Toronto Org 50% Property Tax Exemption

Heard back from MPAC (Municipal Property Assessment Corporation):

Dear Mr. <my fake name>,

The assessment for Roll# 1904 068 420 01300 696 Yonge St is currently apportioned in the following manner:

REL E (Religious Exempt) $ 2,578,000
COM CT (Commercial Commercial Taxable) $ 160,868
COM DT (Commercial Office Building Taxable) $ 149,008
OT CT (Other Taxable Commercial Taxable) $ 1,172,990
OT DT (Other Taxable Office Building Taxable) $ 1,095,134

The Church of Scientology (COS) first applied for tax exemption under section 3(1)3 (Place of Worship) of the Assessment Act in 1981. No decision was made at that time.

In 1995, COS appealed to the Superior Court of Justice, by the authority of section 46 of the Assessment Act, for tax exempt status under section 3(1)3.

The appeal was reviewed by counsel for the former Property Assessment Division of the Ministry of Finance (predecessor to MPAC) and counsel for the City of Toronto, which, by section 46, were both statutory parties to the appeal.

Section 3(1)3 provides exemption from property taxes for the following:

Land that is owned by a church or religious organization or leased to it by another church or religious organization and that is,
i. a place of worship and the land used in connection with it,
...

When we review exemption requests under section 3(1)3, we also have reference to the Religious Organizations Lands Act (ROLA). ROLA requires a religious organization to be charitable according to the laws of Ontario, but does not require it to be a charity registered with Canada Revenue Agency.

Following a site inspection and a review of the governing documents and financial records of COS, counsel determined that COS met the definition of a religious organization, and that 50% of the property warranted exemption as a place of worship and land used in connection with it. The matter was settled on consent without the need for litigation or court adjudication.

As far as MPAC is aware, the facts on which the exemption and apportionment, as discussed above, were determined have not changed.

For your information, full text of the relevant legislation can be found by following the associated links, Assessment Act Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 and the Religious Organizations Lands Act Religious Organizations' Lands Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.23.

Regards, <name, sig removed>

Now it would seem this status rests on whatever the definition of "charitable" is here in Ontario — does anyone actually believe they could meet that requirement without "donating" to their other branches? (Previously we were under the impression that COS did not qualify as a charity as it was not registered with Revenue Canada, and the property was never reassessed following their failed bid to be recognized.)

Here's the ROLA (it tastes just like cherry-cola):
Religious Organizations' Lands Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.23

I notice that they didn't award any kind of Ontario charity status to CoS in 1995. The counsel for Toronto just waved his hand and said it looked charitable.

Following a site inspection and a review of the governing documents and financial records of COS, counsel determined that COS met the definition of a religious organization, and that 50% of the property warranted exemption as a place of worship and land used in connection with it. The matter was settled on consent without the need for litigation or court adjudication.

That was a stop-gap to avoid entangling the City of Toronto in expensive litigation or court adjudication (or Fair Game). They knew that the application to Revenue Canada for actual charity status was happening, and that would supercede any municipal decision. (And be the lightning rod for CoS legal action and dirty trcks.)

And then it all got shoveled over to MPAC, where no one knows (or admits to knowing) the original reasons.

we also have reference to the Religious Organizations Lands Act (ROLA). ROLA requires a religious organization to be charitable according to the laws of Ontario, but does not require it to be a charity registered with Canada Revenue Agency.

I can't find anything about a legal charity status in Ontario separate from the Canada Revenue Agency status. I think everything after the "but" is someone's fluffy answer, that isn't backed up by anything, that avoids MPAC having to do any messy work. As I see it, ROLA inherently requires CRA registration because that is the only way to be a charity under the laws of Ontario. That should be the weak point to aim for.

If there is a separate legal charity status under the laws of Ontario, how come they don't mention it on their own page about frauds?
Charity Scams - Government of Ontario (Canada)
No reference to anything other than CRA here either:
Ontario - Not-for-Profit

I think that the "charitable according to the law of Ontario" part confused someone. A lot of taxation powers belong to the provinces, but they've all (except Quebec, naturellement) assigned them to a federal agency to exercise them. The CRA is the organization that determines if something is a charity under the laws of Ontario.

I'm still digging, but it's quite clear that MPAC's answer is full of fail.
Application forms for Municipal Tax Reductions, Rebates & Refunds

Rebates For Charitable Organizations
Charitable organizations, which have a federal registration number and that lease space in "Commercial or Industrial" properties, are eligible for a reduction of 40% of the total realty taxes paid by the charity.

In order to be eligible for this program, the following criteria must be met:

• You must be a registered charity as defined by subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act and can provide a registered charity number issued by Revenue Canada.
• You can provide from the landlord/owner documentation specifying the amount of property taxes payable for the rented or leased space occupied.

That's the city of Oshawa, and I need something at the provincial level (preferably on MPAC's own site) that says the same, but other cities sites all say the same: CRA registration or GTFO!

Got it. The Ontario Municipal Act, which is uphill from MPAC:
Municipal Act, 2001

Rebates for charities

361. (1) Every municipality, other than a lower-tier municipality, shall have a tax rebate program for eligible charities for the purposes of giving them relief from taxes or amounts paid on account of taxes on eligible property they occupy. 2002, c. 22, s. 159 (1).

Eligible charities, property

(2) For the purposes of this section,

(a) a charity is eligible if it is a registered charity as defined in subsection 248 (1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) that has a registration number issued by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency;
(b) a property is eligible if it is in one of the commercial classes or industrial classes, within the meaning of subsection 308 (1). 2001, c. 25, s. 361 (2).

Also the City of Toronto Act:
City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11 , Sched. A
CRA registration or GTFO!

Now, turning to the other excuse...

Under the Assessment Act, Section 3(1)3, "Land that is owned by a church or religious organization".

CoS is no longer on the list of recognized religious organizations (able to perform weddings and such) in Ontario. That one is also CRA or GTFO. So that's a change.

I also see that while CoS appealed to the Superior Court of Justice under 46, it was a non-binding agreement rather than a court judgment that holds the current situation in place. And the City of Toronto can no longer un-agree, so it's up to MPAC.

The people at MPAC should know all the ins and outs of these acts, so I guessing that they know very well that CoS doesn't qualify, but they don't want to open that can of worms unless they're forced to. What tier was the person who responded, and is there any way to bump it up a level?

I am not a Cannuk, and I have no knowledge of the operations of the authorities. Yet, my belief is that *if enough noise, with proper reference to the law were made*, the relevant authorities would have no choice but to refuse the cult's 50% charitable exemption.

I would do three things:

1. Make a protest with the relevant authorities

2. Copy the protest docs to *every* media center (or, is it centre?) in your area of Canada.

3. Have at least two Anons who are willing to be namefagged if the relevant authorities want testimony. "At least two" since depending on one with other demands on time might fail; "two" at least means there is backup.

Good luck. Longcat is long and strong.

Q

DeathHamster: Thanks for the posts.

Do you (anonameusfawkes, DeathHamster, others) think that it's time to bring this to the attention of City Councillors?

I do.

Just a thought, you might want to get some big churches behind ya first.

Wow DH, I expected this thread to pass into oblivion unnoticed by all.

Without namefagging who replied to me from MPAC (yet), their position is Commercial Valuation Analyst. Here is their Board of Directors though — no direct links to email or phone numbers, but it won't be hard finding contact info for them: http://www.mpac.ca/pages_english/about_mpac/board.asp

Revenue Canada's Enforcement and Disclosures contact sheet for Toronto: Enforcement and Disclosures Program

Ontario's ombudsman's site — he's our "watchdog" and investigates this sort of thing: Ombudsman Ontario — Welcome to the Ombudsman of Ontario Website

If we think we have a solid case, we should start drafting a detailed rebuttal/complaint.

eta: Yonge Street BIA board of directors: About Downtown Yonge | DownTown Yonge BIA

Another variable to consider, Hellrazor, is if we can present this information to an individual or group (ie. authorized charitable organizations, elected officials, or even some unions if it could be considered applicable) and get a bit of their clout behind it?

If several persons from a wide variety of backgrounds and postions were to decry this tax exemption as unfair than action would be inevitable.

Originally Posted by HellRazor

DeathHamster: Thanks for the posts.

Do you (anonameusfawkes, DeathHamster, others) think that it's time to bring this to the attention of City Councillors?

^^^THIS^^^

bump?

What happened?

Bump again. Also reviving this discussion on Why hello there.

I spoke to Gregg Hagglund at the protest today. A while ago, he got a hold of the document with the lawyer for Toronto's reasoning for giving Scientology the property tax break: They had applied for charity status and should be receiving it in a year or two; the charity status would be backdated to the date of the application, so Scientology would probably get that money back anyway.

Gregg doesn't remember if it was a publicly available document or he had to do a FOIA request, but he does think that he posted the text to ARS. I'll try digging that up, and see what it says.

With that, showing that the agreement was clearly dependent on CoS getting charity status (FAIL!), I think that all the excuses in the MPAC reply would be nailed, and it would be time to boil this thread down into another letter to the person at MPAC.

(Gregg was impressed when I told that someone had got a reply back from MPAC, btw!)

Some ARS threads relevant to our interests:

G&M Exposes Canada Co$ Charity Bid Status
Opposition Brief in Canada Part 1
COMMENTS? RevCan Chartities Stadards (long)
Scientology religious status in Ontario Canada - NOT!