IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdh/ebrief/38.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Uncharitable Treatment? Why Donations to Private and Public Foundations Deserve Equal Tax Status

Author

Listed:
  • A. Abigail Payne

    (McMaster University)

  • Huizi Zhao

Abstract

Canada’s public foundations and charities got a helping hand from Ottawa last year when the May federal budget removed the capital gains tax on listed securities given as donations. While the change facilitated gifts of stock to these public organizations, their philanthropic cousins, private foundations, did not benefit. This differential treatment potentially discourages donations to, and the development of, private foundations.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Abigail Payne & Huizi Zhao, 2007. "Uncharitable Treatment? Why Donations to Private and Public Foundations Deserve Equal Tax Status," e-briefs 38, C.D. Howe Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdh:ebrief:38
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cdhowe.org/public-policy-research/uncharitable-treatment-why-donations-private-and-public-foundations-deserve-equal-tax-status
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Finn Poschmann & William B.P. Robson & Robin Banerjee, 2007. "Fiscal Tonic for an Aging Nation: A Shadow Federal Budget for 2007," C.D. Howe Institute Backgrounder, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 101, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    governance and public institutions; charitable sector;

    JEL classification:

    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdh:ebrief:38. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kristine Gray (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdhowca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.