Thanks for addressing this. If a thief has the opportunity to steal a thousand dollars from me, but only takes $900, and I then give $100 to a museum, I don't think we can say that the thief is indirectly supporting the museum in the amount of $100. He's just degrading my utility, and I'm not sure how this differs from taxes.
I worked for the IRS for over 40 years, and had occasional cases involving the charitable deduction, at both the individual and corporate level. My view is that like so much of tax law, it’s just another occasion for corruption, particularly by large taxpayers who have a lot of opportunity to game the system.
Thanks for addressing this. If a thief has the opportunity to steal a thousand dollars from me, but only takes $900, and I then give $100 to a museum, I don't think we can say that the thief is indirectly supporting the museum in the amount of $100. He's just degrading my utility, and I'm not sure how this differs from taxes.
I like the "worthwhile Canadian initiative"!
I worked for the IRS for over 40 years, and had occasional cases involving the charitable deduction, at both the individual and corporate level. My view is that like so much of tax law, it’s just another occasion for corruption, particularly by large taxpayers who have a lot of opportunity to game the system.