CHARITY
or
CHANNEL?
COURT RECORDS
WHERE IS THE
TILT SQUEEZE?
 


Charity or Channel? The Separation Test

By viewing thewhistleblower.ca you have explicitly agreed to abide by the Terms and Conditions of Use.
The test is separation, not incorporation.
All references for this article are noted in the Source Materials section

On June 5, 2026 Michael Lares publicly announced he founded two new entities connected to the story of Flying “L” Ranch Ltd.:

  • Flying L Equine Stewardship Society (“FLESS”), which he described as a “Canadian Charity”, and
  • Friends of Flying L Ranch (“FoFLR”), which he described as a “USA Non-Profit”.

Flying "L" Ranch Ltd. ("FLR") is a for-profit corporation, incorporated on June 3, 2019 (Corporation Number BC1211100, Business number 789488533 BC0001).

Is Flying L Equine Stewardship Society a registered charity? We have found FLESS incorporated as a B.C. society on May 12, 2026, but have not found it listed by CRA as a registered charity or other qualified donee. Nor have we seen a public CRA registration number for FLESS, which would be required on any official donation receipt issued by a registered charity or other qualified donee.

What about Friends of Flying L Ranch? For FoFLR, we have found corporate-registration material and associated articles of incorporation dated April 22, 2026, but have not seen a publicly available EIN, IRS determination letter, IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search listing, bylaws, public financial filings, or clear confirmation that donations are tax-deductible.

Are FLESS or FoFLR operating donation campaigns? As of the date of publication we have not yet seen publicly available evidence that either new entity has begun soliciting, receiving, or spending donations. By contrast, active donation campaigns for Flying "L" Ranch Ltd. continue.

The common issue is separation. The new entities appear closely connected to the existing Flying “L” Ranch Ltd. mission, historical activities, expenses, social-media audience, and fundraising ecosystem. That does not establish wrongdoing. It does mean the key test will be substance, not paper existence.

The questions below are therefore prospective: what must be shown if either entity begins fundraising or operating as part of the FLR/FLESS/FoFLR structure?

1. Flying L Equine Stewardship Society (“FLESS”): The B.C. Society and CRA Questions

FLESS now exists as a B.C. society under the B.C. Societies Act. That answers only the narrow “does it exist?” question. The harder question is whether FLESS can operate as a genuinely independent non-profit, and potential registered charity, when its proposed work appears closely connected to the historical operations of the pre-existing for-profit FLR, the same ranch mission, the same fundraising base and ecosystem, and overlapping leadership and control.

That separation question is sharpened by documented role overlap. FLESS materials identify Michael as Chairman/Founder and an initial director. The B.C. company summary for FLR identifies Michael Lares as its sole director.

B.C. society status raises a threshold question: will FLESS use its money, property, activities, and decisions for its own stated non-profit purposes, or will those resources be at risk of subsidizing, enhancing, or flowing through to FLR or related private interests?

CRA charity status would go further. It would ask whether FLESS’s purposes and activities produce a legally charitable public benefit, and whether any private or for-profit benefit to FLR, Michael, the Lares family, related persons, or related businesses is merely incidental, reasonable, and necessary. That makes separation from FLR not just good governance, but a central regulatory issue.

The practical concern is not that a society can never work near, or contract with, a for–profit ranch. The concern is whether society resources could subsidize or replace FLR’s expenses, improve FLR assets, subsidize FLR operations, enhance FLR goodwill, or benefit Michael, the Lares family, related persons, or related businesses.

The closer FLESS sits to FLR’s historic operations, expenses, assets, fundraising, social–media ecosystem facilities, horses, land, and public mission, the harder it becomes to answer the separation question without transparency, inclusive of clear accounting, independent governance, and documentary proof.

If FLESS carries forward the same operations, mission, social–media audience, fundraising base and ecosystem, expenses, horses, lands, facilities, and public story historically associated with FLR, Michael, and the Lares family, regulators may reasonably ask whether a genuine public–benefit charity has been created, or whether an existing private/for–profit ecosystem is being carried forward under a new non–profit label.

Those questions are answered, if at all, by verifiable evidence: independent governance; conflict disclosures and minutes; disinterested approvals; written facility, service, horse care, and equipment agreements; fair–market pricing where applicable; separate bank accounts; transparent accounting; donor-restricted fund tracking; clear asset ownership; and records showing that donations, grants, and society property are used only for FLESS’s own non–profit/charitable purposes.

FLESS may yet be able to meet those tests. The point is simply that actual separation must be demonstrated in substance, not merely on paper.

2. Friends of Flying L Ranch (“FoFLR”): The U.S. Questions

FoFLR raises a related U.S. question because Michael has described it as a “USA Non-Profit” connected to the same FLR/FLESS structure. That question is sharpened by public-record role and address overlap: FoFLR corporate materials identify Michael as Chairman and Incorporator and list him at a Brasstown, North Carolina address. Michael and the Lares family live on the FLR property and the FLR company summary lists the ranch address as both FLR’s registered address and Michael's address. That may have an administrative explanation, but it adds to the questions about where FoFLR is managed, where records are kept, and how independent control over any U.S.-raised funds would be exercised. At this stage, we have not seen publicly available material confirming full governance, IRS status, charitable control of funds, or independent decision-making.

A U.S. nonprofit corporation is not automatically a U.S. 501(c)(3) charity. Incorporation may show that an entity exists, but it does not by itself show IRS-recognized charitable status, donor deductibility, independent governance, or charitable control of funds.

If FoFLR is intended to raise U.S. funds for horse-related work in Canada, the central question is who would control the money, for what purposes, and under what safeguards.

For a U.S. charity to solicit tax-deductible contributions for work abroad, IRS materials emphasize that the domestic organization cannot act merely as an agent or conduit for a foreign organization. It must exercise control and discretion over the funds and ensure they are used to carry out its own charitable purposes.

That brings the issue back to separation. If U.S.-raised funds were used to subsidize FLR, improve private ranch assets, replace private or for-profit expenses, or benefit Michael, the Lares family, or related persons, the concern would not be merely Canadian. It could also raise U.S. charity-law questions.

The issue is therefore not simply whether FoFLR exists as a nonprofit corporation. The issue is whether it has IRS charitable status, whether donations are tax-deductible, who independently controls it, and whether any U.S.-raised funds are protected from becoming a fundraising conduit for Canadian ranch-related private or for-profit interests.

Source Materials

A) Flying "L" Ranch Ltd.

B) Charity/Non-Profit Creation Announcements June 5, 2026

C) Flying L Equine Stewardship Society

D) Friends of Flying L Ranch

E) Legislation References

The BC Societies Act addresses society purposes and the restriction on carrying on business for profit or gain; restrictions of distributions of society money or property; address directors’ management role and duties; director conflict disclosure, accountability, and related contracts or transactions.

The CRA materials address charitable registration, public benefit, private benefit, and the difference between registered charities and non-profit organizations.

Internal Revenue Service materials on Tax Exempt Organization Search, 501(c)(3) private benefit/inurement, and domestic charities using funds abroad. Relevant IRS materials address the distinction between nonprofit incorporation and federal tax-exempt charitable status, and the control/discretion concerns that arise when U.S. charities fund activities outside the United States.

June 13, 2026