If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
If a corporation sponsors an event, can they claim it as an expense? If they make a donation, is that treated differently?
In the past I have not had corporations asking for charitable tax receipts...but I have had individuals doing so.
Please clarify?
Thanks,
Larry
What I've been taught in my tax courses is that corporations can deducted charitable donations to determine their taxable income under section 110.1(1)(a) of the ITA. Corporations deduct under a different section than individuals do, rather than receiving a tax credit as individuals do. Its pretty clear if its a charitable donation. If its not a charity my best thinking is that it would depend on the nature of the event and whether its clearly in the course of pursuing normal business income - advertising & promotion expense etc I don't see any difference between it being considered a donation or a sponsorship; in both cases the corporation hands over money to the charity as a donation for an event the charity is holding.
However, I am not yet qualified to be giving tax advise so I would check with an accountant. Not sure why they would or wouldn't ask for a tax receipt.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Saturday, 5th February, 2011, 02:59 PM.
A charitable donation is by definition one that has no real benefit for the entity making the donation. Therefore I don't see how "sponsorship" in return for advertising would qualify. On the other hand, many corporations do make a certain amount of charitable donations without expecting anything in return.
A charitable donation is by definition one that has no real benefit for the entity making the donation. Therefore I don't see how "sponsorship" in return for advertising would qualify. On the other hand, many corporations do make a certain amount of charitable donations without expecting anything in return.
A charitable donation is to a charitable organization or registered amateur athletic organization that uses it for charitable purposes. It is not denied just because for example you get to put your name on a university buidling or hospital ward or call an event the Deloitte Canadian Open for say a skating or chess event, as long as the organization is a charity. It is not denied if you have your name permanently put on a plaque in the lobby of an arts building or have your corporations name or individual name acknowledged in a printed program or at signage during the event. Heck its not even denied I believe if you name the whole communtiy theatre building after your corporation such as the Dofasco centre for the performing arts or name a hospital after yourself. You are not required to keep the donation a secret in order to qualify for the deduction. The ITA regime is meant to encourage us as individuals or corporations to support worthwhile public good charitable causes including athletics. It is not meant to discourage donations.
If it is not a charity such as the Molson Indy or BMO Field my thinking is that it is still deductible as an advertising or promotion expense in the ordinary course of business just as a newspaper ad or tv commercial would be.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Saturday, 5th February, 2011, 04:40 PM.
From the accounting courses I've taken, most corporations can claim a lot of things under advertizing / public relations / promotions and this taxwise would effectively be equivalent to a charitible donation.
So probably the biggest hit might be in terms of individual Olympic donations or bequeaths as Paul mentions.
Parents getting tax receipts for their children going to International events would be frowned upon both as a charity and as a RAAA.
Change the name to The Canadian Chess and Global Warming Federation and apply again. Change the mandate to the promotion of chess and study of hot air in Canada.
My guess and its just a guess is that if they issued tax receipts to parents for paying for their children to go to international events then this would be contrary to CRA tax donation rules. A similar issue happened in Hamilton with Redeemer college where parents received tax receipts for making donations to a bursary/tuition fund which in fact funded some of their own children. ...
Yet another ethical embarrassment for the CFC. Who were the CFC executives and parents who were involved? They must have been pretty dense not to have recognized this sleazy little attempt to circumvent the intent of the tax laws for what it was. :(
Last edited by Peter McKillop; Monday, 7th February, 2011, 10:59 AM.
Reason: ok, ok, I retract "slimeballs"
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Yet another ethical embarrassment for the CFC. Who were the CFC executives and parents who were involved? They must have been pretty dense not to have recognized this sleazy little attempt to circumvent the intent of the tax laws for what it was. I think their names should be made public so that our governors will know who to elect to CFC executive positions in the years ahead. It would be a shame not to put these slimeballs to work for the benefit of chess in Canada. :(
Well if you are wanting to look into it this thread from July of last year has a post from Bob Gillanders which mentions some of the issues involved re specified player donations and that the CFC had issues prior to July 28th,2010 with CRA and were 'slapped on the wrist' . http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...ipts#post27176 the thread also has some excellent points in my opinion from Steve Douglas outlining the potential issues.
I don't support calling anyone a slimeball though, but that's up to you.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Sunday, 6th February, 2011, 07:59 PM.
Yet another ethical embarrassment for the CFC. Who were the CFC executives and parents who were involved? They must have been pretty dense not to have recognized this sleazy little attempt to circumvent the intent of the tax laws for what it was. I think their names should be made public so that our governors will know who to elect to CFC executive positions in the years ahead. It would be a shame not to put these slimeballs to work for the benefit of chess in Canada. :(
1) Les Bunning has put a lot of time for us into this business with CRA over the years, since these incidents became an issue. While it's clear now that a number of tax receipts had been issued inappropriately in past years, we had discontinued this practice. Les had discovered that in certain instances parent's donations for their children could be issued tax receipts, but we hadn't acted on this after the 2010 AGM, as we were working on a new policy document.
2) The annullment was issued as we weren't considered to be 100% Educational which was the charitible branch we were registered under many years ago. It's my understanding that the CRA reviews and annuls many charities each year for this reason (we should have never been a charity). Les made strong arguments in our favour, but they weren't budging. We hope to apply as a Registered Athletic Association in a year or so.
I'm not sure there was ever a slimeball in this instance.
1) Les Bunning has put a lot of time for us into this business with CRA over the years, since these incidents became an issue. While it's clear now that a number of tax receipts had been issued inappropriately in past years, we had discontinued this practice. Les had discovered that in certain instances parent's donations for their children could be issued tax receipts, but we hadn't acted on this after the 2010 AGM, as we were working on a new policy document.
2) The annullment was issued as we weren't considered to be 100% Educational which was the charitible branch we were registered under many years ago. It's my understanding that the CRA reviews and annuls many charities each year for this reason (we should have never been a charity). Les made strong arguments in our favour, but they weren't budging. We hope to apply as a Registered Athletic Association in a year or so.
I'm not sure there was ever a slimeball in this instance.
Why wait the year? It's a one page form & mainly requires a report on your activities as to how you are training coaches, referees and high performance athletes, regulating and promoting the sport etc. Shouldn't take that long to put together.
The CRA site shows only 34 charities as ever having been annuled, with effective dates all the way back to 1967. So that would seem to be less than one a year.
Also if there are strong arguments in favour of the CFC then why not take those strong arguments to federal tax court? CRA is not the ultimate arbiter, there is a court process.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Sunday, 6th February, 2011, 10:38 PM.
Why wait the year? It's a one page form & mainly requires a report on your activities as to how you are training coaches, referees and high performance athletes, regulating and promoting the sport etc. Shouldn't take that long to put together.
The CRA site shows only 34 charities as ever having been annuled, with effective dates all the way back to 1967. So that would seem to be less than one a year.
Also if there are strong arguments in favour of the CFC then why not take those strong arguments to federal tax court? CRA is not the ultimate arbiter, there is a court process.
I presume it could be costly to take the matter to the federal tax court?
Any idea how much? More than a new website? I do not see any benefit to appealing the decision - I don't see an 'up side' for the potential expense (other than the perceived impact on people's decision-making about donations to the Chess Foundation. I don't know whether that is a significant issue or not.
I presume it could be costly to take the matter to the federal tax court?
Any idea how much? More than a new website? I do not see any benefit to appealing the decision - I don't see an 'up side' for the potential expense (other than the perceived impact on people's decision-making about donations to the Chess Foundation. I don't know whether that is a significant issue or not.
No more costly presumably than all the time and effort spent to date defending the charitable status. I hate to see good arguments on behalf of the CFC shut down just because there is a cost to go through the courts. Not being a lawyer I have no idea how much it would cost. I can tell you that many cases are taken to court each year - they are referred to as Dominion Tax Cases and form an important common law component of our tax laws and their interpretation.
I presume it could be costly to take the matter to the federal tax court?
Any idea how much? More than a new website? I do not see any benefit to appealing the decision - I don't see an 'up side' for the potential expense (other than the perceived impact on people's decision-making about donations to the Chess Foundation. I don't know whether that is a significant issue or not.
The Executive felt that we would be best served by letting the matter go, accept the annullment and proceed with the Registered Atlhetic Association project at some point in time down the road. Maybe we'll have to scrutinize the regulations, and set up different programs, so as to maximize our chances.
Tweet
Comment