Canada inherited this definition of charity from England. To become registered as a charity in Canada, an organization must have one of the four charitable purposes. Although Christian organizations are often involved in activities falling under the other charitable purposes, their main purpose is "the advancement of religion".

1. Doing Good. Historically, "the advancement of religion" has included both commitment to God and commitment to seek good for all humankind. In recent times, there has been a trend toward a more narrow definition. The natural law philosopher John Finnis defined religion as "the establishing and maintenance of a proper relationship between oneself and the divine". Thus he separated a person's relationship with God from the person's relationship with other people.

The Ontario Law Reform Commission's report on the Law of Charities (1997) came up with "doing good for others" as its working definition of charity, drawing heavily upon the work of John Finnis. Although this new view of charity has not yet found its way into law, it may eventually become law. If religion is considered solely a private matter between the individual and God, and charity is defined as doing good to others, then it can be argued that "the advancement of religion" should not be considered to be charitable. If this understanding became law, it could cause Christian organizations to lose their charitable status, except for activities falling within the other charitable categories. This would cost those who give to churches and Christian charities hundreds of millions of dollars every year and could greatly reduce the amount of money given to churches and Christian charities.

This revised view of charity has had another effect on recent decisions by Revenue Canada. The emphasis on "doing good" tends to define an activity as charitable or not by its nature rather than by its purpose. For instance, Revenue Canada has argued that sports activities in a Christian camp are not activities for "the advancement of religion", but are really for the advancement of sport.

2. Tax "Credits". The changing definition of "the advancement of religion" should be considered in the light of another change in taxation terminology. Until 1988, donors were entitled to deduct gifts to charities from their taxable income, up to 20% of net income. This was based on the theory that money given to charities was not available to the donor and therefore should not be taxed. After 1988, charitable donations were no longer subtracted from income, but instead resulted in "tax credits" or "tax reductions". This allowed the Canadian government to consider the reductions as tax money it was entitled to collect but had chosen not to. Today tax money not collected is seen almost as a form of government spending. The Department of Finance has recently begun to speak of "tax assistance for charitable donors". What the government gives, it can also take away or control.

It is not difficult to see that the stage is set to have "the advancement of religion" removed as a charitable purpose, based on the argument that government should not support religion either directly or indirectly.

Another challenge to Christian organizations involves a redefinition of what qualifies as a tax deductible charitable gift. In order for there to be a gift under Canadian tax law, there must be:

This last concept was previously understood to emphasize that the contribution could not be given in order for the donor to receive some economic benefit. Recently this phrase has been the source of much confusion. It is being used by Revenue Canada in its reassessment of tax returns to deny a tax credit where there is a link between the donor and the charity. These reassessments have come in several areas.

1. Voluntary? One area of challenge is based on the question of whether the gift was voluntary. Historically, a gift was not voluntary if the donor had a legal requirement to make the contribution. There is now an attempt to broaden this test to include a moral obligation to contribute, as in the case of a parent donating to a Christian school attended by his or her children. If this approach becomes law, it may cause great difficulty for religious organizations, including churches. It is arguable that members of a church, and people agreeing to provide support for missionaries, have a moral obligation to make financial contributions.

2. Benefit? Another area of challenge is the question of whether the donor receives a benefit as a result of the gift. In the past, the courts have held that such a benefit must be measurable in economic or commercial terms. Revenue Canada now wants in some cases to expand the meaning to include other benefits, such as the benefits of a religious education.

In a case involving First Mennonite Church in Kitchener, Ont., Revenue Canada tried to deny tax credits to parents who made donations to a student aid program from which their children benefited, even though there was no direct connection between the contribution and the benefit. In the Tax Court of Canada, the judge rejected Revenue Canada's argument.

Unfortunately, "detached and disinterested generosity" has so far not been clearly defined. Potentially a new definition could deny the tax credit for gifts to any charity from which the donor or the donor's family could derive any benefit. (For instance, a Christian might be denied a tax credit for donations to his local church, since he receives a spiritual benefit from listening to the pastor's sermons.) This approach could penalize those donors most likely to be strong supporters, and seriously limit the ability of an organization to raise funds. There are currently several cases before the courts in which the meaning of this phrase is central. It is to be hoped that the decisions in these cases will result in a clear and reasonable definition.

At present, there are an unusually large number of reassessments by Revenue Canada of Christian organizations involving the above issues (and other issues omitted here for lack of space). It appears that the government is attempting to redefine charitable tax law through reassessment decisions by Revenue Canada, instead of by legislation. The Canadian Council of Christian Charities, based in Kitchener, Ont., estimates that the effect of current Revenue Canada actions, if not challenged, could eventually cost the Christian community over $3 billion per year. The Council has been very active in providing guidance and legal resources to Christian organizations and donors in such cases. The extent of its work is evident from the fact that it expects to incur legal costs in excess of $2.5 million before the end of the year 2000. The Christian community is indebted to the Council for its diligent work.

It is appropriate for us to use legitimate legal means to resist the Canadian government's proposed changes to the tax rules. That, however, will at best be only a temporary solution.

We must recognize that Canadian society no longer understands or appreciates the importance of religion or of the Christian church as in the past. If we are to continue to enjoy the benefits of the past, we will need to demonstrate to our secular leaders and communities that we use these benefits wisely for the service of God and for the good of our fellow human beings. We will need to work hard at demonstrating the strong relationship between faith and life. Our obligation is to be faithful. The fulfilment of God's purposes is not dependent on tax credits.

Return to the M.B.Herald Vol. 37, No. 22 Home Page