A lot depends on the size of the parish, imho. If it's a two-Mass-per-weekend parish, in a little church, not always full, then future musicians aren't likely to ever be paid either.

In any case I don't think any Catholic should ever avoid volunteering for reasons of solidarity with other, paid professionals. St. Paul said that sharing the Gospel for free was itself a kind of payment for him. Even though he acknowledged that he was entitled to be paid, he gloried in volunteering. So I think it's a fine thing to be able to do.

Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, or maybe this isn't even healthy/holy thinking, but I actually have always felt very funny about volunteering my services for something that I've been professionally trained in. For some odd reason I feel much more comfortable just volunteering at any old thing (eg, helping at a fish fry or whatever.) Like, I've spent ALL this money and time to be trained in this, so shouldn't I always be paid to do it?

redsox makes me think of another point-
I suppose this could be asked of any professional. What if I were a trained accountant, and my church advertised for a volunteer to help them with their finances? I suppose that person would just have to decide if they were willing. What if there was no advertisement, but the accountant saw a need and thought he could help.... should he just offer to do it, or should he ask to get paid what he is worth?

As far as future musicians being held up to your example...

My friend Jen (whom you've met) took a position at a church almost a year ago. After playing her first service, an old lady came up to her: "I'm ready to go whenever you are!" Turns out the prior organist always gave her a ride home. So Jen should too.

I think professionals can and do offer professional-level services for free at their parish. Accountants serve on finance councils, teachers teach ccd, etc.

I am also confused by this. If, for example, you make $10,000 a year in your paid work and you "volunteer" for another $5,000 of work under Paul's scenario, wouldn't it work out like this:

job 1 = $10,000
job 2 = $5,000
SUB - TOTAL = $15,000

Donations = $5,000 (deduction)

GRAND TOTAL = $10,000 (15,000 - 5,000)

That looks to me like you're exactly where you started. If I'm somehow mistaken, perhaps someone could clarify? I just don't see the benefit to either party under this scenario.

Marajoy – personally, I would accept a check for $100 and make a $100 donation. So over a year, I might be getting about $5,000 extra “income” from the church, and be making a $5,000 cumulative donation. The extra income tax I would be paying on the $5,000 would – in my case – be compensated when I claim a corresponding tax credit for the $5,000 donation.

Not everyone is in the same financial situation or taxation circumstances, however, so I gave the example of a $90 donation as a way to illustrate a legitimate method of ensuring that things balance out for you in the end, if that suits your circumstances better. You would be donating back your fee less costs, i.e. the extra tax you might have to pay. Yes, in this scenario, the church is out $10 per Mass, but they are still saving 90% of the actual cost! Bargoon! But this $90 example is only for those who would be at a disadvantage from a tax perspective.

As for extra paperwork --- most parishes use accounting software, and would include this donation in your annual tax receipt along with weekly and other donations made to the parish. No extra work in this, really. Parishes should also have no trouble with monthly invoices and payments, since the secretary or accountant is normally doing batches of these anyway, or the lights go out, etc. You can wait for the charitable donation receipt at the end of the year, but I would recommend a monthly invoice and payment, just to keep on top of things, rather than trying to settle it all at the end of the year.

Tax deduction.

If you use a program to do your taxes, you might be surprised at how much you would benefit by earning $5,000 more and donating it. Some people appreciate the tax relief made possible in this way. But as I said, it will be different in different income brackets and in different states and countries.

You might not come out ahead financially. But that wasn’t the idea of this post.

If you re-read Marajoy’s initial post, I think you will see the issues this solution is intended to address.

But before I put in my two cents, two things...First, a disclaimer: I am not providing professional legal advice. Second, this only applies to Federal income tax.

Irishtenor is right insofar as a deduction on income that is only earned to produce that deduction puts you in no better a tax position then you were previously. If anything, it only benefits the parish since they are getting musical services at a cheaper rate than they otherwise would. Other than that, it either doesn't help the taxpayer or makes him worse off. Here's why:

1) You can claim a deduction for charitable contributions, but only if you itemize. If you take the standard deduction and don't itemize, you can't deduct your aggregate charitable contributions no matter how many you have made. Period. So, unless you itemize, this sort of arrangement makes you worse off. (Unless you get paid "under the table" with cash out of the collection plate. Legally and morally, this is still income and should be reported. And I would never encourage someone to try and get away with it, but I recognize that it probably happens in a lot of parishes rather frequently.)

2) If you do itemize, this gives you no real benefit, as I previously mentioned. You're only deducting income that you wouldn't have been taxed on to begin with. If you make enough money, though, you'll end up worse off. Most church musicians are independent contractors. As sole proprietors, they have to pay self-employment tax above and beyond regular income tax. Deductions may lower their taxable income, but they still need to pay S-E tax. And you can only get a credit for half of your S-E tax. It may not be much, but it is making you "worse off."

3) Adding more money to your gross taxable income has the potential to raise you into another tax bracket, depending on what other sort of income you already have. If the extra $5k-10k you will be making a year, for example, bumps you up into a higher bracket, you could end up paying more taxes regardless of the charitable deduction.

4) Finally, if you happen to get audited and the auditor somehow finds out that you've purposefully designed your taxes this way--even though there is no tax benefit--they could (although it is unlikely) deny the charitable deduction, leaving you to pay the tax on the extra income. To be a charitable donation there has to be sufficient donative intent. Taking on a job, turning the money right back around, and taking the deduction smells fishy.

All that being said, a parish should fairly compensate its workers. That's part of Catholic Social Teaching. It is one thing if it can't afford to do so, but if it has the means, it should. Most priests don't really appreciate the effort, time, and preparation that goes into providing quality music for the Mass. Lay committees understand this even less. But everyone understands money, and will try to part with as little of it as they can!

FICA (Social Security) and Medicare taxes also have an effect on the plan of donating one's pay to the parish. If a parish hires a musician as an employee, the parish pays the payroll tax, i.e., the employer's share of FICA (Social Security) and Medicare taxes, on the payroll amount. The rate is usually 7.65%, though a temporary reduction is in effect this year. So the parish has to budget for that cost and for any benefits provided to part-time employees. It still seems a modest cost for the benefit of getting the employee's services.

The employee would have to pay an equal amount for FICA + Medicare, deducted from the paycheck; this tax is not offset by a charitable contribution deduction.

Paul... but don't you still have to pay taxes on things like that even if it's not "payroll?" If you make over a certain amount, then you have to fill out the self-employed tax form. (or whatever.)
So that would TOTALLY defeat the point... you're basically giving the government money to do what you could have volunteered for!

The law is very clear: the government can tax anything that constitutes income. The only things that prevents it from taxing everything are specific prohibitions in the Tax Code, the case law, and mere administrative costs.

"Income" for tax purposes includes any sort of compensation, even if you don't have a tax receipt, etc. While an employer/contractee does not have to report to the IRS for monthly compensation below $600 made to any single employee/contractor, that doesn't mean that money is excludable from taxable income. It only means that the individual receiving the payments is responsible for keeping tracking on his own and reporting it accordingly.

To illustrate: most church musicians are not employees. They don't get a W-2. Instead, if they get paid over $600/month, they get a Form 1099. Otherwise, they keep track on their own. Either way, they have to report all the money received in consideration for their services. They pay income tax upon it, as well as self-employment tax.

If you get paid only $100/month and don't report anything, you'll probably get away with it. But I wouldn't take the chance; eventually, you'll get caught. And given the direction this country is going, I wouldn't even try to evade taxes on a measly $1,200. It won't be worth it, notwithstanding the immorality of most taxation. It is better simply to volunteer your musical services (the value of which is not deductible as a charitable contribution BTW) and enjoy the happy glow of self-satisfaction and spiritual contentment in return!

Please note that I never even so much as suggested that you would not declare said income under discussion on your tax return.

I’m going to stick by my guns and say that, under some circumstances, it is better not to be treated as any other volunteer, if it reinforces the notion in some places that musicians really should volunteer and should not expect to be paid, even if the parish can afford it and wants a decent music program. Funny how some parishes find money for everything but the music program. We need to fix this situation.

So I would say, Father, you can’t afford my services right now, but until the parish sorts out its finances, I will donate what you pay me (less expenses) back to the parish. I’ll help you out in this way until you hire a permanent organist (music director, etc.), or either one of us find it just isn’t working for whatever reason. If the chancery OK’s that you give me a tax receipt, fine, but my offer isn’t contingent upon that.

I’m not suggesting that no one ever volunteer their musical services. Volunteering is certainly the ideal thing to do, in some times and places. But standing up for principles at no inconvenience to the church is not such a bad thing, if it helps promote respect for the vocation of the church musician. It’s different for a secretary or a nurse or a landscaper to do volunteer service for the church --- they are normally paid and the church doesn’t expect to get their services for free all the time. But some pastors still think musicians should work for free, even if that’s how they would normally make a living --- that’s the problem.

Of course these things are entirely at-will. The pastor can hire you if he thinks it's right, and you can do the work if you think it's right. But he can't make you volunteer, and you can't make him pay.

It's very difficult to differentiate between that which is considered "part of the job" and that which is "volunteer". My opinion is that we work in ministry and should look at it all as service to the church, whether or not we are being paid a "just wage". I am a "part-time" DM. I put that in quotation marks because any DM knows it is NEVER a part-time job. But, I wouldn't not do it because the church considers in on their books as part-time. Ministry is ministry. I also don't feel my expensive education is going to waste because I'm not making the kind of money another professional in another area may be making. It's my opinion, that God gives us the talent and expects us to use it in His service. If we become too mercenary, than we shouldn't be in ministry.

Now, please don't blast me with opposing views. This is all just opinion. God bless.

Purple Squirrel,
You are funny! Speaking for myself, I sincerely appreciate the number of times you have made me laugh in your short time here :)

The tax treatment of W-2 employees and self-employed individuals is entirely different. The tax benefits of being an employee are far superior to treatment as an independent contractor. Whether a parish has correctly classified the status of its compensated workers and is handling their compensation appropriately is another matter. If someone is being paid as a sole proprietor, and receiving tax treatment as a self-employed individual, but he actual performs the services of an "employee," then the parish can get into trouble.

The factors posted at AGO are not dispositive. If you work at a big parish and provide the music for all the liturgies, you are likely a salary worker. If you work at a small parish, or only provide music casually for a mass every once in a while then you're likely a contractor. It will vary, of course, from case to case. The important this is that you recognize what your status is and the respective tax consequences.

I hope that this helps with your question, MichaelM.

Ryand asks: "Do they pay a secretary, and/or additional office staff?"

Good point. My attitude is, when the parish secretary works for free, then, and then alone, I shall play the organ for free.

I think JPII very clearly put this whole "volunteer" business to rest a few decades ago:


Laborem Exercens (1981): "Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future. Such remuneration can be given either through what is called a family wage-that is, a single salary given to the head of the family for his work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home"

(thanks to chonak, who cited this a few months ago)


Balance THAT with "serving the church."

Why would smaller churches not require the same quality of music and liturgy that huge churches do?

"Why would smaller churches not require the same quality of music and liturgy that huge churches do?"

Because they can't afford it. There is SOME minimal level of quality, but let's remember that the Mass only "needs" the antiphons to be chanted by one singer. Doesn't take a six-figure salary and 12 choirs to pull off the Mass - though such things can be nice add-ons.

I really don't like to see small churches attempt a cathedral-sized program. Or big churches get away with 4 hymns per Sunday led by a volunteer. All things in proportion.

Yes, all things in proportion, but that doesn't mean having quality suffer. We've made some beautiful, Spirit anointed music in our little parish, which some of the bigger parishes fail to find because the programs are so big. I only have one choir and a children's choir. We have 4 masses every weekend, with the adults doing one, and the children doing another. The other two masses are me on the keyboard and a cantor. For special masses, i.e., Easter vigil, Christmas Eve, Pentecost, etc., I sometimes bring in a "special choir", that has worked thus far. I don't get paid anything extra for any of these "extra" things and just consider it part of ministry.

Not all smaller churches subscribe to the "4 hymns per Sunday" led by a volunteer rule. Despite my parish's small size (approx. 400 families), I still play preludes and postludes, we do all the hymns, plus sometimes communion meditations, and all the mass parts, of course. My synthezing keyboard, while not my choice of instrument, does provide some beautiful sounds, giving our masses a sense of quality. And, my small choir (approx. 15 singers), when they are all there, do produce some gorgeous harmonies. And, my choir has a small group of singers (5-6) who are training to be a chant Schola.

I don't consider this "minimal" level of quality.

Perhaps I did not understand your intent in your previous comment, MT. It doesn't sound like what you are doing is of anything less than high quality. Keep up the good work :)

As a breadwinner who makes his living serving the church as a musician, it is very important to me and my family indeed that the Church pay a just wage for my work.

Some small churches make various sacrifices to hire a full time music director and give him/her a living wage. I worked at a very small parish with a small school that fully supported me when I was single with a very decent salary - they made sacrifices in other areas (the computer network in the office wasn't very good, the phone system wasn't updated as they had planned, they canceled a new parish-directory, etc). Sometimes these small parishes that "can't afford" to give a DM a decent salary are spending a lot of money on other things. It's a matter of priorities.

In fact, the highest salary I was ever offered (I didn't take the job) was from a parish with a weekly collection of under 10k. When they made the offer I even questioned the business manager as to how they could afford it and they justified it by talking about some of the cutting of luxuries they would do.