made typically in the husband's name when you process weekly donations, but if you check that box on the husband's donor record, then donor statements will include both husband and wife's names.

Not every unit has upgraded to MLS 3.3 (it's an optional upgrade until the end of January), but if this is an important issue to members of your ward, I would recommend that you upgrade before you print the tax statements.

aebrown wrote:This has already been done in MLS 3.3. You can edit the donor record (Add/Update Donors) and check the box to include the spouse on donor statements. The donations would still be made typically in the husband's name when you process weekly donations, but if you check that box on the husband's donor record, then donor statements will include both husband and wife's names.

This is a nice feature-add. I just checked it out and although it lists the spouse on the next line and labels them "Spouse: Doe, Jane", as opposed to "Doe, John & Jane" on the first line, this should appease most.

As with 2011, it works for 2010 statements as well, a bit late for Tithing Settlement but might be timely for Tax Valid statements that haven't gone out yet.

Given the discussion about "one name only" in this thread, I find it interesting that the Tax Valid statement (at least the US one) titles the donor as "Donor(s):", regardless of whether the spouse is listed or not.

Now I'm wondering how long it's going to take me to edit and check the box of all but the few who pay separately. I wish I could apply it across the board and then go remove it from the few who pay separately. Is there a way to do that?

I also notice that checking the box to include the spouse on the financial reports creates an entry of "Add participant" on the next financial transmission report. This seems like a bug.

The CUBS section on donor names in the Wiki should be updated to include this feature.
Currently it doesn't appear.

aebrown wrote:This has already been done in MLS 3.3. You can edit the donor record (Add/Update Donors) and check the box to include the spouse on donor statements. The donations would still be made typically in the husband's name when you process weekly donations, but if you check that box on the husband's donor record, then donor statements will include both husband and wife's names.

Well, that is backwards. They should have defaulted everyone to have their spouse appear together and have you check a box if you didn't want it that way. That would make more sense, it seems to me.

TinMan wrote:Well, that is backwards. They should have defaulted everyone to have their spouse appear together and have you check a box if you didn't want it that way. That would make more sense, it seems to me.

I disagree. In my very limited understanding of US tax structure, the current default is safer, even if it is less common.

RussellHltn wrote:I disagree. In my very limited understanding of US tax structure, the current default is safer, even if it is less common.

Why do yo think that?

Especially when it comes out:
Doe, John
Spouse: Doe, Mary

Instead of Doe, John & Mary.

It seems to me that the way it is structured, the IRS would look at it as John Doe's donation and the "Spouse: Doe, Mary" as informational only.

TinMan wrote:It seems to me that the way it is structured, the IRS would look at it as John Doe's donation and the "Spouse: Doe, Mary" as informational only.

For tax purposes, if a couple files jointly, any donations made by either person are perfectly acceptable. So "Doe, John", "Doe, Mary", or "Doe, John & Mary" will all work just fine.

But if they file separately, then "Doe, John & Mary" is problematic, since it doesn't specify who made the donation. So the new way of recording these donations works better for that case, which is relatively rare, but does indeed happen, and is just as good for the case of filing jointly.

I think I understand the filing jointly thing, but the way the donor record is printed is

Donor: Doe, John
Spouse: Doe, Mary.


I assume hers would be
Donor: Doe, Mary
Spouse: Doe, John

But in the case of separate filings, Isn't the IRS going to simply look at that first line as the donor?

If it said:
Donor: Doe, John
Spouse: Doe, Mary
Children: Doe, Steve
Doe, Sue

Are you saying the IRS would look at the earnings of the wife and children? That hasn't been my experience, but perhaps I just haven't had enough. I still don't understand why it is "safer" to have the default be "don't put both names on the donation slip."

But in the grand scheme of things, I suppose it doesn't really matter. It just seems like more work to change 175 records to be joint names and leave the 2 that want separate ones, than the other way around.

Plus, it would be easier going forward if the defaut were both names on the donor records. When someone new moves in the ward and you set up their donation record, it is going to default to the way most people don't want it. It seems to me that since it is such an easy thing to change at Tithing settlement, it would be easier to change only one or two than to change 30 or 40.

TinMan wrote:Are you saying the IRS would look at the earnings of the wife and children? That hasn't been my experience, but perhaps I just haven't had enough. I still don't understand why it is "safer" to have the default be "don't put both names on the donation slip."

Nope, I didn't say that.

Okay, then more directly, How is

Donor: Doe, John
Spouse: Doe, Mary

"problematic" for the IRS? I understand how:

Donor: Doe, John & Mary

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

TinMan wrote:Okay, then more directly, How is

Donor: Doe, John
Spouse: Doe, Mary

"problematic" for the IRS? I understand how:

Donor: Doe, John & Mary

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

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

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

Okay, I understand that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

eblood66 wrote:I don't know what the IRS thinks, but I would assume that if the spouse is listed on the donation statement they were associated with it. Otherwise there is no reason why the spouse should be listed. If it was merely informational then it wouldn't have to be an option. MLS could just include the spouse on every donation statement.

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

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

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

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