Castanet

[quote="French Castanut"]Having big shots doing tax evasion doesn't excuse her smaller spendings.[/quote]



I didn't say it did, I just wish the big fish tax evasions would get as much attention by the CRA as the this lady who actually gives back to the community in so many ways other than "food".

As for either of the "Food Banks" (Kelowna or West Kelowna), I haven't donated to either for years and don't intend to start supporting them now.

Kelowna FB are good people.

prairieflower wrote:Maybe I have missed it, but why the need for another food bank, when the one in Westbank seems like a much bigger, better run one.

I know that there are seniors, single parents and people who are in need who go the Westbank food bank.

Under this knowledge is there people that use...or should i say abuse, BOTH food banks? Also where does all the money come from for bette's food bank and what happens with all the items/debris behind her protective fencing by her shed?

If this were a business nobody would bat an eye. CRA would still be on a witch hunt as they always are. Sounds like there was some real issues with how this charity was managed, or mis-managed as the case may be. However there is a cost to have people dedicate their time and efforts to providing a service. Whether charity or government funded the people who do this can't always be volunteers. CRA makes it sound like this person was skimming millions - taking from the poor. The reality is, from my perspective at least, is that at least she was out there doing something and helping people. So only 25% of the small amount of money raised made its way to the needy. That's better than many charities and it didn't cost you or I a penny.

I've heard stories of Bette going to extreme lengths to find food, get donations and such. I have to assume that this money would not have been raised if not for the efforts of this person and those that worked with her. If that's true then nobody would have benefited at all, not even the $17,000 if not for her efforts.

Seems like people would rather the needy not even get that $17,000 because receipts weren't filed to CRA's standard. And dog forbid that this person takes enough to pay her own bills in order to continue trying to raise funds. What a loss.

I for the life of me can not figure out why so many people have so much to say about decisions made around rules that have been made to designate a difference between a non - profit society and a for protit business. In a non - profit society funds are raised by donations only whether they be generated by a business that phones you and I for donations on behalf of a non profit society which than takes a percentage of that donation before passing it along to the not for profit at a huge discounted percentage and then the non for profit society does what it wants with the money or by donations directly donated. I know for a fact that a certain club who operates in the Okanagan and makes money for its non profit has sent volunteers to Hawaii for a vacation before spending the money on its chosen charity that it raises monies for. I know for a fact that certain charities pay out our donations for lots that has nothing to do with the chosen charity it represents.

Rules were made to allow societies to operate as a non profit so our donations are not taxed. Municipalities don't charge taxes on properties owned by non profits so more money goes to the work the charity does, however, non profit societies forget that those rules are for the use of monies to benefit the charity not the volunteers or the person or people who set it up and believe me when charities are receiving huge donations it does not take long for abuses to occur as an expense and not salary.

Rev Can has guidlelines and rules they must follow to protect our donations from being ripped off and if a non profit wants to operate outside those rules then there are consequences. Every time I donate I know I am paying another tax because governments are not looking after the people they represent they are looking after those that run the government so it looks like they deserve to be elected again.

There are very few non profit societies that do not pay the volunteer in the circle in some way or another that sets up the service so a % of donation is the rule so that there is insurance that your donation actuallly reaches the charity being represented. Yeah, volunteers who are not in the society circ le are out there working their butts off with no renumeration at all and if you want your cell phone, vehicle, insurance etc. at 100% covered than don't pay yourself a salary-go to work and let the person who really wants to help others become involved. I agree with another poster non profits is simply a way to create a paycheque and if the rules are not followed that were agreed to to get the benefit on the non profit than BAM the charity is no more so my donations are not being abused.

If we all quit donating believe me it would not take long to sort out the charities doing what they said they were doing in the first place.

Have absolutely no problem with what she is doing...BUT PAY THE TAXMAN!!! LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

Like everyone else? Oh, no, not really everyone else. According to last nights news, many people of all levels evade paying all their taxes.

Maybe I missed something but I don't believe there was any question of taxes not being paid. Although a non profit society is exempt from certain taxes, taxes, true.

I assume that anyone who collected money from this organization, including Ms. Ladd have claimed their income and paid income tax appropriately. According to the story CRA has temporarily suspended their charitable tax status. There are no laws broken or misappropriation of funds cited. Only that this society was not compliant with the rules of running a charitable organization.

Those who have gone through this process or who have had to deal with a CRA audit, will for sure have slightly more tolerance for Ms. Ladd's plight.

I don't condone the poor book keeping practices nor am I happy that Ms. Ladd has allowed/authorized herself to become the sole signing officer, etc. However I do applaud her efforts and the efforts of the others who have tried to provide a service to those in need. What do people think, that charities run for free? There are percentage limits to guard against abuse but we're talking about salaries and expenses that are less than most McDonald's employees make. Whether Ms. Ladd was aware or not is not in question. Simply whether the rules of a charitable organization were followed.

My only other burning question is, where are the other society members in this whole thing? i.e. you can't run a non profit without a board of directors. That board has to approve certain things, including salaries for employees.

That was my question as well...in BC a Charitable not for profit society must have at least five directors in order to avoid exactly this sort of situation. General meetings must be held regularly and financial reports and books must be open to not only the board...but also to the public. Every penny must be accounted for upon request so that anyone wishing to donate can clearly see how much of their money actually goes to the cause and how much is spent on administrative costs and salaries.
Whether Ms Ladd was making $24,000 or $50,000 is not the point...rules are in place and must be followed.

nextimeround wrote:Maybe I missed something but I don't believe there was any question of taxes not being paid. Although a non profit society is exempt from certain taxes, taxes, true.

I assume that anyone who collected money from this organization, including Ms. Ladd have claimed their income and paid income tax appropriately. According to the story CRA has temporarily suspended their charitable tax status. There are no laws broken or misappropriation of funds cited. Only that this society was not compliant with the rules of running a charitable organization.

Those who have gone through this process or who have had to deal with a CRA audit, will for sure have slightly more tolerance for Ms. Ladd's plight.

I don't condone the poor book keeping practices nor am I happy that Ms. Ladd has allowed/authorized herself to become the sole signing officer, etc. However I do applaud her efforts and the efforts of the others who have tried to provide a service to those in need. What do people think, that charities run for free? There are percentage limits to guard against abuse but we're talking about salaries and expenses that are less than most McDonald's employees make. Whether Ms. Ladd was aware or not is not in question. Simply whether the rules of a charitable organization were followed.

My only other burning question is, where are the other society members in this whole thing? i.e. you can't run a non profit without a board of directors. That board has to approve certain things, including salaries for employees.

There is not a present problem of taxes not being paid. Considering she is bickering about having charitable status taken away, leading to her not being tax exempt, that would tell me she does NOT want to pay the applicable taxes. Otherwise she would not be bickering.

hmmm ... is it her charity that's "tax exempt" or is it that now she can't issue receipts to her donors for tax exemption? Some businesses donate to charity for the tax write-off and now she can't provide that.

Charitable designation was revoked September 15, 2012 - any receipt issued after that date can't be used for tax purposes. If her appeal is successful and the government reinstates the designation, they can starting issuing receipts.

Interesting turn of events i am very curious about with this one. This particular food bank has now changed it's name to "Friendly peoples food bank", hmmmmm i wonder why???

Only thing that has changed is the name. Same people running the show.

This i understand but why would the name change in the middle of an investigation into their taxes. Not saying this is the case but a lot of businesses going through money/tax issues find an easy out by simply filing bankruptcy and changing the company name.