7 environmental charities face Canada Revenue Agency audits


Locutus
+1
#1
Cool.


via sda
The Canada Revenue Agency is currently conducting extensive audits on some of Canada's most prominent environmental groups to determine if they comply with guidelines that restrict political advocacy, CBC News has learned.
If the CRA rules that the groups exceeded those limits, their charitable status could be revoked, which would effectively shut them down.

[...]
The list of groups CBC has now confirmed are undergoing audits reads like a who's who in the environmental charity world. They include:

The David Suzuki Foundation
Tides Canada
West Coast Environmental Law
The Pembina Foundation
Environmental Defence
Equiterre
Ecology Action Centre

"This is a war against the sector," says John Bennett, of Sierra Club Canada.

more

7 environmental charities face Canada Revenue Agency audits - Politics - CBC News
 
Walter
+2
#2
You go CRA, and stop auditing me.
 
captain morgan
+2
#3
Hehehe... Looks like the ecotards are coming to the understanding that the same rules that apply to the sectors they demonize, also apply to them.

Keep up the good work there boys
 
Kreskin
#4
The CRA performing tax audits? Say it ain't so!
 
petros
+1
#5
"This is a war against the sector," says John Bennett, of Sierra Club Canada.

The same Sierra Club that took $23Million to promote natural gas?
 
taxslave
+1
#6
Must add Living Oceans Society. When we looked years back it turned out not to be as advertised. Had a mailing address and a few flunkies in Sointula but the directors were prominent members of several US based eco groups.
 
Dixie Cup
#7
Yay! Finally. It's about time!

JMHO
 
Tonington
+4
#8  Top Rated Post
Obama's IRS targets politically active charities, and people go nuts. In the end one Democratic charity was punished. Canada targets politically active charities, and it's kudos. Glad to see the level of inconsistency is consistent.
 
captain morgan
+1
#9
One of the conditions of receiving charitable status is that the org does not cross the line into the political arena. This is the single biggest reason that Suzuki removed himself from his own charity as he aggressively crossed that line.

That said, if these groups still feel that their cause is worthy and wish to make hay in the political sphere, there is nothing stopping them from doing so and paying taxes as a privilege for that option
 
taxslave
+1
#10
Alternatively they can join or start a political party and follow the relevant rules and still be tax deductible.
 
Tonington
+4
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

One of the conditions of receiving charitable status is that the org does not cross the line into the political arena.

That's not true, they are allowed to conduct political activities, so long as they meet the conditions imposed by the legislation. It would be impossible to have no political activity unless the charity has no stance whatsoever on the laws of the land. The Frasier Institute opposes gun laws. That's political. The Suzuki Foundation opposes aquaculture development in open waters. That's political. The Heart and Stroke Foundation lobbies for government action on trans fats. That's political.

I doubt you could find a charity that has no political activities.
 
taxslave
+2
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

That's not true, they are allowed to conduct political activities, so long as they meet the conditions imposed by the legislation. It would be impossible to have no political activity unless the charity has no stance whatsoever on the laws of the land. The Frasier Institute opposes gun laws. That's political. The Suzuki Foundation opposes aquaculture development in open waters. That's political. The Heart and Stroke Foundation lobbies for government action on trans fats. That's political.

I doubt you could find a charity that has no political activities.

Lions, Rotary, Kinsmen
 
Tonington
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Lions, Rotary, Kinsmen

The Lions have environmental projects which include advocating for stricter local government controls of land, air and sea. That's political. The Rotary advocates on behalf of Polio eradication, including calling for governments to match their donations. That's political. The Kinsmen advocate nationally for universal access to cystic fibrosis screening, and access to Kalydeco through public drug programs. That's political.

All of these are policy advocacy. Just because something is political, doesn't mean it isn't a worthy cause. That's why political activities are accepted for registered charities. The issue is if the political activities comply with the law.

I really doubt you could find a charity that doesn't advocate for something, because if there wasn't a need for a change of some sort, there likely would be little need for the charity.
 
Cannuck
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Lions, Rotary, Kinsmen


I'm a Lion and we operate a recycling facility. We most definitely have opinions on our municipal landfill.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#15
I'd like to see audits on gov'ts. We donate enough money to them and what happens to the money? A lot of it is wasted on the stupidest crap. The waste over the past 3 decades has "cost Canadian taxpayers between $158 billion and $197 billion" - Government waste cost Canadian taxpayers as much as $197 billion since 1988 | Fraser Institute
15th Annual “Teddy” Government Waste Awards Winners - The Canadian Taxpayers Federation
 
taxslave
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

The Lions have environmental projects which include advocating for stricter local government controls of land, air and sea. That's political. The Rotary advocates on behalf of Polio eradication, including calling for governments to match their donations. That's political. The Kinsmen advocate nationally for universal access to cystic fibrosis screening, and access to Kalydeco through public drug programs. That's political.

All of these are policy advocacy. Just because something is political, doesn't mean it isn't a worthy cause. That's why political activities are accepted for registered charities. The issue is if the political activities comply with the law.

I really doubt you could find a charity that doesn't advocate for something, because if there wasn't a need for a change of some sort, there likely would be little need for the charity.

It doesn't apply until you start advocating for a particular party or candidate. As soon as you start pushing for a party it changes your tax status. SO these groups are not political activists. There are very clear rules in the tax code, mostly ignored.
 
relic
+1
#17
Goes along with steves anti environment, anti science, anti anybody that disagrees with him stance.
 
taxslave
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by relicView Post

Goes along with steves anti environment, anti science, anti anybody that disagrees with him stance.

The laws were in place long before Harper came along. Must be another one of those nasty lefty liberal things.
 
Tonington
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

It doesn't apply until you start advocating for a particular party or candidate. As soon as you start pushing for a party it changes your tax status. SO these groups are not political activists. There are very clear rules in the tax code, mostly ignored.

I think you and I are talking about two different things. I originally posted that there were activities which are and are not allowed. Political activity is allowed, and it's even defined on the link I already posted:
"The Act only allows a registered charity to conduct political activities if it continues to devote substantially all of its resources to charitable purposes and charitable activities."

I'm not calling Kinsmen, Rotary, or Lions Club members political activists. I just said that you would have a hard time finding a charity that doesn't have political activities, which is true.
 
damngrumpy
+1
#20
If they broke the rules and overstepped their status so be it. Two other questions
come out of this though.

1 If there is a limit for a charity why is there no limit to the wealth of churches or
other groups? If everyone has one law which I agree with then they should all be
on the same page rule wise.

2 I am surprised at the amounts of money these groups bring in. Either there are a
lot more people on their side or the amounts given by the donors is very large indeed.
It also suggest to me the green religion is growing faster than I thought.
 
captain morgan
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

That's not true, they are allowed to conduct political activities, so long as they meet the conditions imposed by the legislation. It would be impossible to have no political activity unless the charity has no stance whatsoever on the laws of the land. The Frasier Institute opposes gun laws. That's political. The Suzuki Foundation opposes aquaculture development in open waters. That's political. The Heart and Stroke Foundation lobbies for government action on trans fats. That's political.

I doubt you could find a charity that has no political activities.


My mistake, my intent was based on this condition:

"non-partisan (never oppose or support any political party or candidate in any way);"

You'll notice that those orgs that are being audited, most notably Suzuki, have contravened the above element
 
Spade
+2
#22
Churches advocate politically. Audit them too.
 
captain morgan
+2
#23
Churchs don't travel the country railing against a political party like your dear pal Suzuki.

I say audit the guy 4 or 5 times, revoke his ridiculous shows on CBC and perhaps think about deporting him on a retroactive, generational basis
 
Walter
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Churches advocate politically. Audit them too.

Link?
 
Spade
+2
#25
Give me a break, Walter. Same-sex marriage, middle-eastern relations, support for denominational schools, etc.

Here is one of many possible...
CCRL | Bishop Henry calls for overhaul of human rights commissions
 
Cliffy
+2
#26
I notice that most of those cheering this audit are also the same ones who got their panties all in a knot when someone suggested taxing churches. Interesting.
 
Walter
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Give me a break, Walter. Same-sex marriage, middle-eastern relations, support for denominational schools, etc.

Here is one of many possible...
CCRL | Bishop Henry calls for overhaul of human rights commissions

Now, was that so hard?
 
Cliffy
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Now, was that so hard?

Probably not any harder than you doing your own research instead of insisting others do it for you.
 
Walter
+2
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Probably not any harder than you doing your own research instead of insisting others do it for you.

You say stuff, you defend it.
 
Cliffy
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

You say stuff, you defend it.

The truth needs no defense.
 
no new posts