Pickles wrote:
...
And a detailed look at the statements submitted by charities show that some of the more dubious ones routinely "donate" to other charities which "donate" to yet other charities which then "donate" back to the first charity. No good cause is being served by shuffling the money back and forth; it simply creates the illusion that at least some of the money "goes to charity".
Can I ask if the amounts donated to other charities are counted as money spent on actual "cause", and not as part of administrative overhead? If so, it does not take much work for a charity with 90% actual overhead to donate and loop back for a 5% overhead status.
I felt sick when I first learned some CEO's at charities earning half a million dollars salary.
I am cautiously optimistic. When it goes up, I claim I have been optimistic; when it goes down, I claim I have been cautious.
max88 wrote:I felt sick when I first learned some CEO's at charities earning half a million dollars salary.
It is sickening. That is why I refuse to support the 'big' charities, especially non-local national ones like, for example, Canadian Cancer Society. They have become bureaucratic monsters and I have spread the word to friends* and family.... do you know how much of your donation goes to overhead and why/what?
* including non-friends such as managers at retail outlets who have those obnoxious 'give to' signs at tills. Most of them don't have a clue and simply follow directions from 'head office'.
I've looked at several returns at CRA and haven't spotted any "looping-around". But it could happen.
If a charity gives money to another charity the recipient, in CRA-speak, is a "qualified donee". There's a link in the CRA return that states who the QD's are. It wouldn't take long to click through and check. The money that goes to QD's is a "charity" expense. I have another post on this topic where I quote some typical "effective overhead ratios".
The QD system is not entirely wrong - often a charity with a national office and separate local operations will disperse money this way.
One of the factors worth considering is how much of a charity's income comes from government. Some receive 80-90% of their funds this way - I've decided to direct my support to the ones that are working "on-their-own" - and this can be a justifiable reason for higher admin costs 'cos more effort is required for fund-raising.
And re the CRA returns - I haven't found a single return newer than 2009 - and many are still at 2008. Anyone else noticed this - or am I choosing the "wrong" charities?
parvus wrote:Well, it is called the "third-sector" after the private sector and the public sector, so ...
What can I say? The kids have grown up. They have their own thoughts, are aware of their rights. Hopefully they are aware of, and will fulfill, their obligations.
I am cautiously optimistic. When it goes up, I claim I have been optimistic; when it goes down, I claim I have been cautious.
“When you’re stealing from an organization like the Salvation Army, you’re not stealing from the Salvation Army, you’re stealing from those people who the Salvation Army helps every day,” said Maj. John Murray, spokesman for the charity.
...
The executive director of the warehouse was suspended when the audit began and fired after its conclusions came out Monday.
Not to mention the taxpayer isn't getting his money's worth either.
In the Latitude case, auditors said the donation scheme involved a winding series of money transfers, starting with an ostensibly charitable $13.95 million contribution to Jamaica’s University of the West Indies-Mona between 2004 and 2006.
Shortly after the donations were made, the money was flipped by the university’s escrow agent to the school’s endowment fund. The money was then brokered in the Bahamas for the purchase of life insurance policies through Hampton Insurance Company Ltd., a firm based in the British Virgin Islands.
The tax-free policies totaled $4.83 million for Vito and $7.23 million for Don.
According to the Canada Revenue Agency, of Latitude’s total donation to the university, only $390,000 — roughly 3 per cent — found its way into the university’s coffers. The donations, auditors suggest, were merely distractions meant to obfuscate Latitude’s true purpose: to enrich the Ierullos
Bay Street law firm Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP should face a class-action trial for its role in a so-called donation tax-shelter scheme deemed offside by the Canada Revenue Agency, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled.
On Tuesday, the court reversed a lower-court ruling and certified, or gave the go-ahead, to a class-action lawsuit against Cassels Brock. The lawsuit alleges the firm was negligent for issuing legal opinions saying it was unlikely the CRA would successfully challenge the tax scheme, which involved the issuing of inflated charitable-donation receipts.
LAJ wrote: ↑17 Feb 2020 17:03
I remember having quite heated discussions at work about this program and thought there was one here as well. Still in the news.
This was a shell game from the beginning playing on greed. The first several pages of this thread pointed it out again and again. No empathy or sympathy from me either.