[nSLUG] Donate Hardware to FMM

Daniel AJ Sokolov @mobile daniel at falco.ca
Fri Jul 8 12:20:53 ADT 2016


You are missing an important piece here: If they wanted to commit fraud, they would just keep the untraceable money instead of passing it on. No need for any tax credits.

Noone is going to start a complex tax shelter operation to profit off toonie donations at the supermarket checkout.

BR
Daniel AJ

On July 8, 2016 9:17:52 AM ADT, D G Teed <donald.teed at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Daniel AJ Sokolov <daniel at falco.ca>
>wrote:
>
>> On 2016-07-07 at 12:11, D G Teed wrote:
>> > I'm reading news articles which say they can't take other people's
>> > money and claim it as their own charity donation.
>>
>> That is the law as I understand it, yes.
>>
>> > But I'm not sure it is all trackable when it is simply done as a
>cash
>> > donation container.
>>
>> That would be fraud.
>>
>
>Oh, that never happens.  Especially when the amounts are not recorded.
>
>None of the stories I've read discuss the organizations which run a
>charity
>foundation,
>of which there are many in the big chains.  The articles only discuss
>the
>scenario of donating to a third party via the checkout.  When there is
>a
>cost
>to operate the foundation, I expect an entirely different set of
>accounting
>rules kick in.
>
>The reality is, tax shelter abuse is widespread, and the CRA only knows
>some of it.  Other parts of it are not considered abuse if it is a
>genuine
>loophole.  They know how to play the game.
>
>Here is an example story illustrating one type of fraud under
>investigation
>in 2014:
>
>https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/17/canada_revenue_agency_expands_investigations_of_tax_shelters.html
>
>The point is, there is a widespread will to do this, and unless there
>is
>detection
>and an applied penalty, the gates are wide open.  It is white collar
>crime,
>where
>no one is named, no one goes to jail, and the only risk is you have to
>pay
>it back.
>It would be entirely wrong to assume the people with the will to do
>these
>things have a moral compass when the penalty is so light.  Thus my
>conjecture
>that if it isn't traceable, they could easily say one thing
>and do another.
>
>Take a look at the KPMG statement "Basis for Qualified Opinion" in
>their
>auditor's report for President's Choice Children's Charity:
>
>https://www.charityintelligence.ca/media/audit_pdfs/2015-2-31%20President%20Choice%20Children%20Charity%202015%20FS.pdf
>
>KPMG's auditor basically says this is a charity organization, which has
>a
>common trait
>of incomplete record keeping.  Average compensation for the charity's
>6 staff is $83,611, so I don't expect anyone to blow the whistle on
>any grey or rationalized accounting.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>nSLUG mailing list
>nSLUG at nslug.ns.ca
>http://nslug.ns.ca/mailman/listinfo/nslug



More information about the nSLUG mailing list