[Restored from backup 2006-07-18]
saylavbda wrote:Don't know the original legistation e.g. part of the tax act in question, but it sounds like there was a gray area in the original legislation that allowed for overly generous valuations to be used. The legistation was amended to clarify the gray parts.
At the end of the day, if I donate $5K but get a receipt for $20K, then something is fishy.
The statement is not factual. This isn't about donating $5,000 cash. It's about the value at which assets are donated. If you donate $5,000 worth you can only get a receipt for $5,000. Also,the legislation was inconsistently changed for certain things and not others. Yet, grey areas still exist. Lastly, you have provided no basis for your 'overly generous' comment.
saylavbda wrote:If people were able to take advantage of it due to flawed legistation in the past, then good for them. But I don't feel sorry for anyone caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
Cookie jar meaning any deduction that you personally disagree with? Careful. Are you advocating that any uninvolved party can now determine which of your tax deductions and deferrals are 'cookie jars' and which ones are valid and proper? What if I feel that income trusts and low capital gains taxes are huge cookie jars based on flawed tax legislation that should be fixed. Hmmm, maybe we are all better off that determinations are not actually made this way.
saylavbda wrote:From what I've seen of these schemes is it's all about money, not helping a charity, but helping themselves to a large tax break based on questionable valuations.
It can be about both. I can write that capital gains taxes are a tax break for the rich at the expense of the working class and have nothing to do with benefitting job and economic growth. similarly, there are no lofty goals of not paying full tax on income trust distributions. It is just a tax break for greedy investors who do not care about what this does to other businesses or other taxpayers. They sound like huge scams.
saylavbda wrote:The other problem is the potential impact on people who honestly do want to donate something e.g. an art piece that's been in the family for years.
Yes that is a problem. But why are you worried about the person who has held an asset for years and not other donators? How long is acceptable to you? Is it flawed legislation or a scam if the next poster has a different point of view than you?
The legislation said (and says), what it said. We have to believe that it intends what it actually says. Transactions that follow this are legal, even if a poster doesn't like it very much. We all like and dislike different things, but these are just our personal opinions.
I don't mean to be overly oppositional, but your whole point of view sounds like this to me:
My tax planning = Good. No need to even raise or consider it.
Other tax planning = Bad.