# Calgary church stripped of tax-exempt status **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 27, 2010, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619 "2010-01-27T03:23:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/1 "2010-01-27T03:23:42Z")
Figured certain Dopers might enjoy this one: [http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/2010/01/anti-gay-church-stripped-of-charitable-status/](http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/2010/01/anti-gay-church-stripped-of-charitable-status/) > [@](#): > > The Kings Glory Fellowship, a Protestant church in Calgary, Alberta, has lost their tax exempt status because they spent too much time involved in political activities outside the church, including actively campaigning against gay rights. ---
**Author:** ![Annie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/858c86/32.png) [@Annie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/2 "2010-01-27T04:45:54Z")
Hey, I haven’t even finished RTFA, but I have to quote this gem: > [@](#): > > The government’s tax regulators congregate in full accountant regalia, sworn brothers in a secret plot to locate Calgary’s religious leaders and attach leather jaw restraints while they sleep. I’m imagining ‘accountant regalia’ as barrister’s robes with that fetching green visor… ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/3 "2010-01-27T05:15:52Z")
I was thinking Time Lord robes, myself. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/4 "2010-01-27T08:55:40Z")
> [@Annie](#): > > I’m imagining ‘accountant regalia’ as barrister’s robes with that fetching green visor… Nah, I’m envisioning them dressing like an Auditor of Reality from Discworld. Grey empty robes, all identical. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/5 "2010-01-27T11:13:17Z")
I wonder if any US churches lost 503c, thanks to that day of advocacy thing. Anyone notice? ---
**Author:** ![Budista](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Budista](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budista)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/6 "2010-01-28T07:45:55Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/7 "2010-01-28T18:06:08Z")
From the [Holy Post story linked in the blog -](http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/01/22/calgary-church-loses-charitable-status-for-its-quot-non-partisan-political-activities-quot.aspx) > [@](#): > > the Kings Glory Fellowship Association, a non-denominational Protestant group, was told by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that for several reasons, including a lack of clarity on how it spends it money, they could no longer issue charitable receipts. 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. > [@](#): > > Artur Pawlowski, the head of the Kings Glory Fellowship,…said the primary mission of his church is to feed homeless people…“When we feed people we don’t care whether they are homosexuals or have had abortions or been divorced but we preach what the Bible says about those issues.” Yeah, I can imagine what they preach while homeless people are eating. I’m guessing it isn’t all, “Love thy neighbour.” Also, > [@](#): > > Mr. Pawlowski and his group have a long and loud history of dealing with Calgary officials. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/8 "2010-01-28T18:39:19Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/9 "2010-01-28T18:48:11Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > I wonder if any US churches lost 503c, thanks to that day of advocacy thing. Anyone notice? 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: > [@](#): > > The Church at Pierce Creek near Binghamton, N.Y., lost its tax-exempt status in 1995 after the IRS determined it had violated federal tax law by publishing a full-page ad in USA Today in late October of 1992 advising people that voting for presidential candidate Bill Clinton was a sin and soliciting tax-exempt donations to defray the cost of the ad. The church sued in federal court to regain its tax-exempt status, but a federal appellate court ruled unanimously that the IRS had the authority to revoke the church’s tax-exempt status. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/10 "2010-01-28T19:04:40Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/11 "2010-01-28T19:27:46Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/12 "2010-01-28T19:49:24Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Figured certain Dopers might enjoy this one: > > [http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/2010/01/anti-gay-church-stripped-of-charitable-status/](http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/2010/01/anti-gay-church-stripped-of-charitable-status/) Haw Haw Haw! ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/13 "2010-01-28T19:59:57Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/14 "2010-01-28T20:09:11Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > 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… ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/15 "2010-01-28T21:04:42Z")
I think (reading between the lines) this church made no effort to present a neutral morality. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calgary-church-stripped-of-tax-exempt-status/526619/16 "2010-01-28T21:07:20Z")
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://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2009/2009-01-10/html/commis-eng.html) [http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-1-5th-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-1-5th-supp.html#sec168subsec1](http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-1-5th-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-1-5th-supp.html#sec168subsec1)