{"id":34450,"date":"2022-06-15T12:27:46","date_gmt":"2022-06-15T16:27:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/?p=34450"},"modified":"2022-06-15T12:27:49","modified_gmt":"2022-06-15T16:27:49","slug":"update-on-private-shares-real-estate-donations-changes-proposed-by-bill-c-240","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cccc.org\/news_blogs\/legal\/2022\/06\/15\/update-on-private-shares-real-estate-donations-changes-proposed-by-bill-c-240\/","title":{"rendered":"UPDATE on Private Shares, Real Estate & Donations: Changes Proposed by Bill C-240"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Earlier this year we let you know about Bill C-240<\/a>, the Supporting Canadian Charities Act<\/em><\/a>. <\/em>Bill C-240 was voted down<\/a> at second reading. This private member\u2019s bill would have amended the Income Tax Act<\/em><\/a> to waive capital gains tax on the arm\u2019s-length sale of private shares or real estate when the proceeds of the sale are donated to a charity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bill C-240 Voted Down<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Bill C-240 was voted down<\/a> at second reading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was a divide in the House of Commons<\/a>: 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government argued<\/a> that Bill C-240 would \u201cundermine the effectiveness of the tax incentives provided under the ecological gift program\u201d; that it was \u201cexpected to be costly\u201d; that it \u201cwould 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.\u201d Its supporting party took similar positions<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other opposition MPs supported the purpose<\/a> 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<\/a> \u201cbroad stakeholder support\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this bill will not go to committee for examination \u2013 it has died, or been \u2018negatived\u2019 by the vote at second reading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s Next?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This is the second time this bill has been introduced. In November 2020, it\u2019s predecessor Bill C-256<\/a> was introduced but when the election was called, the bill died. Similar legislation<\/a> was introduced in 2015 but was never enacted. It\u2019s 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\u2019 bill. It could also start in the Senate, as we saw with Bill S-216.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Would Bill C-240 Have Changed?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n