Figured certain Dopers might enjoy this one:
http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/2010/01/anti-gay-church-stripped-of-charitable-status/
Hey, I haven’t even finished RTFA, but I have to quote this gem:
I’m imagining ‘accountant regalia’ as barrister’s robes with that fetching green visor…
I was thinking Time Lord robes, myself.
Nah, I’m envisioning them dressing like an Auditor of Reality from Discworld. Grey empty robes, all identical.
I wonder if any US churches lost 503c, thanks to that day of advocacy thing. Anyone notice?
As a born and raised Calgarian, I’m pretty amused by this.
I’ve always hated the idea that churches are given tax exemption status when it’s well known that a lot of the funds raised by some of the larger churches aren’t going to projects that would otherwise be tax exempt.
These sort of things are from the days when separation of church and state was more and idea than a reality; here’s hoping that this is a move towards keeping churches out of the political sphere.
From the Holy Post story linked in the blog -
This is not persecution; everyone loses their charitable organization status if Revenue Canada is not satisfied with your financial reporting. This happened to my anxiety support group - our leader at the time didn’t realize he had to file income tax returns for the group, and we lost our charitable organization status. You can call yourself a church and say that you report to a higher power, but you will still make Revenue Canada happy here on this plane of existence.
Yeah, I can imagine what they preach while homeless people are eating. I’m guessing it isn’t all, “Love thy neighbour.”
Also,
It doesn’t sound to me like they got this one wrong. This group sounds quite political to me.
Can someone clarify - the articles say they lost their charitable organization status, not their tax-exempt status. Are these the same things when it comes to churches?
A not-for-profit corporation has tax exempt status under s. 149(1)(l) of the Income Tax Act. A charity has tax exempt status under section 149(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act. If a not-for-profit corporation becomes a charity, it loses the s. 149(1)(l) exemtion but gains the 149(1)(f) exemption. The constraints under the not-for-profit exemption are different than the constraints under the charity exemption, so it is possible for a charitable not-for-profit corporation to lose charitable status and the tax exemption tied to it but still retain the tax exemption tied to its not-for-profit status.
As far as the church in question goes, I have no idea if it is a not-for-profit corporation, and if it is, if it also lost its tax exempt status for failing to meet the not-for-profit constraints just as it failed to meet the charity constraints.
I’m pretty sure you mean 501(c)(3) status. I don’t think any US churches have lost that status due to the “day of advocacy” or whatever that was called, but one church in my state did lose tax-exempt status for political advocacy in 1995:
Although it is possible to lose charitable status but still maintain the not-for-profit tax exemption, it takes two significant bites out of an orginization’s ability to raise funds.
First, donations to a charity are tax deductible to the donor. Donations to a not-for-profit that is not a charity are not tax deductible to the donor. Since fundraising will increase if tax deductible receipts can be given to donors, it is better to be a charity than just a not-for-profit.
Second, charities use this tax deductible attribute to act as a flow-through for individuals and groups who are not charites, but who in doing their own fundraising want to ride on the coat tails of a charity so that their donors can get tax deductions for their donations. For example, if you run a small lunch program for hungry kids, but you are not a charity, you can not issue tax deductible receipt to your donors. To solve this problem, you find a charity that in general helps poor people, and have your donors donate to that charity. The charity takes a cut (10% or more, depending on the charity), and passes the rest on to you for you to feed the kids. If done properly, the cut paid to the charity will be less than the increase in fundraising.
Wonder how folks would feel if this was 60 years ago or so and the church was on the forefront of pushing for social equality for minorities and was dinged for being too political rather than the lagging edge today?
Wonder how much of this was because they were just “political” and how much was because it was politically/socially unpopular?
Haw Haw Haw!
The key to a charity tackling political isssues in Canada without risking charitable status is to present the issue in an unbiased manner so as to allow members of the public to make up their own minds on the position being advocated, rather than espouses a specific cause and seek to sway members of the public to its way of thinking. As long as a charity plays by the rules, it will maintain its status, regardless of its position being generally unpopular. Unbiased education is well within the rules.
Ahhh…the Church of neutral morality…a church everyone can love (or hate) or whatever…
I think (reading between the lines) this church made no effort to present a neutral morality.
As far as the Kings Glory Fellowship Association goes, it lost its charitable status for failure to file. Nous ne pouvons trouver cette page Web (Erreur 404) - Thème Canada.ca / We couldn't find that Web page (Error 404) - Canada.ca theme http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-1-5th-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-1-5th-supp.html#sec168subsec1