View
365
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Is a Corporate Foundation for You?
By Karen J. Cooper, LL.B., LL.L., TEPkcooper@carters.ca
1-866-388-9596
© 2011 Carters Professional Corporation
IMAGINE CANADA
AND VOLUNTEER CANADA
2011 Canadian Business & Community
Partnership Forum & Awards
Montebello – June 9, 2011
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
A. BACKGROUND
• 3 Types of Registered Charities
1. Charitable Organizations
2. Public Foundations
3. Private Foundations
• A charity will be designated a "charitable
organization," a "public foundation," or a "private
foundation," depending on its structure, its source
of funding, and the way it operates
• Amendments to the Income Tax Act have blurred
the distinction between the types of registered
charities
2
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
1. Charitable Organization
• All resources devoted to charitable activities carried
on by it – 149.1(6)
• No personal benefit
• No control by related persons and no control by a
person who has contributed more than 50% of the
capital or someone related to such person
• May carry on limited political activities and related
businesses
3
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
2. Public Foundations
• Not a charitable organization
• May disburse funds to qualified donees (other
registered charities) – more than 50% of
expenditures on disbursements vs activities
• No control by related persons
• No control by a person who has contributed more
than 50% of the capital or someone related to such
person
• May only carry on a related business and limited
political activities, may not acquire control of any
corporation or incur certain debts
4
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
3. Private Foundations
• Not a charitable organization
• May disburse funds to qualified donees (other
registered charities) – more than 50% of
expenditures on disbursements vs activities
• May be closely held and controlled
• May not carry on any business, acquire control of any corporation or incur certain debts
• Subject to excess corporate holdings regime and difficulties with non-qualifying securities
5
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
• Disbursement Quota
– 2010 Federal Budget eliminated the 80%
disbursement quota
– Also, repeal of 80% DQ related concepts
Enduring property (including ten-year gifts)
Capital gains pool
Specified gifts
6
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
– Foundations must still expend 3.5% of assets
not used directly in charitable activities or
administration (“investment assets”)
– Based on the average value of assets in 24
months immediately preceding the taxation year
– 3.5% DQ does not apply if property is $25,000 or
less
7
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
– Transfer between non arm’s length charities - to
be expended by following year, unless designated
gift
Not transfers between arm’s length charities
When to designate a gift
◦ If gift would not be expended by transferee
charity the following year
Effect of designating a gift
◦ Transferor charity has to meet its own 3.5%
DQ with other expenditures
8
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
• CRA Fundraising Guidance
– With 80% DQ repealed, more focus on compliance
with CRA’s Fundraising Guidance
– 2010 Budget indicates that part of CRA’s
Fundraising Guidance has strengthened CRA’s
ability to ensure that a charity’s fundraising
practices are appropriate
– Regulates fundraising practices
– Regulates fundraising costs
9
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
– Fundraising ratio: fundraising costs to fundraising
revenue in a fiscal year
35% or less - unlikely to generate questions or
concerns
35 to 70% - CRA will examine average ratio
over recent years to determine if there is trend
of high fundraising costs
Over 70% - will raise concerns with CRA and
will likely result in revocation
10
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
– Guidance provides information on current
treatment of fundraising under ITA and common
law (not a new CRA policy position)
Distinguishing between fundraising and other
expenditures
Allocating expenditures for T3010 reporting
Dealing with activities that have more than one
purpose
Understanding how CRA assesses what is
acceptable fundraising
11
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
B. ADVANTAGES
• Protection of assets
– Assets are separate from operating entity which
is more likely to be sued
– But, must be an arm’s length board to be
effective
12
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
• Segregation of Funds
– Distinguish between annual and capital
fundraising
Two campaigns can be run at the same time
for a different purpose
Options for donors to support the
organization are expanded
– Creation of endowment(s)
Can produce a flow of income to the charity
in the future by gradually building up a large
capital base
13
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
– Perceived need to separate surplus from control
of operating entity
Ensures that the funds are protected for use
by the charity in the future
– Government funding decisions
Provides future protection in the event of
government cutbacks
– Perpetuating the names of particular donors
Establishment of a named fund is much
easier within a foundation than a charity
14
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
• Attracting Board members with specific skills:
– Fundraising
– Fund management & investment
• Allows operating organization to focus on own
mission and operations
• Affirmation of longevity
• Greater likelihood of an increase in volunteerism
15
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
• Potential to receive more funding than a charitable
organization
• Not required to devote all resources to own
charitable activities in a given year, subject to the
disbursement quota requirements
• Centralization, cohesiveness and coordination of
the organization
– Provides a single vehicle for the purpose of
charitable giving
– Day-to-day administrative burdens of decision-
making, policy formulation and other related
matters are transferred to the decision-makers of
the foundation
16
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
• Increased flexibility in charitable gifting
• Increased publicity
– A parallel foundation provides more publicity and
marketing consequences for a corporation that
may not be available to a corporation that is
engaged in charitable giving on its own
• Boost employee morale
17
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
• Other advantages of a Private Foundation
– Can be closely or family-held
– Can borrow for purpose of investing
– Provides significant control to establishing group
or individual
– Provides retention of control over investment of
its assets
– Maintenance of privacy regarding the gifts made
to the foundation
– Control over timing of gifts made and to whom
gifts are made to and by a foundation
18
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
• Advantages of Donor Advised Funds
– No administrative and managerial requirements
– Not required to report annually
– No compliance obligations
– Costs to set up a corporation or trust are not
applicable
– Not required to register with CRA
19
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
C. CHALLENGES
• Increased administrative and regulatory compliance
burden
– Incurring ongoing expenses and the requirement
for ongoing oversight and professional advice
– Record-keeping, filings, audits
– Staffing?
20
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
• Who is in control?
– Fundraising priorities
– Mission, goals and objectives may diverge
– Unrealistic expectations, performance
measurement
21
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
• Audit Issues
– If a non-arm’s length board may be required to
consolidate
– Restrictions on funds may not move them off the
balance sheet
22
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
• Disbursement Quota
– 3.5% may be difficult to meet, particularly in
initial years and depending upon terms of
endowments with respect to capital
encroachment
– Compliance with technical anti-avoidance rules
regarding “designated gifts”
23
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
• Fundraising Guidance
– If all fundraising expenses are in the Foundation
may be difficult to keep fundraising ratio under
35%
– But, may be easier to isolate fundraising best
practices into separate organization
• Transfers of existing long-term or restricted gifts
may be difficult
24
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
• Potential for negative publicity
– When parallel foundation is not administered
properly and runs afoul of the regulatory regimes
• Disadvantages of a Private Foundation
– Cannot carry on any related business
– Can be expensive and more complicated than
donor advised funds
– Additional tax rules such as non-qualified
investments, non-qualified securities and excess
corporate holding rules
25
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
D. SOME QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Do the existing and future assets warrant protection
and management in separate corporation?
2. Where would fundraising expenditures be incurred?
To what extent?
3. What would be the implications of consolidation for
the organization?
4. What about intellectual property licensing?
26
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
5. Would there be difficulties with the transfer of
existing gifts and funds? To what extent?
6. What level of control would be required by the
operating/sponsoring organization?
7. Who would be responsible for establishing
fundraising priorities?
8. Will you be able to recruit a separate board with the
required skill set or are you simply diluting the
strength of the existing board?
9. How will staffing and administrative support be
provided
27
www.charitylaw.cawww.carters.ca
THANK YOU
Karen J. CooperCarters Professional Corporation
(613) 235-4774 or kcooper@carters.ca
28
This handout is provided as an information service by Carters Professional Corporation. It is
current only as of the date of the handout and does not reflect subsequent changes in the law.
This handout is distributed with the understanding that it does not constitute legal advice or
establish a solicitor/client relationship by way of any information contained herein. The
contents are intended for general information purposes only and under no circumstances can
be relied upon for legal decision-making. Readers are advised to consult with a qualified
lawyer and obtain a written opinion concerning the specifics of their particular situation.
© 2011 Carters Professional Corporation
Disclaimer
Recommended