FriendBurst Blog

Canada’s Tax Laws Put Animals Last

Posted by Michelle Lee, ALDF Litigation Fellow on March 23rd, 2011“Promoting
the welfare of animals is only charitable when it results in a benefit
to humans. Purposes that benefit animals, but not humans, are not
charitable.”

– Canada Revenue Agency, Consultation on proposed guidance for The Promotion of Animal Welfare and Charitable Registration (Feb. 3, 2011) Paragraph 23
The
Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) recently released its proposed guidelines
on charitable registration for animal welfare organizations. These
guidelines describe how the CRA will determine whether an application
for “registered charity” status will be approved—an important
determination for organizations that depend on tax-deductible donations.
The guidelines include the note above, indicating that organizations
cannot gain charitable status based solely on a purpose to benefit
animals.

Such a broad statement directing disregard for animal
interests is cause for dismay, and has alarmed many who are concerned
about the ability of Canadian organizations to carry out basic animal
protection work. As it turns out, CRA guidelines go on to explain that
certain types of animal protection work can be considered charitable
because of the way they benefit humanity by “the advancement of morals
and education” and the promotion of public morality by “checking
[humanity’s] innate tendency to cruelty.” Thus, the rescue and treatment
of injured wildlife, as well as the operation of shelters, spay and
neuter programs, and non-profit animal hospitals, remain “charitable” in
the eyes of the CRA – but only because such projects make us better
people, not because of the benefits they provide to the animals.

Further,
the CRA guidelines note that for an animal organization to be
charitable, “[t]he public benefit resulting from promoting the welfare
of animals must clearly outweigh any harm or potential harm to humans.”
Consequently, an organization whose purpose is to abolish vivisection
would not have a charitable purpose according to the CRA, even if it
abided by the Income Tax Act’s restrictions on political activities,
because the supposed harm to humans that would result from the
abolishment of that practice would outweigh any benefit in the
advancement of morals.

The CRA’s proposed guidelines do not
represent new restrictions; rather, they represent old ideas with roots
in the English common law. In fact, the CRA’s position on
anti-vivisection organizations comes directly from the United Kingdom’s
House of Lords. While the same law does not prevail in the United
States, animal advocates everywhere will recognize the familiar theme of
subordinating even the most fundamental of animal interests—to be free
from pain and cruelty—to those of humans.

All non-human animals
face an uphill battle towards having their interests recognized by the
law. If CRA guidelines are any indication of the state of the law in
Canada, then Canadian animals have an especially long way to go. The
Supreme Court of Canada has expressed reluctance to change the law of
how a “charity” is to be defined in Canada. It therefore falls to the
Canadian Parliament to bring Canadian law in line with modern norms by
amending the Income Tax Act to recognize that promoting humane treatment
of animals is a charitable purpose to be valued for its own sake.
Until then, not only will animals’ interests be disregarded in the
pursuit of justice; they will not even be proper objects of charity.

The Canada Revenue Agency’s complete proposed guidelines can be seen here. CRA is accepting comments on its guidelines until March 31.