'Preventing poverty' not a valid goal

[GenesisGT]

Surprisingly, by looking at the CRA website referring to registration of charities it is very clear that "relief" of poverty is acceptable wording to achieve charity tax status. These are the rules for being a charity, clearly worded, available to all.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/cmmnctn/pltcl-ctvts/menu-eng.html

The following information is all over the different pages of the web site, and the court rulings on how/why these rules have been challenged and why they are legal are there.

My question would be, why would a charity like Oxfam, purposely fill out a charity request form, submit it, when even when my reading of the CRA web site makes it clear that their request would be rejected.

First element – The charitable purpose category

13. For the first three categories of charity (relieving poverty, advancing education, and advancing religion), this element is usually met by including the purpose category in the wording of the purpose.

14. For purposes in the fourth category of charity (other purposes beneficial to the community in a way the law regards as charitable), the specific purpose descriptor within the broad purpose category must be identified (for example, promoting health, or protecting the environment).

[Donald G]

To Genesis GT ...

International left wingers attempting to pressure our Federal Government? Good for Harper and Kinney for reminding them what the long standing taxation rules are in Canada.

[Atomoa]

To Atomoa ...
...a definition to use in determining whether a given amount of money will be subject to taxation by Canada or not.

And who decides that?

The government dictates to the CRA what their mandates should be. What are the Harper governments priorities?

The laws and codes that they pass and enforce will reflect their priorities. The current government is known for trying to impose their version of things on the independent judiciary and was recently spanked for it. The courts are the the only real place in our government where the government cannot push biased laws towards furthering their own interests (but they can try). All the tough-on-crime BS that the courts have send back to House saying "nice try" are great examples of that.

However, now the Ministry of Energy gets to say when a stream is ok to be crossed by a road. I wonder why that is and what that has to do with Alberta?

You are trying to paint of picture of nonpartisan accountants dictating "by science" what is and isn't taxable. Are tax codes standardized throughout the world? Or are they open to interpretation and vary by the various countries the laws are based in?

Does the UN write the tax laws and enforce them for the world, or does the current government of the day do it?

[bob vernon]

Steve has a majority so he gets to say what the rules are. And he really has to do everything he can to remove the power from leftists in our society. Steve's a Christian and doesn't it say something in the Bible about not being our brother's keeper? It should be everybody for themselves, because to help each other is just socialism.

[rookie314]

Nice try but you have no idea what it says in the Bible. How about this one, even Christ who lived and died for helping the poor said there will always be poor. Of course maybe you could go back in time and blame that one on Harper as well.

[Atomoa]

Stephen Harper is a Evangelical Christian.

They believe that "God will allow humans to harm the earth" (do whatever you want!) and they do not believe in evolution (aka science).

Apparently his beliefs and personal morals do no effect his job performance, just like if we hired a ex-child molester to babysit some kids - the kids would turn out perfectly fine! Clear lines between personal and professional!

How about this one, even Christ who lived and died for helping the poor said there will always be poor. Of course maybe you could go back in time and blame that one on Harper as well.

Ah yes, because Jesus said there will always be poor people ( the poor you will always have with you but you will not always have me) - we better do what Jesus says and make SURE there are poor people.

[logicalview]

as long as there are idiot leftists willing to give the laziest among us a free ride for doing nothing, there will be "poor" people, whatever that means, as it appears everyone's definition of what "poor" means these days is different.

[Donald G]

Mr Harpers comment was in relation to deductible and non deductible income tax conditions in Canada. How cold anyone other than a staunch anti Harper person confuse that with religion?

When you "spin" something too far you end up in the ditch.

[rookie314]

Ah yes, because Jesus said there will always be poor people ( the poor you will always have with you but you will not always have me) - we better do what Jesus says and make SURE there are poor people.[/quote]

Thank you for proving my point that you don't know what the bible says.

[Glacier]

The funny thing about this whole thing is that this was likely a bureaucratic decision, not an executive decision from the government. The left never wastes a moment to blame everything on Harper even when there isn't a shred of evidence to link him to the "crime." The problem with that approach is that people will tend to tune them out when there is actually something to cry about.

[canada bound]

Or you can just do what they do here in the States, Declare War on it, and create some cute bumper stickers, then wait awhile and declare War on something else. Of course is doesn't work but at least you feel as if you have done something, (aka bumper sticker)

[Atomoa]

I'm sure David Suzuki got audited and harassed as much under the Liberals as the CPC.

"Purely burectatic"

You guys know that Obama did the same thing to the tea party, right?

"the lefties.... "

This is a bipartisan fact, governments screw with their enemies with the powers they have.

[logicalview]

I'm sure David Suzuki got audited and harassed as much under the Liberals as the CPC.

.

Was the Tides Foundation and other foreign entities pouring millions of cash designated for political purposes but disguised as "donations" into Suzuki's pockets when the Liberals were in power? Otherwise you are just comparing apples to oranges here.