Jeffery Nichols wrote:
It would be very helpful if we could fit into an
"other" category.
Wikisource and Commons are providing library and archive-like
services, but are neither libraries nor museums. They are creating an
electronic community, but are not helping a neighbourhood. It would
be nice if we could find a lawyer to see what niche we fit into, as we
don't have the money to actually argue our case to the agency that
would be reviewing our application.
That said, I think our current statement of purpose on meta looks
pretty good (at least compared to the examples from the old law)
It's still a matter of tax law rather than corporate law, and most
lawyers still run the other way when you say there's a tax issue. The
problem with the Revenue Canada information line is that they are not
bound by anything they say. It's a little early to talk about funding a
court case when we haven't even been rejected yet.
The main issue about the purposes is that they must show how Canadians
will benefit from the charitable monies that we spend. Verbs like
"encourage" and "promote" sound good but can be done without spending
money.
Ray
On 2010-01-25, at 10:52 AM, P Lahiry wrote:
> > And I can see the appeal of the museum direction . . .
>
> I'm not too sure how we would qualify as a museum, and legally novel
> arguments will usually be a hard sell. What I like about the
> Vancouver
> Free-Net situation is that they are an internet based
> organization which
> took its case to court ... and won. That makes for a very strong
> precedent. Their application was based on "other charitable
> purposes",
> not education.
>
> The reason it was filed under "other charitable purposes" was because
> Free-Net was accepted on the grounds of acting as an electronic
> community (as well as electronic library). Specifically 2 of the 3
> judges accepted that provision of access into the electronic highway
> was a charitable purpose. I think "advancement of education" would be
> a much better fit. I called up the Charities Directorate at the CRA
> and they agreed (although to be fair I don't how much I would rely on
> that).
>
> Jit