They spent 23,000 on a LENS????? My god are telvisions cameras that expensive?
cappy how much does it cost you to make your videos?
Canada Branch Finances - What's Going On?
by berrygerry 40 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
OrphanCrow
BerryGerry - I think the 35 mil that looks like it has disappeared is actually still there. It isn't that the WTS has hidden it - the CRA has changed their forms and reporting for the 2014 tax year.
On the long financial form, gifts to qualified donees used to be reported with "other income" on line 4920. This year, the gifts are added on after the expenditures have been totalled. On line 5050 - $35,921,399 is listed as charitable gifts - the 434 congregations that were gifted by the WTS would be in this number and would make up the difference that you see on the brief summary.
The summary in the OP gives the figure of $82,779,949 for total expenditures yet the long form gives the figure of $118,701,348 as total expenditures after the gifts have been added in.
It is possible that the mortgage forgiveness was a move to get in line with the tax laws for charitable organizations. It appears like there has been a change in the CRA rules and reporting.
-
OrphanCrow
They spent 23,000 on a LENS????? My god are telvisions cameras that expensive?
Copy camera lenses can be that expensive. But, why would Canada send a lens to New York? And get to claim it as a charitable gift??
It is possible that it was a copy camera lens from the printing department that was no longer in use. What to do with an out of date copy camera lens??? Oh. I know! Send it to New York! And call it a gift.
*oops - sometimes I post too fast - "telephoto lens" would not be used for copy work. But a motorized, state of the art TV lens would cost a bundle....lots.
-
sir82
It is possible that the mortgage forgiveness was a move to get in line with the tax laws for charitable organizations.
If true, what is it with this organization and taxes?
They changed their entire business model in 1990 to avoid collecting and forwarding sales tax. If the above speculation is true, they have once again changed their entire business model due to taxation issues.
I don't particularly enjoy paying taxes either, but neither do I engage in wholesale sweeping reforms of my entire income structure to paranoically evade paying so much as one penny.
-
_Morpheus
Same principle crow..... Why would canda donate the telephoti lens, one charity to another, and get to donate it -
OrphanCrow
I have been doing some more reading about the CRA's rules for charities and non-profit organizations. There has been some recent changes to ensure that these organizations are actually not for profit.
In previous years, the KH loans were reported as "Long Term Investments" but have now been converted to "gifts to qualified donees". There is a tax related reason for this change.
The CRA considers long term investments as profit making ventures and therefore not allowed for non-profits under Canadian tax law.
An overly-large reserve might also indicate the NPO is accumulating for inappropriate (i.e. for-profit) purposes.
A common ‘inappropriate’ purpose is the intention to earn investment income. Interpretation Bulletin IT-496R opines that using accumulated funds for long-term investments is ipso facto a for-profit purpose, taking the organization outside of the scope of section 149(1)(l).This would explain why, on the 2014 tax return, the long term investments have been reduced so significantly and subsequently, the reserve is much smaller. The WTS was forced to make this change by the CRA. They were likely censured for giving out loans as a profit making venture and, if they hadn't forgiven the loans, they could have lost their tax exempt status.
And now you know why Sophie can't have ice cream - the Tower Daddy lost a whole bunch of that re$erve they had.
-
Crazyguy
Makes sence Orphan, they don't do shit unless thier made to. -
OrphanCrow
Yes, Crazyguy, the changes to the WTS is always about the money and I don't think that the CRA was too happy with the way the WTS was conducting its business.
The switch to monthly pledged donations was a forced move by the CRA.
Large reserves may also lead the CRA to suspect an NPO of increasing its capital by improper means. They are of the opinion that any capital projects must be funded by member contributions, gifts, grants, or accumulated incidental profits.
-
Crazyguy
I wonder if there was some changes in the tax code of the USA that also led to this? -
OrphanCrow
Morpheus: Why would canda donate the telephoti lens, one charity to another, and get to donate it?
This probably has to do with limits on capital purchases. It is possible that NY has to dilute their capital spending to fall into line with non-profit requirements that capital expenditure have to come from donations. So, gifts are allowed. The lens becomes a gift from Canada to the US. Voila! International charity.
Or something like that...
Crazyguy: I wonder if there was some changes in the tax code of the USA that also led to this?
I have spent some time looking around to see if this is the case but have been unable to find anything conclusive. However, it would not surprise me if it is - what happens in the King of the North is often a reflection of what happens in the King of the South.
If the CRA is clamping down on non-profits here and making them reduce their reserve funds (which long term investments are part of), then it would likely follow that this is the case south of the border, too.
Which might well account for the shortfall that the WTS is experiencing with Walkill. They probably started that project as a way to reduce their reserve fund as a requirement for non-profits to retain their tax status. But the taxman might have, after the project started, told them that they had to dump their long term investments (KH loans) and now the WTS is stuck looking at a double reduction in reserve funds.
Does the IRS publish any tax returns on non-profits like Canada does? It would be interesting to know the amount of money involved in the KH loan forgiveness across the States and elsewhere. The amount has to be many times what was forgiven in Canada and the Canadian amount is almost $36 million. There are 1380 congregations in Canada, and only 434 of them make up that 36 mil. In the States, there are 13,871 congregations. The amount forgiven in the United States must be astronomical.
One more question - was the forgiveness of KH loans only a North American phenomena, or was this policy put in effect globally? Did the WTS forgive the loans in countries that didn't require it for tax exempt purposes?