RÉGION

Q&A related to CRA appeal

Q&A related to CRA appeal

Q&A related to CRA appeal

THE AUDIT

What is your reaction of the CRA questioning the charitable purposes of JNF Canada? 
Our position is that it is unjust for CRA to revoke a charity because a charitable object that it accepted almost 60 years ago, is now no longer considered to be a charitable object. We have correspondence from the late nineteen sixties with the Minister of National Revenue where the Minister approved our purposes and activities. We did not know that there was an issue with our purposes or activities because previous CRA audits did not reveal an issue.

As outlined on its web site, the CRA is committed to exploring compliance measures such as education letters, compliance agreements and sanctions before revoking an organization’s charitable status. The CRA not only skipped steps 1-3, it also refused to enter into a dialogue with us and to entertain our suggestions of new objects for our charity or to discuss a compliance agreement. We maintain that the CRA erred both in fact and in law and that the process was flawed and unfair, which is why we have ended up in court. 

How do you respond to the CRA’s position that JNF Canada has failed to exercise adequate direction and control over our primary intermediary in Israel, Karen Kayemeth Le’Israel (KKL).
In response to these concerns, we have reduced the number of our projects with KKL, entered into a robust and compliant agreement with them, and changed the way that KKL describes its relationship with our charity on the KKL website. KKL works for JNF Canada, just like any other agent that we utilize. JNF Canada selects the projects we wish to support and we always have direction and control over all of the funds as we reimburse expenses upon receipt of valid expense reports. In short, we have addressed the CRA’s concerns.

How do you respond to the fact that the CRA has identified issues with your record-keeping practices in 2011 and 2012?
We have taken steps to ensure our record-keeping practices are fully compliant. 

COURT PROCEEDINGS

With a confirmation of the decision to revoke, would JNF Canada cease to exist?
JNF Canada has the right to appeal to the courts and we will do so. JNF Canada asserts that there has not been fair due process during out audit and appeal. We would continue to function as normal while we await our day in court.

What is JNF Canada’s argument for the courts? 

We maintain the following:
The CRA erred in its findings
The procedures itself are unfair in that it does not allow us to test the facts before it goes to the Federal Court of Appeal
There is a reasonable apprehension of bias in the audit. 

First, we intend to make the argument that the CRA erred in both fact and law. We will argue that, among other failings, the Directorate erred in (1) finding that JNF did not adequately direct and control its spending abroad, (2) its characterization of JNF’s charitable fundraising campaigns, and (3) its mischaracterization of JNF’s charitable objects.

We intend to argue that the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and the procedure set down as it relates to potential revocation of charitable status, denies a charity the opportunity to test the facts is contrary to the principles of natural justice and due process.

Thirdly, we have completed an in-depth review of the file and believe that arguably there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the CRA. This evidence of bias comes from the CRA’s own records which show that the public pressure on the CRA and the Minister to revoke JNF’s status was an important consideration within the chain of authority at the Charities Directorate. 

ANTISEMITISM and BIAS

Is JNF Canada suggesting the CRA is antisemitic? No. Was the CRA influenced by anti-Semites? Yes. 
As a Zionist-inspired organization, JNF Canada has many vociferous antisemitic detractors who we believe have influenced the decision-making process in this matter. We believe that arguably there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the CRA. This evidence of bias comes from the CRA’s own records, which show that the public pressure on the CRA and the Minister of National Revenue to revoke JNF’s status was an important consideration within the chain of authority at the Charities Directorate. A review of the record would leave a reasonable person with the impression that this pressure resulted in a biased decision.

Why are you alleging a bias on the part of the CRA? 
The allegation is a result of our review of information provided as a result of our ATIP requests. The CRA’s Case Info Sheet for the Charity, under the heading “Media, Public Interest and Leads History” shows that the Charities Directorate was monitoring campaigns launched by our opponents like the Independent Jewish Voices Canada, e-petitions and the commentary of politicians and others. 

What is the impact of the CRA’s ruling on the Jewish community as a whole? 
Given the current environment, the CRA’s decision will be seen as a victory for anti-Israel and antisemitic movements and groups.   

PLUS ICI
RÉGION TORONTO
NOUVELLES | Général
NOUVELLES | CRA LILLEY: Canadian officials make it clear, Jews not welcome here (Toronto Sun) LILLEY: Canadian officials make it clear, Jews not welcome here (Toronto Sun) NOUVELLES | CRA Background & Timeline of CRA Communications Background & Timeline of CRA Communications