'Preventing poverty' not a valid charitable goal, CRA tells Oxfam Canada

[jimmy olsen]

Nice to see that tax agencies are retarded everywhere

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/preventing-poverty-not-a-valid-goal-for-tax-purposes-cra-tells-oxfam-canada-1.2717774

The Canada Revenue Agency has told a well-known charity that it can no longer try to prevent poverty around the world if it wants to keep its charitable status for tax purposes. It can only alleviate poverty — because preventing poverty might benefit people who are not already poor.

The bizarre bureaucratic brawl over a mission statement is yet more evidence of deteriorating relations between the Harper government and some parts of Canada's charitable sector.

The lexical scuffle began when Oxfam Canada filed papers with Industry Canada to renew its non-profit status, as required by Oct. 17 this year under a law passed in 2011.

Ottawa-based Oxfam initially submitted wording that its purpose as a charity is "to prevent and relieve poverty, vulnerability and suffering by improving the conditions of individuals whose lives, livelihood, security or well-being are at risk."

The international development group, founded in 1963, spends about $32 million each year on humanitarian relief and aid in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America, with a special emphasis on women's rights.
'Preventing poverty' not an acceptable goal: CRA

But the submission to Industry Canada also needed the approval of the charities directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency, and that's where the trouble began.

Agency officials informed Oxfam that "preventing poverty" was not an acceptable goal.

"Relieving poverty is charitable, but preventing it is not," the group was warned.

"Preventing poverty could mean providing for a class of beneficiaries that are not poor."

Oxfam Canada's executive director called the exchange an "absurd conversation."

"Their interpretation was that preventing poverty may or may not involve poor people," Robert Fox said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"A group of millionaires could get together to prevent their poverty, and that would not be deemed a charitable purpose."
Risk of poverty not the same as 'actually being in need'

The Canada Revenue Agency prevailed, and the official declaration to Industry Canada about the purposes of the non-profit corporation dropped any reference to preventing poverty.

"Our mission statement still indicates we're committed to ending poverty, but our charitable (purposes) do not use the word 'end' or 'prevent' — they use the word 'alleviate."'

Philippe Brideau, spokesman for the Canada Revenue Agency, declined to provide information on the disagreement with Oxfam, saying "we do not comment on specific cases."

However, he said legal precedents mean charities cannot help people not already impoverished from falling into poverty.

"Purposes that relieve poverty are charitable because they provide relief only to eligible beneficiaries, those in need," Brideau said in an email.

"However, the courts have not found the risk of poverty as being equivalent to actually being in need. Therefore, as the courts have indicated, an organization cannot be registered with the explicit purpose of preventing poverty."

He added that charities are still allowed to teach money management, budgeting and other life skills, which could lead to the prevention of poverty.

Oxfam Canada was singled out for criticism earlier this year by Employment Minister Jason Kenney over the group's opposition to Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

And in July last year, Oxfam Canada signed a joint letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, taking issue with reports that government officials had been asked to compile "friend and enemy stakeholder" lists to brief new ministers after the summer cabinet shuffle.

Fox said that despite the new "purpose" statement, the group's programs and activities have not changed.
52 groups currently undergoing audits

The contretemps is yet more evidence of frosty relations between the Harper government and some charities, several dozen of which have been targeted since 2012 for audits of their "political activities."

The Canada Revenue Agency, armed with $13 million in special funding, is currently auditing some 52 groups, many of whom have criticized the Harper government's programs and policies, especially on the environment.

The list includes Amnesty International Canada, the David Suzuki Foundation, Canada Without Poverty, and the United Church of Canada's Kairos charity.

PEN Canada, a Toronto charity that advocates for freedom of speech, joined the ranks of the audited just this week.

The group has raised alarms about the government's muzzling of scientists on the public payroll.

Charities have said the CRA campaign is draining them of cash and resources, creating a so-called "advocacy chill" as they self-censor to avoid aggravating auditors or attracting fresh audits.

Auditors have the power to strip a charity of its registration, and therefore its ability to issue income-tax receipts, potentially drying up donations.

Oxfam Canada is not undergoing a political-activities audit, said Fox.

Chantal Havard, spokeswoman for the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, a coalition of international-aid charities that includes Oxfam, said she was not aware of any other members in mission-statement disputes with the CRA.

[MadImmortalMan]

Kinda like providing health care to people who are not sick?

[Syt]

Only that preventive health care is pretty accepted (check ups, nutritional advice, inoculations ...).

[grumbler]

Only that preventive health care is pretty accepted (check ups, nutritional advice, inoculations ...).

:whoosh:

[Tamas]

They still have a valid point: "preventing poverty" is quite a generous fit-all-sizes thing open to all kinds of embezzlement-happy interpretations.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

They still have a valid point: "preventing poverty" is quite a generous fit-all-sizes thing open to all kinds of embezzlement-happy interpretations.

a) "Alleviating poverty" is not?

b) What does this have to do with not being a charity because it might help non-poor people?

[Tamas]

They still have a valid point: "preventing poverty" is quite a generous fit-all-sizes thing open to all kinds of embezzlement-happy interpretations.

a) "Alleviating poverty" is not?

b) What does this have to do with not being a charity because it might help non-poor people?

dunno. Can't say I care much.

[Malthus]

They still have a valid point: "preventing poverty" is quite a generous fit-all-sizes thing open to all kinds of embezzlement-happy interpretations.

I think the issue is not embezzlement, but politics. That is, the Conservatives are (rightly or wrongly) determined to make a distinction between charities on the one hand, and political organizers on the other - and that only the former be given tax refund status for donations.

The notion is that those whose goal is "preventing poverty" are more likely to be carrying out a political campaign (and one that, no doubt, the Conservatives are not in favour of) rather than what the Conservatives consider true "charity work" - that is, alleviating the effects of poverty on the poor.

The problem is seen as one of mission creep. Charitable organizations tend to attract as staff people who care about issues of social justice - and eventually, there is a temptation on the part of those people to start to believe that (say) helping a poor person get fed every day is less important than changing society in ways that prevent people from becomming poor in the first place - which is the realm of politics, not charity. 

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

The problem is seen as one of mission creep. Charitable organizations tend to attract as staff people who care about issues of social justice - and eventually, there is a temptation on the part of those people to start to believe that (say) helping a poor person get fed every day is less important than changing society in ways that prevent people from becomming poor in the first place - which is the realm of politics, not charity.

Addressing poverty at all is getting into the realm of politics.  It seems like the Conservatives are trying to make an artificial distinction by claiming that an organization that is basically privatized welfare is non-political while one that tries to act on poverty beyond welfare is.  Welfare is political, because someone has to determine who can and cannot receive it, who can and cannot be agents for distributing it, and where to focus it.

[Maximus]

"Canada Revenue Agency"? Did they change the name?

[Malthus]

The problem is seen as one of mission creep. Charitable organizations tend to attract as staff people who care about issues of social justice - and eventually, there is a temptation on the part of those people to start to believe that (say) helping a poor person get fed every day is less important than changing society in ways that prevent people from becomming poor in the first place - which is the realm of politics, not charity.

Addressing poverty at all is getting into the realm of politics.  It seems like the Conservatives are trying to make an artificial distinction by claiming that an organization that is basically privatized welfare is non-political while one that tries to act on poverty beyond welfare is.  Welfare is political, because someone has to determine who can and cannot receive it, who can and cannot be agents for distributing it, and where to focus it.

They are attempting to enforce a distinction, yes. Whether or not this distinction is meaningful is certainly a topic for debate - I think they have a point, and it isn't a trivial one: when an organization enters the realm of politics it should be treated as a political entity and not a charitable one.

Clearly, some line must be drawn, or our local socialist party could claim charitable status rather than the rather different rules applicable to political parties: after all, their goal is basically to end poverty (or at least, that is one of their goals).

You see this sort of mission creep in an extreme form when charities get involved in stuff like middle eastern politics.

[Barrister]

"Canada Revenue Agency"? Did they change the name?

You've been gone a long time.  Yes it was changed a number of years ago, first to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in 1999 (when they merged border services and Revenue Canada), then to CRA in 2003 when they took border services out again.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

They are attempting to enforce a distinction, yes. Whether or not this distinction is meaningful is certainly a topic for debate - I think they have a point, and it isn't a trivial one: when an organization enters the realm of politics it should be treated as a political entity and not a charitable one.

Clearly, some line must be drawn, or our local socialist party could claim charitable status rather than the rather different rules applicable to political parties: after all, their goal is basically to end poverty (or at least, that is one of their goals).

You see this sort of mission creep in an extreme form when charities get involved in stuff like middle eastern politics.

There does need to be a distinction, but the distinction should be on actual or planned activities of the group, not mission statements.  If a group does not directly participate in the political process it is not a political organization.  And yes, even that is a swamp of interpretation.  It's still based on action.

[The Minsky Moment]

They are attempting to enforce a distinction, yes. Whether or not this distinction is meaningful is certainly a topic for debate - I think they have a point, and it isn't a trivial one: when an organization enters the realm of politics it should be treated as a political entity and not a charitable one.

Let's say we agree with your proposition above.
It seems that the distinction they are actually making -- between prevention and alleviation of poverty -- is orthogonal to the distrinction between delivering services and engaging in political advocacy.  One can seek to alleviate poverty by advocating for poor relief payments or housing ("bad"), and one can seek to prevent poverty by running targeted educational clinics, free day care centers, or other things of a traditional charitable nature ("good").  Claiming the words of the mission statement are in themselves inherently political is rather bizarre and rather disturbing because it puts the government in the position of deciding what is (or is not) a worthy charitable cause.  If the goal is to keep charities out of politial advocacy, then put in place rules that bar such activity.  Sure there is a good size grey area, but the editing of mission statements doesn't fix that problem.

Also:  what the Baron says  ^

[celedhring]

They are lots of actions an organization can take to "prevent poverty" that are very concrete, politically harmless and certainly within the purview of a charitable organization. I.e., providing help with children care to parents with low paying jobs so one of them isn't forced to quit or reduce hours, help with health care for those with insufficient coverage after an injury or sickness could affect their ability to stay above poverty line, educational activities to prevent mistakes/behavior that could lead to loss of family stability, employability or income...