This is where the Canadian Centre for Christian Charities (CCCC)
Accreditation comes in. Charities accredited by CCCC stand out as trustworthy,
transparent, and committed to the highest standards in stewardship and
accountability. Look for this logo:

Each CCCC-accredited charity is rigorously evaluated against our comprehensive
standards, ensuring that every dollar given makes the greatest possible impact.
When you see this logo, you can give confidently, knowing your generosity supports
organizations dedicated to integrity, financial diligence, and lasting positive change.

While Giving Tuesday is a valuable moment to support causes close to our hearts,
CCCC-accredited charities work year-round to transform lives. From feeding the
hungry and sheltering the vulnerable to fostering education and providing
healthcare, their commitment never pauses. The highest standards they uphold
aren’t seasonal; they’re steadfast.

So, as you consider your end-of-year giving, remember to look for the CCCC
Accreditation. It’s a mark of quality that assures your donation is managed
responsibly, multiplying its impact. Together, let’s embrace sustainable, wise giving
—not only on Giving Tuesday but throughout the year.

Learn more at giveconfidently.ca

The post Giving Tuesday and Beyond: How CCCC-Accredited Charities Make Every Dollar Count appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

1. Listen.

By starting with a posture of prayer and listening, we acknowledge God’s guidance and invite him to direct our paths (Prov 3:6). Pay attention to how your heart responds to the charity’s mission as you spend time in prayer. You may be surprised by how God will move your heart toward the things that break his heart.

2. Explore the corporate values of the ministry.

Every charity has a mission, vision, values, and strategy, though they may present them differently. As you explore these aspects of a charity, consider whether they align with your personal values and the strategies you support. Investigate the charity’s accountability structure, which can include its board and committee composition, financial audits or reviews, and external verification processes. Finally, find out whether they have pursued any third-party accreditations, such as from CCCC – these organizations usually have public lists available of “accredited members”.

3. Review available financial statements and policies.

To make an informed decision about whether or not to give, examine a ministry’s annual report, descriptions of current activities, recent projects, financial statements, and T3010 information. While you won’t access all internal documents due to privacy issues, a reputable charity should exhibit a reasonable level of transparency. The Government of Canada makes public the organization’s annual filing (T3010). Keep in mind, numbers are just part of the story which is why I recommend reaching out to the charity.

Rather than quickly evaluating a charity based on one metric, look deeper to see how the organization measures its effectiveness, efficiency, and impact. Some measures will be more quantitative in nature and others qualitative. Some are focused on short-term goals while others may be engaged in work that will require a long-term investment before results are visible. Pay attention to how the organization evaluates itself and communicates this to supporters. It may be reflected in numbers, but it may also be presented in success stories or testimonials from those the ministry serves.

4. Talk to them.

Reach out to the charity’s representatives, whether volunteers or employees, to learn more about their ministry and have your questions answered. Direct communication can offer insights that might not be apparent through written materials alone. Finding out about the charity’s plans for the future can give you an idea of the charity’s growth and long-term commitment. Ask about upcoming projects and initiatives to see if those align with your interests and passions. For ministries structured less around projects and more around programs, inquire about the future goals for their programs.

5. Attend events and be aware of ongoing projects.

The ongoing projects and activities of a ministry organization demonstrate how current donations are being utilized and allocated today. Attending events hosted by the organization and reviewing its website/social media pages can help raise your understanding of how the organization demonstrates its effectiveness and impact. Some examples of things you can look out for include:

• How employees/volunteers interacted with attendees
• The evidence that those being served by the charity’s projects and programs have benefited
• What attention to detail was put into the event (this could be an indicator of how intentional and serious the charity takes its work)
• Are the charity’s priorities made clear by where the focus and attention is throughout the event

6. Get involved.

A natural next step, consider volunteering with the charity to gain firsthand experience of their ministry in action. This not only brings you closer to their work but also provides an opportunity to connect with others who share your passion for the charity’s cause.

7. Give once.

Before making a substantial donation, consider giving a smaller amount initially. This first gift will likely put you on the charity’s donor list and enable you to observe how they appreciate your support and communicate the impact it has. Pay attention to both the interaction with the organization and to how your heart responds – did they meet your expectations, are you still interested in engaging?

When it comes to choosing a charity to support in Canada, a thoughtful and prayerful approach combined with due diligence can help ensure that your donations make a meaningful impact. By following these tips, you can make well-informed decisions and support causes that align with your values and priorities.

The post 7 Tips for Choosing a Charity to Donate To appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Background

On September 19, 2023, the OPC published findings from a 2021 complaint about a charity that traded donor contact information with another charity.

The donor regularly gave to Charity A using a paper form. The donor received a request for donations from Charity B in the mail. Charity B confirmed that it received the donor’s name and mailing address from Charity A. The donor looked at Charity A’s form and found an opt-out checkbox for donors who “prefer not to have [their] name traded with other organizations.” The donor complained to Charity A. After a long delay, Charity A responded but the donor was unsatisfied and filed a complaint with the OPC.

Charity A argued that trading donor information was necessary to fulfill its objectives, that trading “is a long-standing, widely used practice among not-for-profit organizations,” that participation is voluntary, that the donation form’s check-boxes are few and are clear, and that donors can opt-out.

Using its Guidelines for Obtaining Meaningful Consent, the OPC concluded that by relying on opt-out consent to share donor contact information with other charities, Charity A did not obtain meaningful consent as required by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

The OPC made several findings and compliance recommendations.

Findings

Information Not Sensitive, No Risk of Significant Harm

The information shared was not sensitive, nor did the sharing create a risk of significant harm to the donor.

But the OPC emphasized that sensitivity of information is context-specific. For example, the nature of a charity could infer sensitive information about a donor, particularly if the charity represents specific interests or supports marginalized groups (e.g. religious beliefs, health conditions, criminal history).

Takeaway: ensure you take the nature of your charity into consideration when assessing whether a donor’s name and address could be sensitive.

Donor’s Reasonable Expectations Not Met

Sharing the donor’s information requires express consent because such sharing falls outside the donor’s reasonable expectations.

The OPC accepted that trading donor lists may be common practice, but common practice does not dictate donors’ reasonable expectations. Donation processing or sending tax receipts fall within donors’ reasonable expectations as to why their information may be disclosed, but donors would not expect disclosure for “the secondary purpose of enabling third parties to solicit donations”.

Further, where “the act of donating to charity is a private matter (e.g. for religious reasons) [donors] would not expect that their personal information [would] be disclosed in this manner.”

Takeaway: put yourself in the donor’s shoes and ask what you would reasonably expect. In other words, apply the golden rule!

Charity Did Not Provide Sufficient Information to Support Meaningful Consent

The charity had not provided sufficient information to support meaningful consent.

The OPC cited various sections of PIPEDA to determine whether the charity provided enough information to the donor to meet the standard of meaningful consent.

• Section 4.3 – knowledge and consent are required for collection, use and disclosure of personal information
• Section 4.3.2 – organizations need to make reasonable efforts to ensure individuals understand the purpose for which information will be used
• Section 6.1 – consent is only valid if it aligns with reasonable expectations

With these principles in mind, the OPC examined the Charity’s donor insert. While the insert provided a reasonable description, it didn’t explain that a donor’s mailing address would be shared with third parties; that recurring donors might not have received the insert; and the insert did not tell donors how they could withdraw consent.

Takeaway: make sure that readers can quickly review important information that impacts their privacy decision, focusing on what information is collected, to whom it is disclosed and for what purpose. Provide this information every time. Provide clear opt-out instructions.

What about check-boxes?

The OPC acknowledged that PIPEDA allows for checkoff boxes, and that they are “a reasonable method of seeking consent under certain circumstances.” The issue was whether opt-out consent was reasonable in this case. The facts led the OPC to the conclusion that it was not reasonable.

Recommendations

The OPC made 4 recommendations to ensure the Charity complied with PIPEDA:

1. Use express, opt-in consent for donor list trading
2. Provide key information up front, including details of what happens if a donor opts in (what is disclosed, to whom, for what purpose, and the right to withdraw consent)
3. Provide key information every time consent is sought
4. Include a more detailed explanation of the donor list trading program in the Charity’s privacy policy

In an update, the OPC noted that the Charity agreed to implement all recommendations, but subsequently ceased its participation in the donor list trading program.

The post Trading Donor Lists? Make Sure Donors Consent! appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

What is the AMT?

The Alternative Minimum Tax (“AMT”) was initially designed to ensure individuals and trusts pay at least a minimum level of tax. It generally targets high-income earners who use specific strategies and structures to pay preferred (e.g. lower) tax rates due to credits and/or deductions. When preparing your tax return, a calculation is completed to determine whether you may have to pay the minimum tax. If so, then the T691 AMT form is used to calculate your taxes payable. Most individuals and trusts to whom the AMT applies are likely using the services of a professional tax preparer who can advise them on the details of the AMT process, including any impact on provincial taxes.

What are the changes?

On August 4, 2023, The Department of Finance released Legislative Proposals Relating to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations (Budget 2023 and other proposals). The key modifications include:

• Raising the AMT rate from 15.0% to 20.5%.
• Increasing the exemption amount from $40,000 to $173,000, with annual indexing for inflation.
• Raising the capital gains inclusion rate for donations of publicly listed securities from 0% to 30%.
• Including the capital gains on gifts of capital property to charities at a rate of 100%.
• Reducing the basic minimum non-refundable tax credits by half.

The proposed changes to the AMT are slated for implementation in 2024.

Impact on charities

Registered charities may feel the effects of these AMT changes, particularly in terms of donation revenue. Historically, donors have enjoyed significant tax benefits by donating publicly listed securities and capital property to charities. The proposed rules will reduce these benefits for donors who are subject to the AMT. As a result, donors may be less willing to give securities, property, or even cash donations.

What can charities do?

In light of these impending changes, charities can:

• Engage with your regular donors who may be subject to the AMT and ensure they are aware of the proposed changes;
• Encourage donors to speak to their professional tax advisors on the impending changes;
• Make the “ask” simple to make donation decisions easy – for some donors, it may be prudent to donate before the changes take place. Contact the CCCC Community Trust Fund if you need gift planning/fundraising resources;
• Raise concerns about the impact of these changes with your local Member of Parliament and the Minister of Finance.

Next steps & donor options

Although the AMT applies to very few donors, for a small percentage of donors, the changes presented will make a significant impact on their gift planning process. These donors should consult with their professional tax advisor regarding the best option from a tax perspective.

For donors aiming to make a lasting impact with a large, legacy-sized contribution, the ability to have a dynamic beneficiary organization list is often important to their giving strategy.

Donor Advised Funds (DAFs) are a charitable vehicle established within a registered charity, usually as an ‘account’ or ‘fund’. DAFs allow donors to receive charitable donation receipts immediately, while the funds are stewarded by the charity and distributed for certain causes at a later date. The funds are invested to either generate income or grow, and to be distributed to charities on a regular schedule or by a certain date.

For a donation to be receipted, the property’s ownership must be transferred to the charity. Despite the donor relinquishing ownership and control of the property to the charity, the charity may still consider the donor’s suggestions when allocating the funds over time. Please contact CCCC’s Community Trust Fund (CTF) for best practices, policies and agreements for starting a DAF.

Some charities operate their own DAFs while many choose to collaborate with a third-party such as CCCC’s own Community Trust Fund (CTF). Working with a third party such as the CTF can be of great help for sophisticated giving/asks, and for facilitating DAFs for major or emerging donors. The CTF allows donors to benefit Christian charities in Canada with their gifts of securities in an easy and cost-effective process, while relieving the burden of administrative capacity for the beneficiary organization. Find out more at https://www.cccc.org/ctf.

By staying updated on the forthcoming changes and exploring various ways to serve their donors, charities can effectively adapt to these changes, ensuring continuous financial support for their ministries.

The post How Proposed AMT Legislation Will Impact Charities appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Recent amendments to the Income Tax Act prohibit charities from receiving donations that are conditional on the charity making a gift to a non-charity. Now that charities can give grants to non-charities, this blanket prohibition has created confusion about whether and how charities can accept gifts with a donor preference. CRA’s final guidance on this point is yet to be released, but CRA indicates that it is a case-by-case determination that depends on the facts and documentation. CRA’s draft guidance recommends that charities clearly communicate to donors that (1) they can indicate a preference, but the charity retains ultimate authority over its resources; and (2) donations will not be returned to the donor if the resources will not be used according to the donor’s indicated preference.

Background: Income Tax Act

The Income Tax Amendments (ITA) in Bill C-19, Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1 that allowed charities to work with non-charities through qualifying disbursements also changed ITA language addressing “expressly or implicitly conditional” donations.

Before the amendments, section 168(1)(f) of the ITA prohibited registered amateur athletic associations or registered journalism organizations from accepting “a gift the granting of which was expressly or implicitly conditional on the association or organization making a gift to another person, club, society, association or organization.”

The amendments expanded section 168(1)(f) to prohibit registered charities, amateur athletic associations and registered journalism organizations from accepting “a gift the granting of which was expressly or implicitly conditional on the charity, association or organization making a gift to another person, club, society, association or organization, other than a qualified donee” [emphasis added].

In other words, a charity cannot accept donations that are conditional on the charity disbursing those funds to a non-charity.

The question of how CRA will interpret and apply this section has caused some concern for charities. It is common for donors to indicate a preference for how the charity will use their donation, but the consequence of revocation has given charities pause. It also begs the question – how can charities receive donations for specific projects and activities where the charities work with a non-qualified donee (non-charity)?

Interpreting the Income Tax Act: What We Know So Far

In July 2023 CRA released the discussion items from the Canadian Tax Foundation’s Fall 2022 CRA Roundtable Discussion. One question asked specifically about how CRA would view a donation with a letter from the donor about her hope that the gift will be transferred to a specific grantee organization – would CRA call that implicitly conditional?

CRA replied that whether a gift is implicitly conditional “…is a mixed question of fact and law, the determination of which can only be made on a case-by-case basis following a review of the facts and circumstances and related documentation.”

CRA also noted that it is currently writing guidance on the topic.

The current guidance is in draft form (CG-032, Registered Charities Making Grants to Non-Qualified Donees). It addresses directed donations and acting as a conduit and recommends that charities communicate two key messages to donors:

1. Donors can indicate a preference for how donations are applied, but ultimate authority on use of resources belongs to the charity;
2. Donations will not be returned to donors if the charity does not use it in your preferred way.

The draft guidance explains that the ITA amendments are meant to prevent charities from becoming conduits, such as “where a charity solely exists as a fundraising arm in Canada of an affiliate organization in another country.”

The final guidance has not yet been released, but we understand that stakeholder feedback is being used to revise the draft which will likely be available this fall.

Additional Resources

For more on qualifying disbursements, see

CRA Updates T3010, Adds New Form T1441 for Qualifying Disbursements (15 May 2023)

CRA Draft Guidance on Making Grants to Non-Qualified Donees (1 December 2022)

Qualifying Disbursements

Sample Granting Forms for Non-Qualified Donees

The post Qualifying Disbursements, Grants, and Conditional Donations appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Background

The Tax Court of Canada (TCC) considered a related issue in a 2020 decision, Ampratwum-Duah v. The Queen (Ampratwum). Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) reassessed a taxpayer who had claimed charitable donations during the 2005, 2006, and 2007 taxation years. That taxpayer was the religious leader of the charity during that time and signed off on his own donation receipts. In support of his case, the taxpayer’s only evidence of the donations were the receipts themselves; he did not provide any accompanying bank records, church records, or testimony from another official at the charity.

Decision

The TCC was unconvinced, and reminded the taxpayer of his obligation under the Income Tax Act (ITA): section 230, subsection (6) requires a taxpayer who serves a notice of objection or is a party to an appeal to the TCC to “retain every record, book of account, account and voucher necessary for dealing with the objection or appeal”.

In other words, the taxpayer needed to keep adequate records to determine his payable taxes, including claimed deductions, until his appeal was decided. He failed to do so because the only records he kept were the official donation receipts, signed by himself. The court held that, without any corroborating evidence, the taxpayer failed to comply with the record-keeping requirement in s. 230(6) of the ITA. It then held that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the claimed donations had been made.

Application

Where does this leave the charity’s financial officer, or similarly authorized individual? It is possible the court could have found in favour of this taxpayer if he had provided bank records or compelling testimony from someone else at the charity with knowledge of donations. If an authorized individual decides to sign their own official donation receipts, they should keep adequate records from a variety of sources. However, best practice is to avoid that situation altogether by having another authorized individual sign their official donation receipts.

CCCC members can log in to the Knowledge Base for more information about keeping proper books and records. They are also welcome to contact our Member Support Team with their questions.

The post Who Issues The Treasurer’s Receipts? appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Of course, if the facts of another case are sufficiently distinct, it could lead to a different outcome. But the charity would have to prove to the court that it would suffer irreparable harm during the suspension period. In this case, the lower courts did not agree that the charity would suffer that kind of harm.

Background

Following an audit, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) imposed a penalty and suspended Human Concern’s receipting privileges for one year. CRA’s position was that the charity made false charitable tax receipts.

That means that sections 188.1 and 188.2 of the Income Tax Act applied.

Section 188.1 lists penalties for various forms of non-compliance. For example, if donation receipts contain incorrect information, section 188.1(7) imposes a monetary penalty of 5% of the value of the incorrect donation receipts. If the donation receipts contain false information, section 188.1(9) imposes a monetary penalty of 125%. If that amount is more than $25,000 for a given tax year, section 188.2(1)(c) automatically triggers a one-year receipting suspension. It is effective 7 days after CRA sends, by registered mail, notice of the financial penalty.

Section 188.2(4) allows a charity to apply to the Tax Court of Canada (Tax Court) to postpone any remaining suspension period if the charity has also filed a notice of objection.

Human Concern filed a notice of objection and made an application to the Tax Court.

Tax Court Decision (August 4, 2021; unreported)

The Tax Court can grant an application to postpone a suspension “only if it would be just and equitable to do so” (ITA s 188.2(5)). For a postponement to be “just and equitable”, the requesting charity has to meet the test for an injunction. That test requires the charity show (1) there is a serious issue; (2) it will suffer irreparable harm without the postponement; and (3) convenience favours postponing.

The Tax Court must decide these applications within 30 days of filing (Tax Court of Canada Rules (Informal Procedure), SOR/90-688b, s 18.3(3)).

The Tax Court dismissed the application, finding that Human Concern would not suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the government.

The charity appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA).

Federal Court of Appeal Decision (March 2, 2022)

At the FCA, Human Concern argued that the Tax Court made two main errors.

First, that the Tax Court was wrong to find the suspension of receipting privileges would not result in irreparable harm. The FCA disagreed. It held that Human Concern was asking the court to reweigh the evidence, which was beyond its role. The FCA also held that the Tax Court was “entitled to discount” Human Concern’s assertions about the existence of irreparable harm.

Second, that the Tax Court failed to account for principles of natural justice. The FCA held there was “no merit” to Human Concern’s natural justice arguments. The principles of natural justice ensure that the procedure is fair. What is fair depends on the context of the decision being made, but core elements include an impartial decision-maker, a right to be heard, and knowing the reasons for the decision.

The FCA dismissed the appeal.

Supreme Court of Canada Decision

The charity asked the SCC to hear a further appeal. As noted at the outset, the SCC decided not to hear the appeal.

Receipting Resources

Questions about receipting? In addition to our recent post about year-end donations, check out our member Knowledge Base section, Charitable Receipts. You’ll find checklists, tips and topics included split-receipting, services, and what has to be included on official donation receipts.

The post SCC Dismisses Leave to Appeal Re: Receipting Suspension appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Receipting Regulation

The starting point for any receipting question is to look at the Income Tax Regulations.

Regulation 3501 lists the required content for official receipts, and there is a lot. But for our year-end receipting question, the relevant parts are:

• Where the gift is a cash gift, the receipt must show the date on which, or the year during which, the gift was received
• Where the gift is a gift of property, the receipt must show the date on which the gift was received (among other things)

Receipting In-Person Offerings/Donations

When in-person church offerings are collected on January 1 of the new year, it will be a gift for the new year, regardless of what is written on the envelope or the cheque. Similarly, any credit card or debit transactions that are initiated on January 1 will be a gift for the new year.

Receipting Donations Sent By Mail With Postmark

When donations are received by mail, the Canada Revenue Agency considers the date of the donation to be the date of the postmark on the envelope. Your charity needs to keep the stamped envelope as part of its books and records.

This means that if a cheque dated December 31 is received January 5, it can still be receipted for the December 31 date, so long as the envelope is postmarked prior to the new year.

Charities need to be mindful of the date written on the donation itself to ensure a cheque is not post-dated into the new year.

Receipting Donations Sent by Mail Without Postmark

When donations are received by mail without a postmark, your charity needs to be consistent and show good faith in how the donation is processed and recorded.

If the envelope arrives along with other envelopes all postmarked December 31, and the donation cheque is dated for the prior year, it may be reasonable to include it in the prior year.

If the envelope arrives along with other envelopes that have mixed postmarked dates, it may be reasonable to include it in the new year.

Receipting Electronic Donations “In Process”

When donations are received electronically, the CRA does not have a specific statement about determining the date. However the same principles as the ‘postmarked cheque in the mail’ can be applied.

For example, if your charity’s bank, service provider, or credit card company provides hard copy documentation that the donor made the transaction on December 31 or earlier, it would be reasonable to treat the gift as received prior to the new year. Your charity needs to keep the documentation as part of its books and records.

Receipting Donations Consistently

It is up to your charity to set its own policy on how it will treat end-of-year donations. Your charity may choose to (1) determine, using postmarks and transaction documentation, whether the donation should be receipted for the current year or (2) treat any gift delivered on or after January 1 as a gift for the new year.

Your charity should be consistent in this choice and should advise donors ahead of time. Your approach should be set out in a gift acceptance policy so that staff, stewardship representatives, fundraisers, and donors are all aware and informed.

Your charity may also choose to incorporate a ‘cut-off’ date that is determined each year, depending on the calendar, holidays, and staffing – e.g. the Friday ahead of New Year’s Day when that day falls on weekend.

A simple addition to your gift acceptance policy can address year-end gifts. For example:

Year-End Gift Acceptance Policy

Donations sent by mail must be:

• Dated in the current year,
• Have an envelope stamped (or metered) and postmarked by December 31 of the current year, and
• Be delivered within one week of New Year’s Day

For an official donation receipt to be issued for the current year.

Donations sent electronically, whether by e-transfer, credit card, or third-party service provider must be received by [charity] on or before December 31 for an official donation receipt to be issued for the current year.

Additional Resources

We’ve got more information on official donation receipts and a sample gift acceptance policy in our Member Knowledge Base.

The post Receipting Year-End Donations appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

What’s this all about?

Effective September 22, 2022, Mastercard revised its policy requirements for all merchants using a subscription model. As described by US-based The Nonprofit Alliance, Mastercard’s intention was “to mitigate negative practices associated with the utilization of a subscription billing model and/or a negative billing option.” In other words, to protect consumers from being scammed through sketchy subscription or “opt-out” billing practices. These often arise after signing up for “free trials” for various goods and services.

The policy’s impact on charities

Mastercard was clear in a Q&A document that “If a customer is donating to a charity on a recurring basis” that “would be considered a subscription service.”

This policy was an issue for charities because (1) it would increase administrative burdens and (2) charities were not contributing to the problem Mastercard was trying to address.

Extended Effective Date

After discussing the issue with the charitable sector, the effective date for nonprofits was extended to March 21, 2023.

Entirely Revised Policy

Most recently, Mastercard has entirely revised its policy to make the requirements optional for charities, except in certain circumstances. Mastercard will focus its efforts on merchants who “fail to properly manage cardholder complaints and chargebacks related to a subscription/recurring payment plan.”

The requirements are now recommended best practices for charities with recurring Mastercard donations.

But the recommendations become requirements for charities that are “identified for at least four months” in the Acquirer Chargeback Monitoring Program (ACMP). What is ACMP? It’s basically a program used by Mastercard to identify merchants that have excessive chargebacks and to bring them into compliance with Mastercard standards.

The policy’s recommended best practices

What are the best practices (that could become requirements)?

At sign-up:

1. Disclose the basic terms of the donation at the time of donation sign-up. It should include:
   1. Amount of donation
   1. Frequency of donation
   1. Note: linking to a page with this info is not sufficient
2. Record the donor’s acceptance of the basic terms
3. Send a confirmation email or text to the donor at the time of enrolment. The confirmation should include:
   1. Terms of recurring donation
   1. Clear instructions on how to cancel

After sign-up:

1. Provide an online or electronic way to cancel
2. Provide an electronic receipt for each transaction. The receipt must:
   • Include or provide access to account management options
   • Include instructions for cancelling the subscription
3. If the donation is made less than every six months, send the donor a notification 7-30 days before the billing date with terms of recurring donation and how to cancel

Want to chat about it?

If you want to talk about how your charity might implement (or already has implemented!) some of these best practices, we’ve got a place in The Green for you!  You can also check out our November Bulletin, which links out to a helpful article on this topic from the US-based National Council of Nonprofits.

The post Charities and Mastercard Policy Changes appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Bill C-240 Voted Down

Bill C-240 was voted down at second reading.

There was a divide in the House of Commons: the minority government and its supporting party voted against the bill (with a couple exceptions), while members from the other three opposition parties voted for the bill.

The government argued that Bill C-240 would “undermine the effectiveness of the tax incentives provided under the ecological gift program”; that it was “expected to be costly”; that it “would certainly increase the pressure on government to also provide special exemptions for donations of other types of property, such as virtual currency or cash gifts made after tax income.” Its supporting party took similar positions.

Other opposition MPs supported the purpose of the bill but had some questions about effectiveness and fairness that could be examined by the Finance Committee. The MP who introduced the bill highlighted “broad stakeholder support” for the Bill and asked the House to move it to committee to closely examine the proposal. A committee can answer detailed questions, hear from expert witnesses, and make recommendations for improvement.

But this bill will not go to committee for examination – it has died, or been ‘negatived’ by the vote at second reading.

What’s Next?

This is the second time this bill has been introduced. In November 2020, it’s predecessor Bill C-256 was introduced but when the election was called, the bill died. Similar legislation was introduced in 2015 but was never enacted. It’s likely that at some point in the future we will see a new version of this bill introduced. Depending on the composition of the government at the time, it could come in the form of a government bill, or perhaps will be another private members’ bill. It could also start in the Senate, as we saw with Bill S-216.

What Would Bill C-240 Have Changed?

Capital gains tax on arm’s-length sales of private shares or real estate would have been reduced to zero if listed conditions were met. Some of those conditions included:

• that the gift is made within 30 days after the disposition
• that any advantage received is accounted for
• that the purchaser is at arm’s length to both the taxpayer and the charity

For More…

On some of the background information and CCCC’s view on Bill C-240 see Private Shares, Real Estate & Donations: Changes Proposed by Bill C-240.

The post UPDATE on Private Shares, Real Estate & Donations: Changes Proposed by Bill C-240 appeared first on CCCC Blogs.