We do not use the receipting function at all, so by default our gift entry ignores this field, however, we do use the receipt amount as a critical indicator of a gift with an associated FMV or for earned revenue transactions that pass through our system as a payment collection mechanism. Tying this change to a gift to a change in receipted value would undermine an audited item for us, and lead to essentially having incorrect gift data that requires time consuming work to correct. Please do not tie this receipt setting to a gift receipt value, especially as an automatic function that isn't intentionally selected by a user.

Tying these fields together intrinsically can lead to data and receipting mistakes- while most of the time it might seem common sense that they're generally tied together, there is so much nuance in both receipting, and donor preferences.

We have fairly regular cases where the donor might technically qualify for a receipt, and we want to have an amount recorded, but we use "do not receipt" to "hold" it while we wait for backup or clarification from the donor. There are also many other use cases for this- for example, a donor qualifies for a receipt, but they don't want one.

Yes. I use do not receipt on recurring gifts that only get a year-end receipt, but need to be able to pull the total receipt amount

We've just run into this ourselves and it's frustrating to see that we basically cannot set a gift to "do not receipt" if it does still count as a gift amount, but either for donor preference or for DAFs or other reasons that these records should not be receipted, zeroing out the receipt field feels incredibly silly and counterproductive. We've had to start marking "do not receipt" gifts as "receipted" just to get around this, but that feels like a workaround we should not have to be doing. Especially because it can make it hard for folks looking back who are new to tell exactly at a glance whether the gifts SHOULD be receipted, or were marked as such due to the system being a problem.