The Tithing Tax Deduction Shrank in 2026. Congress Predicted How We’d React Back in 1917.

In 1917 the United States was paying for a war and the top income tax rate had just climbed to 67%. Senator Henry Hollis of New Hampshire rose on the Senate floor and made an argument about wealthy taxpayers, an argument that lands squarely on you. “When heavy taxes arrive,” he said, “donations to charity will be the first place wealthy men are tempted to economize.”

The Senate believed him, and that is where the charitable tax deduction comes from. It was designed less to encourage generosity than to insure against generosity failing under pressure, because Congress did not trust wealthy Americans to keep giving once giving got expensive.

That assumption has been sitting in the tax code for a hundred and nine years. In 2026 it finally gets tested on you.

Somewhere in the next few months you will sit down with your accountant, or with the software, and type in the number from your church's giving statement. For the first time since 1917, part of that number is going to do nothing at all. You gave it. It just will not show up.

What changed about the tithing tax deduction in 2026

Three things, all effective for the 2026 tax year, all from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

First, a floor. If you itemize, you can now only deduct charitable contributions to the extent they exceed 0.5% of your adjusted gross income. On $300,000 of AGI, the first $1,500 of your giving is not deductible. On $500,000, the first $2,500. The money still left your account and still landed in the ministry's. It simply does not reduce your tax bill anymore.

Second, a ceiling on the benefit. If you land in the top 37% bracket (which in 2026 starts at $640,600 for single filers and $768,700 for joint filers), the tax value of your itemized deductions is capped at 35 cents per dollar rather than 37. Two pennies. That sounds like rounding error until you run it against a gift with five or six figures in front of it.

Third, and this one cuts the other way, there is now a deduction for people who do not itemize at all. Beginning in 2026 you can deduct up to $1,000 in cash giving, or $2,000 filing jointly, on top of the standard deduction. The gift has to be cash to a qualifying public charity. Contributions to a donor advised fund do not qualify.

You are the last one to sit for this exam

Hollis's experiment already ran once, and it did not run on you.

When the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act nearly doubled the standard deduction in 2018, the Tax Policy Center estimated that the share of American households claiming a charitable deduction fell from about 21% to about 9%, and that among middle-income households it dropped by roughly two-thirds. For most of the people sitting around you on Sunday morning, the deduction did not shrink this year. It vanished eight years ago, and most of them never noticed, because it was never large enough to be load-bearing in the first place.

If your income has stayed high enough, it stayed in place for you. If you own a business, live in a state with real income tax, carry a mortgage, and give at a level that reflects your convictions, you probably itemized straight through 2018 and every year since. The arrangement held. Everyone else has been taking this test for eight years while you kept your subsidy.

2026 is the first year the question gets put to you personally.

Does the tax tail actually wag the dog?

It is fair to acknowledge that the tax deduction has always mattered at some level. I do not think most people give primarily to reduce their tax bill, though. That gives the deduction too much credit and gives people too little.

Most people give because they care about the church, charity, ministry, or mission receiving the money. They believe in the work. They have a relationship there. They want to see it continue. The deduction may help, but it is usually not the reason the gift exists.

For many givers, the deduction is more like picking up the extra pennies in tax savings on a gift they were already planning to make. If you are going to give the money anyway, you might as well do it in the most efficient way allowed. I wrote more about that idea here: Same Tithe, Smarter Strategy: Leveraging a DAF to Get More Money to Your Church.

That said, the subsidy has clearly helped motivate higher-income givers. If you are in the 37% bracket, the old math was easy to understand: you could send 37 cents of the next dollar to Uncle Sam, or give the full dollar to a charity you care about and reduce the tax cost. Put differently, 63 cents out of pocket could move a full dollar toward the church, ministry, or mission you already wanted to support.

That is not nothing. It may not be the engine of generosity, but it has been a tailwind.

“Decide in your heart what you are going to give… “ then optimize it

The planning nerd’s approach to discussing these tax changes has framed generosity as an output of tax planning:
”Give this way to preserve your deduction.”
”Time it this way to clear the floor.”
”Structure it this way to work around the cap.”

But what if we reversed the order?

The Israelites brought firstfruits, not leftovers, and Proverbs 3:9 puts the instruction plainly:

“…honor the Lord with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your produce.”

The point of that command is sequence. The gift comes off the top, before you know how the year is going to go, before you have run the numbers on what you can comfortably part with. There is no version of that instruction that routes through a tax return, and there could not have been. What makes firstfruits an act of trust rather than surplus management is precisely that you commit before you have complete information about your own position.

Which is also, as it happens, sound planning. Decide what you are giving as a percentage of income in advance, then bring the tax strategy in behind that decision to make the mechanics as efficient as the law allows. Same dollars to the ministry either way. Completely different posture.

In my experience, households who handle this well tend to treat the giving number like the mortgage: a fixed obligation funded before anything discretionary happens. The ones who struggle tend to give from what is left after the year has had its way with them, and there is often less left than they expected. In my view, that distinction has less to do with income than most people assume.

But Nick, I’m self-employed (i.e. I live on the income rollercoaster)

Standard advice often breaks down for business owners, and sadly it’s where most articles stop.

"Decide a percentage in advance" is easy for a W-2 employee with 24 identical paychecks. If your income arrives as distributions, a variable draw, or a fourth-quarter windfall you cannot forecast in January, the annual percentage is a guess, and a guess you will be tempted to revise downward every time the year gets tight.

The fix is to change the unit. Set the percentage against what you actually receive, and fund it on receipt. When a distribution hits, the giving portion moves the same week, into a separate account or a donor advised fund, before it commingles with operating cash. You are no longer committing to a number you projected in January. You are committing to a percentage of money that has already arrived, quarterly, on facts rather than forecasts.

That single change tends to do more for a business owner's generosity than any of the mechanics below it.

Then make the mechanics efficient

With the number already decided, what remains is moving it well. Two approaches are worth raising with your CPA and your planner.

Bunching still works, and the new floor makes it more useful rather than less. If you give $20,000 a year, you clear the 0.5% floor once every year and lose the first slice every year. If you instead fund a donor advised fund with three years of giving in a single year, you clear the floor once instead of three times. You can keep granting to your church on the same monthly rhythm you have always used. The ministries feel no difference, but your tax return does.

Giving appreciated securities you have held longer than a year, rather than cash, remains one of the most efficient moves available to someone with a taxable brokerage account, because you generally deduct the fair market value and avoid the capital gain you would have recognized on a sale. Securities held a year or less are treated differently, and your deduction is generally limited to what you paid for them. The floor applies either way, so it does not change the relative advantage. If you want the fuller version of that strategy, read The DAF Playbook: How to Systematically Reset Your Tax Basis and Grow Your Giving Over Time.

Neither of these is advice about your situation. Both depend on facts I do not have, and the interaction with your entity structure, your state, and your AGI limits is where the real work happens.

Back to that giving statement

When you enter the number next spring and the first slice of it does not move your bill, you will learn something small and specific about where the giving was actually coming from.

Henry Hollis stood up in 1917 and told the Senate that generosity among people with money was fragile enough to need a subsidy. He got his provision. This year, for whatever that number turns out to be on your own return, you get to find out whether he was right about you. For a broader framework on money, giving, and ownership, start with Biblical Financial Stewardship: A Practical Framework for Christians.

Want some help thinking this through?

I did too. That's part of why I started Openhanded Wealth, to walk with folks like you through decisions that feel complicated, but don't have to stay that way. If you've got questions, reach out. I'm a real person, and Openhanded Wealth is fee-only, which means I earn no commissions on products. My job is to help you think clearly. You don't have to navigate this alone. You can learn more about how I work with clients, [Email Me], or [Schedule a Call]

‍

‍