Tithing The Tax Return

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ryan&Amber2013

Puritan Board Senior
So, how would you advise someone who faithfully tithes their income all year, but wants to use the 10 percent they get back on their taxes, to put aside for doing good works for people in the church throughout the year? For buying gifts, making dinner for people, acts of mercy, etc.

Keep in mind though, they regularly tithe out of their paycheck. Could you say this is wrong?
 
So, how would you advise someone who faithfully tithes their income all year, but wants to use the 10 percent they get back on their taxes, to put aside for doing good works for people in the church throughout the year? For buying gifts, making dinner for people, acts of mercy, etc.

Keep in mind though, they regularly tithe out of their paycheck. Could you say this is wrong?

If they tithe gross then I would say no. If they tithe net then I'd say yes to giving from the refund.
 
Well, just to hammer on a pet peeve (because the title references "return"):

A return is the report you send to Treasury. The money that comes from them is a refund.

So, they should treat the refund as they would any other refund.

Of course, it gets complicated if you get back more than you pay in, as with an earned income credit, etc.

But if you follow the "give freely" approach with your ignorant left hand (Mat. 6:3), it doesn't have to be complicated.
 
What was the regular tithe based upon? Gross, Net of Taxes, Net of all deductions, or some other formula?

Note, if you are getting a large refund, you are doing things wrong and giving the government an interest free loan.
 
I think it's a wonderful idea! I say go for it! You'll also be active in hospitality which is something God calls us to do.

Also, there's nothing in the NT that says you have to tithe 10%. Some people tithe more than 10% out of their wealth others tithe out of their poverty that which they have. God calls us to be cheerful givers.
 
A return is the report you send to Treasury. The money that comes from them is a refund.

They are returning your money to you. Whereas the documents you file return nothing to anyone.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 1980

" And "unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning." Perrin v. United States, 444 U. S. 37, 444 U. S. 42 (1979)."
 
They are returning your money to you. Whereas the documents you file return nothing to anyone.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 1980

" And "unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning." Perrin v. United States, 444 U. S. 37, 444 U. S. 42 (1979)."

Except for the tax code ;)

"Return" isn't expressly defined, but it is used in such a way throughout the code to refer to that report of income most of us send to them, in one way or another.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6012
 
Unless I missed Ryan's question it seemed to be simply "is it wrong for someone to give 10% on a income-tax refund who had previously given 10% on all his income?" The answer to that is, obviously, "no, one can give as he sees fit."

Maybe the question was meant to be not "is it wrong to do so?" but "is it required to do so?" Well clearly it is not required, whatever one may think about the requirement (or lack of such)with respect to "tithing in the New Testament." This is a situation where the person has paid 10% on the income (I am assuming gross) and what he is getting back is the amount that he overpaid the government in taxes. But he's given ("tithed") on the income.

He's free to do what he wills with his return, understanding that we are always God's stewards in the use of our monies. He may give the whole return to the church or an extra-ecclesiastical agency of some sort if he so desires.

Peace,
Alan
 
Edward and Victor, I am completely lost with your posts :scratch:, but my soul has a peaceful feeling and tells me that's okay. Thankfully that "Strange" man (pun intended) chimed in and clarified things for me. Just a joke Alan. Thanks for the input!
 
Edward and Victor, I am completely lost with your posts

He's arguing the law. I'm arguing common sense. The law is always going to trump common sense. So don't try to make my argument to the IRS. A judge would probably give me points for creativity before ruling against me.
 
As tithing is not a New Testament requirement, your problem is solved.

For anyone who may have read earlier my post on my own struggles with giving, I wanted to tell you that I deleted it as being too far off topic. And probably too personal.
 
Tithing (as an annual obligation) is not a New Testament requirement. It is part of the civil law given to Israel at Mount Sinai. For a full explanation see here:
https://www.amazon.com/Should-Chris...518967169&sr=8-1&keywords=iain+duguid+tithing

Of course, before church treasurers get nervous, excelling in the grace of giving is something the New Testament encourages Christians to do. Recognizing the proper Biblical role of the tithe frees us from legalistic questions like "should I tithe on the gross or the net?", which is really a question about minimums and not excellence. My book also explores the general equity of the OT tithe, and ways in which it lines up with NT admonitions on giving.
 
Thanks, Iain. I agree with your view of the matter and am glad that you've written this. I will now refer inquirers on the subject to your little book.

I responded in a PM to Brother Ed (Walsh) in re: his original inquiry. I did so privately because I didn't want to derail this thread, but am happy to note that what I said to him is in agreement with your position. Ed has now edited it, but he raised good questions, sufficient to merit its own thread, it seems to me.

At any rate, thanks for yours service to the church in putting this out there.

Peace,
Alan
 
Tithing (as an annual obligation) is not a New Testament requirement. It is part of the civil law given to Israel at Mount Sinai.

Mr. Duguid,

Does your book discuss Hebrews 7, specifically where the tithe Abraham gave to Melchizedek is discussed? I've heard this passage used by some to argue that Abraham's descendants (us) should tithe since the head of our church (Jesus) is a type of Melchizedek, etc.

Have you heard this argument before? What in your view is the best response to it?

Thanks in advance.
 
Mr. Duguid,

Does your book discuss Hebrews 7, specifically where the tithe Abraham gave to Melchizedek is discussed? I've heard this passage used by some to argue that Abraham's descendants (us) should tithe since the head of our church (Jesus) is a type of Melchizedek, etc.

Have you heard this argument before? What in your view is the best response to it?

Thanks in advance.
I briefly discuss the tithe paid by Abraham to Melchizedek and note that it, along with Jacob's tithe, both reflect 10% of the proceeds of a specific venture - in Abraham's case of the spoils of battle as an act of thanksgiving (see Hebrews 7:4) and in Jacob's case his prospering while outside the Promised Land. Under other circumstances, Abraham would have been under no obligation to tithe to Melchizedek, and we find no record of the patriarchs paying an annual tithe to anyone. These events certainly bear no resemblance to the later annual tithe of agricultural produce that was part of the Sinai covenant. So it would seem a stretch to draw from it a law of Christian tithing. But if instead of law (tithing) our focus is on excelling in the grace of giving, all such questions become moot. Instead of asking what is the minimum I must give, we ask what is the maximum I can possibly give, in light of the grace I have received in the gospel.
 
I believe AW Pink would disagree--didn't he write a whole book on it? And most reformed churches seem to require tithing.

If a church "requires" tithing, then that church has gone beyond what the New Testament has to say about the matter. If people want to tithe voluntarily, that's fine. But it's not a requirement.
 
Tithing is not historically Presbyterian (I can't spreak to other nonconformist traditions), and by that I mean, it came in later, and I suspect at least in America due to no longer being state established churches played some part. In the Southern Presbyterian church I recall from my readings in the digest of the minutes, tithing was brought up frequently to GAs in the mid to late 19th century to try to make it common practice, which implies it was introduced by individual churches up to that point and was not a practice before.
 
Give whatever you can give. If paying the mosaic tithe works for you, it's a fantastic water mark. If you're filthy rich, you better be giving more than 10 percent. If giving 10 percent would cause your electricity to be shut off, cause an eviction, or your car being repossessed, give less. It's simple really.
 
or else?...
No or else. I just strongly doubt that our Father would appreciate that type of allocation of resources. The point I'm making is this; give what you can. If you're very wealthy, you can afford more than 10 percent to God's church. If you're poor, you can't even afford 10 percent to begin with. The whole point is moot, none of us are Levites anyway.
 
Give whatever you can give. If paying the mosaic tithe works for you, it's a fantastic water mark. If you're filthy rich, you better be giving more than 10 percent. If giving 10 percent would cause your electricity to be shut off, cause an eviction, or your car being repossessed, give less. It's simple really.

Now allow us to be consistent. If one is filthy rich and thinks one is required to give above 10% then such thinking is legalistic.
 
Nah, it's following Jesus. That's not legalistic, following mosaic law is.
There is nothing inherently legalistic in following God's law (which is what the Mosaic law is). But we do need to distinguish between civil, ceremonial and moral law, in order to make the right application of the Mosaic law (I include a section in my ebook on this, since I find many Reformed Christians are surprisingly unfamiliar with these confessional concepts). Even if the tithe is civil law, which I argue that it is, there will still be appropriate general equity application to us as believers. Hence the need for the e-book!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top