Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Exploring the ins-and-outs of Canadian Charity Law in a way that can be understood by the layperson, including Charity Registration, Not-for-Profit Incorporation, Charity Governance, Charity Fundraising, Tax Receipting, and much more!
The letter never really arrives at a convenient time, you know?
Speaker 2:Oh, definitely not. It's always a surprise.
Speaker 1:Right. You're sitting in the boardroom, maybe sipping your morning coffee, just feeling pretty good about the impact your charitable foundation has made this year. Then someone sides it across the table.
Speaker 2:And you instantly know what it is just from the envelope.
Speaker 1:Exactly. It comes on that official charities directorate letterhead. And I mean, the tone of it is incredibly polite, almost overly polite.
Speaker 2:Yeah. That classic bureaucratic politeness.
Speaker 1:Right. It casually asks for the Foundations books and records from a period that ended say three or four years ago, but somewhere buried down in the second or third paragraph there's this really specific request.
Speaker 2:The tripwire?
Speaker 1:Yes, the tripwire. They want all documentation relating to amounts receivable from and investments in non arm's length persons.
Speaker 2:And that is exactly when in the room drops, about 10 degrees.
Speaker 1:Oh absolutely. Because everyone sitting around that mahogany table knows exactly what that phrasing means. Yep. It means the loan.
Speaker 2:Yep. The dreaded loan.
Speaker 1:So welcome to today's deep dive. We're exploring the high stakes, highly scrutinized world of private foundations lending money to their own directors.
Speaker 2:It's a wildly complex area.
Speaker 1:It really is. We're going to look at the legal framework, the Canada Revenue Agency's audit patterns, and some honestly truly wild real world case law to understand how boards get this so so wrong.
Speaker 2:Because it really is a world that catches a lot of very smart highly successful business people completely off guard.
Speaker 1:Right, they just don't see it coming.
Speaker 2:Not at all. So our mission today is to unpack the core legal conflicts of these non arms length loans. We're going to break down why securing a genuinely fantastic financial return for your charity absolutely will not save it from having its status revoked.
Speaker 1:Which is wild to think about.
Speaker 2:It is. And we'll look at the exact mechanisms the CRA uses to actually catch this kind of activity.
Speaker 1:You know, was thinking about this whole dynamic before we started recording today and the best analogy I could come up with is like playing poker.
Speaker 2:Okay, I like poker. Let's hear it.
Speaker 1:So it's like you sit down at the Feld, but you are the dealer, you are the player, and you are the house all at the very same time.
Speaker 2:Oh wow. Yeah, that's a loaded table.
Speaker 1:Right. Even if you deal yourself a completely fair hand and you play strictly by the rules of the game, literally no outside observer is going to let you walk away with the chips. It just inherently looks rigged.
Speaker 2:The visual of one person occupying every single seat at the poker table is honestly the perfect way to visualize the legal problem here.
Speaker 1:It really paints a picture.
Speaker 2:It does. To understand why that polite little CRA letter is so terrifying to a board, we really first have to look at how foundation directors usually defend themselves when the auditor actually shows up at their door.
Speaker 1:Right. Let's set the scene for that. So the auditor is sitting at the table looking over the ledgers. And typically from the case studies we're looking at, the board members aren't evasive at all.
Speaker 2:No, they're usually pretty confident.
Speaker 1:Exactly. They aren't sweating or acting like they've been caught red handed. They actually feel pretty good about their financial stewardship.
Speaker 2:Because the numbers usually look good.
Speaker 1:Yeah. They sit there and explain, totally reasonably in their own minds, that the money they lent to a fellow director's private company was never truly at risk. They argue that the underlying business was rock solid.
Speaker 2:And that the interest was paid on time every single month.
Speaker 1:Right and here is their ultimate trump card.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:They say the foundation actually made a much better return on this loan than it would have they just left the money in a standard GIC.
Speaker 2:Right, like a guaranteed investment certificate at the local bank.
Speaker 1:Exactly, earning a boring, safe, you know, two or 3%. So they think they've done a genuinely great job for the charity.
Speaker 2:And the fascinating part of this defense is that, well, everything the board is saying is frequently 100% true.
Speaker 1:Wait, really? So they did make money?
Speaker 2:Oh, yeah. The foundation genuinely did make money. The loan performed beautifully. But the auditor's real target isn't the return on investment.
Speaker 1:So they don't even care about the profit?
Speaker 2:Not even a little bit. The auditor completely ignores the bottom line of the spreadsheet, which just absolutely baffles business minded directors. The auditor only cares about the process.
Speaker 1:Which means they start asking a completely different set of questions, I assume. They aren't asking about yield.
Speaker 2:No, not at all. The auditor asks things like, Who negotiated the terms on behalf of the foundation? Was the foundation separately advised by a lawyer who wasn't also advising the borrower?
Speaker 1:Oh, so looking for actual independence.
Speaker 2:Exactly. They want to know, were there fixed repayment dates that a commercial lender would demand? Where is the independent valuation proving this was a fair deal?
Speaker 1:And I imagine they look closely at the board meetings. Right?
Speaker 2:Crucially, yes. They ask when the board voted to approve this loan, who actually left the room? Did they even discuss the alternative of simply keeping the money in the bank?
Speaker 1:Okay. I have to push back here.
Speaker 2:Mhmm.
Speaker 1:Just on behalf of anyone listening who operates in the real world of business and entrepreneurship.
Speaker 2:Fair enough. Go ahead.
Speaker 1:If the charity is actually making significantly more money off this loan to a director's company than it would sitting in a savings account, isn't the director doing a good job?
Speaker 2:I mean, on paper, looks like it.
Speaker 1:Right. They use their personal business acumen to get the charity a great yield. Why on earth would the government punish financial success?
Speaker 2:Well, the underlying logic comes down to a really fundamental legal principle regarding fiduciary duties.
Speaker 1:Okay. Lay it on me.
Speaker 2:When you sit on a board, you have a strict, unwavering legal obligation to act solely in the best interest of the charity. You basically have to leave your personal interests at the door.
Speaker 1:So it's about the conflict itself, not the result?
Speaker 2:Exactly. The prohibition is on the conflict of interest itself, not on the financial loss. The law demands that a charity operates exclusively for charitable purposes, with no part of its income available for the personal benefit of the people running it.
Speaker 1:Because if you're on both sides, who is actually fighting for the charity?
Speaker 2:Right. When you sit on both sides of a negotiating table, you inherently have a divided loyalty. The foundation is essentially legally blind in that negotiation because it doesn't have an independent champion.
Speaker 1:So process matters entirely more than profit.
Speaker 2:100%.
Speaker 1:That brings us to a perfect historical example that proves this process over profit rule isn't just some recent, you know, CRA bureaucratic overreach.
Speaker 2:Oh, the Feldman case. This is a classic.
Speaker 1:Yeah, to really understand the origins, we have to look back nearly forty years to a court case in Ontario that cemented this precedent. The facts of this case are almost too on the nose.
Speaker 2:Yeah. The 1987 case of Ray David Feldman Charitable Foundation, it's a wild ride.
Speaker 1:Let's unpack the timeline here because the audacity is remarkable. So in 1984, Mr. Feldman has a very good, very profitable year. And to offset his tax bill, he incorporates a private foundation and gives it $180,000 So far, completely standard philanthropic tax planning right.
Speaker 2:Totally normal. Happens every day.
Speaker 1:Let's look at the board of this brand new foundation. It consists of exactly three people. Mr. Feldman, his personal lawyer, and his personal accountant.
Speaker 2:That's a tight circle.
Speaker 1:Very tight. And almost immediately after depositing the $180,000 the board approves an unsecured loan of $175,000 right back out the door to Mr. Feldman's own private company.
Speaker 2:And, they did eventually draft a loan agreement, but the terms were entirely dictated by the borrowers. Right. There was no security on the loan, meaning if the business failed, the charity had no assets it could seize to get its money back, and repayment was due ten years out, or when Mr. Feldman died.
Speaker 1:Whichever came later. Right.
Speaker 2:Whichever came later. And importantly, nobody obtained independent legal advice for the foundation. Mr. Feldman's lawyer and accountant were the only professionals in the room, and they were already on his payroll.
Speaker 1:Okay. But the wild twist here, which completely blows up the modern no harm, no foul defense, is that the loan performed perfectly.
Speaker 2:It really did.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Mr. Feldman didn't fault. The Foundation lost absolutely nothing. The entire arrangement only came to light because the Foundation had to pass its accounts under the Charity's Accounting Act.
Speaker 2:Which basically just put the foundation's ledger in front of the public guardian and trustee for a totally routine review.
Speaker 1:Right. And the ruling from that review sent absolute shock waves through the business community at the time.
Speaker 2:Oh, it was huge. The court ruled that the directors breached their fiduciary duties despite the total lack of financial loss.
Speaker 1:Because Mr. Feldman sat on both sides in the deal.
Speaker 2:Exactly. His accountant worked for the borrower. The foundation had no independent voice at the table to raise a hand and say, well, perhaps an unsecured loan that we might not see repaid until someone passes away isn't the most prudent use of our assets.
Speaker 1:It reminds me of a parent sort of borrowing money from their kid's piggy bank.
Speaker 2:That is a great way to look at it.
Speaker 1:But like the parent takes out a $20 bill to pay the pizza delivery guy, and the next day, feeling a little guilty, they put back $21.
Speaker 2:Hey, the kid technically made a profit.
Speaker 1:Exactly. That's a 5% daily return. But the parents still abused their absolute power over the pig. The kid had no voice in the transaction, no ability to say no, and no independent representation to negotiate a better deal.
Speaker 2:The piggy bank had no independent advocates, so no loss, no default, but still a massive breach of trust. And that foundational principle was established back in 1987. But while Feldman established the theory, the modern Income Tax Act has added some incredibly sharp teeth to enforcement.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the financial penalties today for pulling a stunt like that are just staggering.
Speaker 2:Which brings us to a spectacularly bad disaster from 2023.
Speaker 1:Right, the Engilting Foundation. We're gonna look at this to see what happens when a board tries to pull a Feldman today, but with modern aggressive financial maneuvers.
Speaker 2:The CRA's redacted audit letter for the Engulking Foundation reads like a master class in how to trigger literally every single regulatory alarm at once.
Speaker 1:The mechanics of this one are wild, I really want to walk through this step by step. So, a new Director joins the board of the Foundation.
Speaker 2:On
Speaker 1:that exact same day, the Foundation decides to buy 10,000 private shares for $225,000 Now, instead of holding on to these shares, the Foundation immediately sends them right out the door to that brand new Director.
Speaker 2:And in exchange, the Director doesn't hand over cash, right?
Speaker 1:Yeah. Nope. They hand over a promissory note which, let's be honest, is just a fancy legal term for a piece of paper that says I O U.
Speaker 2:Yeah, essentially an IOU.
Speaker 1:So fast forward roughly eight months later, the foundation buys those exact same shares back from the director but now they value them at $35 a share.
Speaker 2:That's quite a jump.
Speaker 1:Oh, it gets better. This inflated buyback cancels out the director's promissory note entirely and actually leaves the foundation owing the director about $121,930.
Speaker 2:I mean, the red flags here are almost blinding. First off, no cash ever actually changed throughout this entire multi $100,000 merry-go-round. Second, there were zero board minutes for a transaction that consumed essentially all of the foundation's liquid assets.
Speaker 1:They didn't even bother to write down why they were doing this.
Speaker 2:Not at all. And third, there was no independent valuation of these shares at any point.
Speaker 1:And that last part is critical, isn't it?
Speaker 2:Extremely. Because that exact same class of shares had been distributed to other parties at just $6 a share just a few weeks before foundation first bought them for substantially more.
Speaker 1:They were literally just moving numbers around on a page to create a personal financial benefit for the director.
Speaker 2:Exactly.
Speaker 1:If I'm the CRA looking at this paperwork, I have to imagine I'm not just going to reverse the transaction, I'm gonna want to deeply penalize it.
Speaker 2:Oh, the CRA brought down the hammer hard. They concluded the parties were clearly not dealing at arm's length.
Speaker 1:Obviously.
Speaker 2:And because the board failed to get an independent valuation, the CRA stepped in and treated that earlier $6 price as the actual fair market value of the shares.
Speaker 1:Okay, so they logged in the real price?
Speaker 2:Yes. They then calculated an undue benefit penalty based on the difference between the inflated $35 price the charity paid and the $6 reality.
Speaker 1:Let's do that math because it is brutal. So they took the 10,000 shares and multiplied it by the difference between the $35 buyback price and the $6 true value.
Speaker 2:Right, which is a difference of $29 a share.
Speaker 1:So 10,000 times 29 is $290,000. But the penalty isn't just asking for the $290,000 back. Right?
Speaker 2:No. It's worse. The penalty under section one eighty eight point one of the income act is a 105% of the undue benefit.
Speaker 1:A 105%. Wow. So the government doesn't just take back the cookie you stole, they take a bite out of your own sandwich too.
Speaker 2:That's a great way to put it. The mechanism of punitive taxes is designed specifically for deterrence. A 100% penalty just puts you back where you started, which might make some people think it's worth the risk of trying.
Speaker 1:But why not take a shot if the worst outcome is just giving it back?
Speaker 2:Exactly. The extra 5% is the actual punishment, the financial sting that ensures the board feels the pain of self dealing. So 105% of $290,000 equals a penalty of $304,500 Ouch. But the CRA didn't stop there. They tacked on a 5% receding penalty.
Speaker 2:They issued a one year suspension of the Foundations ability to issue tax receipts crippling their fundraising and ultimately they proposed total revocation of the charity status.
Speaker 1:Revocation, which is the absolute death penalty for a charitable organization. They force you to wind down and give away whatever assets you have left to an entirely different charity.
Speaker 2:Under Section 168 of the Act, if a foundation doesn't keep proper records or allows its income to be available for the personal benefit of a member, the Federal Court of Appeal has consistently upheld that death penalty.
Speaker 1:So there's plenty of precedent.
Speaker 2:Oh, plenty. Cases like the Prescient Foundation and the Archangel Foundation show that this precedent is rock solid. The federal toolbox for punishing this is vast.
Speaker 1:What else is in that toolbox?
Speaker 2:Well you have the undue benefit penalties with that 105% sting. You also have the non qualified investment rules under section 149.1 which automatically categorize any debt owed by a director as a non qualified investment.
Speaker 1:And that triggers even more taxes?
Speaker 2:Yes. That classification alone triggers its own separate set of compounding taxes.
Speaker 1:Okay, but surely there has to be some kind of loophole for clever accountants, right?
Speaker 2:You would think so.
Speaker 1:Like, what if a board decides they really need to lend money to a director but to prove everything is above board, they do it at the government's official prescribed rate for interest?
Speaker 2:Ah, the prescribed rate defense.
Speaker 1:Yeah. The government publishes a baseline interest rate for tax purposes. If the charity charges that exact rate, doesn't that prove it's a fair, market level deal? That feels like it should be a safe harbor.
Speaker 2:It's a very common assumption. A lot of boards and their advisors assume that lending at the prescribed rate miraculously solves the conflict of interest problem.
Speaker 1:That it doesn't.
Speaker 2:The CRA explicitly shut this down. In a technical interpretation released in December 2019, specifically document twenty seventeen zero six eight three eight three one I seven. They stated plainly that there is no safe harbor here.
Speaker 1:Wow. So they closed that door completely?
Speaker 2:Completely. Lending at the prescribed rate might help the individual borrower escape certain specific personal taxable benefit charges, but it absolutely does not stop the CRA from assessing an undue benefit penalty on the foundation itself.
Speaker 1:Because they view the two sides different.
Speaker 2:Yes, the CRA analyzes the two parties, the individual and the charity, completely independently.
Speaker 1:Which means the charity is left holding the bag for the 105% penalty. So what does this all mean for you, the listener?
Speaker 2:It means you have to be incredibly careful.
Speaker 1:Right. If the penalties are this severe, the math is this punitive, and there are absolutely no easy safe harbors, you have to be wondering, how does the CRA even find out about these specific loans in the first place?
Speaker 2:That's the billion dollar question.
Speaker 1:Do they have a team of forensic accountants just randomly auditing hundreds of charities a year hoping to strike gold?
Speaker 2:They actually don't need forensic accountants crawling through windows because the charities willingly telling themselves every single year.
Speaker 1:Ah, the t thirty ten trap.
Speaker 2:Exactly. The t thirty ten is the mandatory annual information return that every registered charity in Canada must file to maintain its status. And the form is frankly practically designed to extract a confession.
Speaker 1:I was looking at a blank copy of this form and it's remarkably blunt.
Speaker 2:Isn't it?
Speaker 1:Yeah. You look at lines forty one thirty and forty three twenty and the form directly asks the charity to list amounts receivable from and amounts owing to non arm's length parties. It just flat out asks, did you lend money to your own people?
Speaker 2:Plus, schedule one asks if you hold any non qualified investments.
Speaker 1:So we just hand over the evidence?
Speaker 2:Yeah. It functions as an automated screening flag. Putting a number in one of those boxes isn't technically a legal offense all on its own, but based on the evidence of files crossing legal desks right now, those boxes are increasingly being targeted by automated CRA algorithms.
Speaker 1:So the computer just flags it for an auditor to review?
Speaker 2:Precisely. If a large private foundation voluntarily puts a director related loan on their balance sheet, they should operate under the assumption that the CRA can see it glowing neon red from space.
Speaker 1:Okay, so the CRA is watching, the algorithms are flagging the forms, the penalties are catastrophic, and your good financial returns mean absolutely nothing.
Speaker 2:Pretty bleak picture, I know.
Speaker 1:So how on earth does a foundation actually survive an audit if a transaction with a director is genuinely necessary? Say a director owns a building and wants to lease it to the charity at a massive discount.
Speaker 2:Which happens.
Speaker 1:Right. That Ooster non armist length transaction, but it's beneficial. Let's talk about Ontario's legal landscape for a second because the rules there take strictness to an entirely new level.
Speaker 2:Ontario is uniquely demanding. Under Ontario's not for profit Corporations Act, which is known as ONCA, simply declaring a conflict of interest and leaving the room while the rest of the board votes is not enough to protect a charitable corporation.
Speaker 1:Which is wild to me because in the normal for profit corporate world that is exactly the standard procedure. You say I have a conflict here, I'm stepping out into the hallway, you guys vote without me.
Speaker 2:In the for profit world, yes. In Ontario Charity Law, absolutely not.
Speaker 1:Really?
Speaker 2:Yeah, directors of a public benefit corporation are generally prohibited from acting in a conflict interest at all, period.
Speaker 1:So how do you get anything done?
Speaker 2:To safely execute a transaction with a director, you usually need to go through the incredibly tedious process of securing an actual court order or an official order from public guardian and trustee.
Speaker 1:But there is a very tiny loophole for Ontario charities, right? Our research calls it a narrow door.
Speaker 2:Yes, Ontario Regulation four zero one. It is a narrow door that allows a charity to pay a director for goods or services without spending months getting a court order.
Speaker 1:But I'm guessing the conditions are strict.
Speaker 2:Incredibly demanding. First, the remaining directors must unanimously agree in rating. Second, the interested person cannot participate in the discussion at all.
Speaker 1:Okay. That makes sense.
Speaker 2:Third, you can only pay a maximum of 20% of your board directors this way. So a five person board can only pay one director.
Speaker 1:Got it.
Speaker 2:And finally, certain industries are completely off limits no matter what. For example, you cannot pay a director for fundraising services or for anything tied to buying or selling real estate without a court order.
Speaker 1:I wanna pause on that last point. Why real estate and fundraising specifically?
Speaker 2:Because historically, those are the two easiest, most opaque vehicles for siphoning money out of a charity.
Speaker 1:Oh, that makes total sense.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Real estate transactions involve massive commissions and highly subjective property valuations. And fundraising often involves percentage based fees where a director could potentially take a huge cut of the charitable donations before they ever reach the foundation's actual cause.
Speaker 1:So the government looked at those two areas, recognized the high potential for abuse and just slammed the door shut.
Speaker 2:Completely shut.
Speaker 1:So it's an incredibly tight, tight rope to walk. Yeah. If you were listening to this and you currently sit on a foundation board or maybe you provide legal or accounting advice to one, how do you actually survive this regulatory minefield?
Speaker 2:You have to be paranoid, honestly.
Speaker 1:Right. If a transaction has to happen, how do you bulletproof the foundation?
Speaker 2:The baseline assumption for any board member should be that any transaction with a director is strictly prohibited until it is explicitly legally cleared.
Speaker 1:So don't touch anything without permission.
Speaker 2:Exactly. You do not move a single dollar until a legal team gives the green light.
Speaker 1:And part of getting that green light has to involve treating the transaction like a commercial banquet, doesn't it?
Speaker 2:Very much so.
Speaker 1:Like if I walk into a bank asking for a loan, they don't just hand me cash on a promise. They want security against my assets. They want fixed repayment dates. They want a market rate interest applied, and they want strict covenants in place if I miss a payment.
Speaker 2:A charity board needs to adopt that exact same ruthless commercial mindset even if they are dealing with their best friend.
Speaker 1:It's just business.
Speaker 2:Adopting that commercial mindset also means securing independent advice and an independent valuation well before closing the deal.
Speaker 1:Before, not after.
Speaker 2:This is a critical failure point for many boards. A valuation or a legal opinion prepared after CRA audit letter arrives carries almost zero weight. The auditor sees right through it.
Speaker 1:Because it just looks like you're covering your tracks.
Speaker 2:Exactly. You need an independent professional, not the founder's personal lawyer, not the accountant who works for both parties, looking out exclusively for the charity's interests from day one.
Speaker 1:And I imagine you need to document that independent thought process meticulously.
Speaker 2:Meticulous board minutes are your best defense. You need a highly detailed written record of who was present at the meeting, who physically left the room when the conflict arose, what alternative options were considered, and exactly why the board determined this specific transaction serves charitable purpose better than any other option.
Speaker 1:Write it all down.
Speaker 2:Remember the Angleton case we discussed earlier? The total lack of board minutes was cited by the CRA as an independent standalone ground for revoking their charitable status.
Speaker 1:Just for missing the minutes. That's wild. What if a listener is sitting there realizing their board did something like this, like five years ago?
Speaker 2:Oh, boy.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Let's say they have an old founder loan sitting on the balance sheet or some poorly documented advances. Do they just cross their fingers and hope the algorithm doesn't catch the T3010 form?
Speaker 2:The absolute worst strategy is waiting for that polite letter on Charity's Director at Letterhead.
Speaker 1:So be proactive.
Speaker 2:Very. Boards need to fix legacy transactions voluntarily, immediately, clean up the balance sheet, paper the old advances properly, or just unwind the loans entirely before an auditor ever arrives.
Speaker 1:Beat them to the punch.
Speaker 2:Approaching the CRA or the public guardian with a voluntary correction and a plan to make the charity whole is an infinitely better story to tell than offering a panicked defensive explanation during an active audit.
Speaker 1:Pulling all of this together, the core lesson of this deep dive is that for Charity Boards, rigorous, uncompromising governance is everything.
Speaker 2:You really is the only shield you have.
Speaker 1:You simply cannot assume that having good intentions or securing stellar financial results will create a magical shield against legal scrutiny. The CRA is hunting for evidence of independent judgment, not just perfectly balanced ledger.
Speaker 2:The overarching takeaway is a masterclass in the absolute necessity of process. The rules aren't there to punish financial success. They are designed to fiercely protect the integrity of the charitable sector.
Speaker 1:Which is important.
Speaker 2:Extremely. They ensure that money meant for the public good isn't treated like a private, lightly regulated slush fund, even if that slush fund happens to be generating a fantastic 8% interest rate for the charity.
Speaker 1:I want to leave you with a final lingering thought to mull over because the tension here is really fascinating to me. We've seen just how aggressive the policing is.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, it's intense.
Speaker 1:A completely successful loan where the charity makes plenty of money and no one is financially harmed can result in a devastating 105 percent penalty and the ultimate death penalty of revocation. And all of that simply because the paperwork and the board's process lacked strict independence.
Speaker 2:It's a harsh reality.
Speaker 1:It is. And if we as a society create a legal environment where private foundations are so aggressively policed for internal conflicts
Speaker 2:to
Speaker 1:the point where one misstep triggers catastrophe. Are we successfully ensuring that the charity sector stays pure?
Speaker 2:That's the million dollar question.
Speaker 1:Right. Or are we perhaps accidentally discouraging the world's most generous entrepreneurial philanthropists from setting up foundations in the first place? Because if sitting down at the philanthropic poker table means dealing with a dealer who is this unforgiving of procedural mistakes, well, some people might just decide not to play the game at all.