next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Chris and Doug, There is no need to define a service/donation level for an IP organization. Since the organization does not pay income tax, there is no opportunity for an exemption. Bernie Hart -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Majka <nextug@is.dal.ca> To: Doug Rigby <drigby@chebucto.ns.ca> Cc: CCN Information Provider Committee <ccn-ip@chebucto.ns.ca>; CCN Board of Directors <ccn-board@chebucto.ns.ca>; David Potter <ab934@chebucto.ns.ca> Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 10:16 AM Subject: Re: Charitable Status >Hi Doug! > >> On Tue, 4 May 1999, Douglas Rigby wrote: >> >> > According to Revenue Canada our Charitable tax status became >> > effective as of Jan 1/99. So yes you can tell IPs that we >> > have charitable status. What you cannot tell them is what proportion >> > of their "donation" will be eligible for a tax receipt. >> > >> > Two things need to happen: >> > >> > I need verification from Dennis our accountant on the concept of "service" >> > and "donation" elements. >> > >> > Second and equally important I need the Board to decide and the >> > amount of "service" in each of the membership and IP categories. >> > >> > My suggestions to the Board was a service element of $200 for IPs. >> > This may be too high. What was the result of your informal >> > discussion among IPs. > >This is a very interesting development the implications of which I wasn't >at all aware of (until David Potter drew them to my attention). > >Clearly in the determination of the 'service' element we want to come to a >determination of a figure that is somewhere in a reasonable ball-park. Our >costs to support an IP clearly depend on the way and degree to which we >amortize our fixed and other costs. A higher figure (like $200) gives >greater value to the service which the CCN provides. On the other hand, a >lower figure (such as $100) will give a significantly greater incentive to >IPs to donate (and thereby relize a financial benefit). > >I would argue for a lower rather than a higher figure since I think this >might result in significantly better prospects for the CCN to realize some >revenue. > >> > As we discussed last week whatever the "service" amount agreed to >> > CCN can, does and will subsidize any and all IPs by the difference >> > between the service amount and their donation. Tax receipts will be >> > issued for $10 or more amounts above this "service" amount. >> > >> > What we want to balance off in setting these "service" rate for >> > various memberships is to try to keep our total service revenue >> > below $50,000 so we do not have to submit 15% of this to the >> > government (even though we can claw back 7.5%) > >Gosh, I wouldn't worry about this at all. It's only in the 50,000 - 54,000 >bracket that our net would be affected by the 7.5% HST we would have to >pay. Above $54,000 gross, our net rises above $50,000 so that we are >better off in the end in any event. > >> > What Revenue Canada is looking for is a "fair" assessment of >> > IP and other services as the "service" amount. >> > >> > Regards, Doug > >Cheers! > >Chris > >_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. >Christopher Majka <aa051@chebucto.ns.ca> >Editor-in-Chief: Chebucto Community Net - Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada >URL = http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Home.html > >"We have ... in this country ... far too many captive editors who cannot >even be heard to rattle their chains." -- Carl E. Lindstrom >_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. > > > > >
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects