New Australian not for profit regulator coming

[Free to shine]

Articles are appearing already: :)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/budget-gives-to-charities-and-takes-away/story-fn3dxity-1226051504620

http://www.smh.com.au/national/charities-face-profits-being-taxed-in-budget-20110506-1ec2u.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/07/3210401.htm

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/9334032/budget-gives-to-charities-and-takes-away/

[degraded being]

".....However, it is understood the government aims to make the changes
retrospective....."
From the Sydney Morning Herald article. Does that mean they are going to find areas where groups
like ummmm...well, just say for example Scientology, have been making non charity money for years and years and years and work out the tax for all that time and tell the scientologists to pay up?

[Jump]

They could mean they will review how the existing bodies are exempted, but not immediately. They will start with new nfp and charity bodies first.

But hopefully where there is significant shenanigans . . . :whistling:

[Mark A. Baker]

".....However, it is understood the government aims to make the changes
retrospective....."
From the Sydney Morning Herald article. Does that mean they are going to find areas where groups
like ummmm...well, just say for example Scientology, have been making non charity money for years and years and years and work out the tax for all that time and tell the scientologists to pay up?

A. that would be 'retroactive'

B. IANAL, especially in australia, but that would almost certainly be contrary to law, i.e. ex post facto taxation. Doesn't work well in practice.

C. the articles state the legislation takes effect as of July 1st


Mark A. Baker

[Jump]

A. that would be 'retroactive'

B. IANAL, especially in australia, but that would almost certainly be contrary to law, i.e. ex post facto taxation. Doesn't work well in practice.

C. the articles state the legislation takes effect as of July 1st


Mark A. Baker

I dont think they can ask for the backtaxes - unless there is criminality involved. (existing precedent exists). They can take the exemptions away though :whistling:

[Emma]

Just in case people missed this (which might be the case as ESMB was down when the news broke).

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/budget-gives-to-charities-and-takes-away/story-fn3dxity-1226051504620


Budget gives to charities and takes away

CHARITIES will get a $500 million boost through moves to cut red tape but the federal budget will also close a tax loophole for those that run non-charitable businesses.

The government will provide $53.8 million over four years to establish an independent "one-stop shop" to regulate the not-for-profit sector, News Ltd and Fairfax report.


The Australian charities and not-for-profits commission will start on July 1 next year.


The current system of regulation is estimated to cost Australia's 600,000 not-for-profit and community organisations more than $500 million annually, News Ltd said.


But Tuesday's budget will also tighten tax concessions for charities that run businesses unrelated to their charitable work.

It will mean that from July 1, they will have to pay income tax on the profits they retain in any newly created businesses that do not go back into their charity work.


The move won't affect op shops or small-scale fundraisers such as lamington drives.


What does this mean for Scientology? We'll have to wait & see if they somehow get around this. I'm sure they are already thinking up ways to fool the regulators, but the cat is out of the bag now. Public & Government awareness at how this cult operates has never been higher.

It will be fun to watch how they react. :laugh:

[Outethicsofficer]

Just in case people missed this (which might be the case as ESMB was down when the news broke).

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/budget-gives-to-charities-and-takes-away/story-fn3dxity-1226051504620



What does this mean for Scientology? We'll have to wait & see if they somehow get around this. I'm sure they are already thinking up ways to fool the regulators, but the cat is out of the bag now. Public & Government awareness at how this cult operates has never been higher.

It will be fun to watch how they react. :laugh:

If this was all they had to worry about then they would count themselves as being in heaven...

James

[Terril park]

Tax excemptions in UK and Europe were based on australian tax excemption. This apparently did not exist. The property of the
cosreci was a private house who had never heard of scn. As reported here.

[Mark A. Baker]

Just in case people missed this (which might be the case as ESMB was down when the news broke).

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/budget-gives-to-charities-and-takes-away/story-fn3dxity-1226051504620



What does this mean for Scientology? We'll have to wait & see if they somehow get around this. I'm sure they are already thinking up ways to fool the regulators, but the cat is out of the bag now. Public & Government awareness at how this cult operates has never been higher.

It will be fun to watch how they react. :laugh:

Hmmm, has it been suggested to the Tax Authorities in Australia that operating an HGC is not a 'charitable activity' but it is a principle source of revenue and might thereby be construed as an ongoing 'commercial activity'? Admittedly there is the claim of 'religious counselling', yet the published schedule of fixed fees & rates suggest that what is occurring is actually 'fee for service'.

It certainly is a matter which warrants consideration & discussion by authorities.


Mark A. Baker :)

[Free to shine]

This issue is now growing legs. Here's the latest:
http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2011/143.htm&pageID=003&min=brs&Year=&DocType=


Joint Media Release with
Tanya Plibersek
Minister for Human Services and Social Inclusion

The definition of charity finally enters the 21ST century

The Gillard Government's commitment to introduce a new statutory definition of charity to clarify exactly what does - and does not - qualify as a 'charity' and as a 'charitable purpose' is a step closer following the release of a consultation paper today.

Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, Bill Shorten, said "The current definition of charity is based on the 1601 Statute of Elizabeth, with over 400 years worth of often confusing case law added on top."

He said a single national definition will make it easier for charities to navigate state and federal regulations, allowing them to spend less time on administration and more time doing what they do best - helping people.

"It is well past time Australia cleans up this mess and creates a modern, workable and Australian definition of charity to clarify the work of our important and valuable not-for-profit sector. I am very pleased to announce that Senator Ursula Stephens has been appointed as a specialist adviser to assist me with the consultation process."

The Government is seeking the views of charities and other stakeholders on a definition of charity and charitable purposes. The consultation builds on a range of previous inquiries including the 2001 Report of the Inquiry into the Definition of Charities and Related Organisations, the Charities Bill 2003 and recent court decisions including the High Court's decision in Aid/Watch Incorporated v the Commissioner of Taxation.

As this is the first round of consultation on this issue, the Government is seeking important feedback from the community. The Government wants to hear from the sector about how a single definition can best serve the needs of not-for-profits and their clients, as well as encourage charitable giving. The Government will also consult on an exposure draft of the legislation in the first half of next year.

The Government is also working with the States and Territories to achieve greater harmonisation between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories through the Council of Australia Governments.

Minister for Social Inclusion, Tanya Plibersek, said "Charities provide vital services to the Australian community. We want not-for-profits to be able to direct their resources to charitable work rather than unnecessarily complex administration."

"By establishing a modern and workable definition of 'charity' the Government is reducing compliance burden for the sector and making it easier for charities to get on with the job of providing charitable services."

The Consultation paper is available at the Treasury website. Submissions are due on 9 December 2011. (http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?NavId=037&ContentID=2161)

The Implementation Taskforce for the Australian Charities and Not for profit Commission (ACNC), announced in the May Budget, is also well on track.

The Taskforce is responsible for ensuring the ACNC is ready for operation by 1 July 2012. The ACNC will be responsible for determining the legal status of groups seeking charitable, public benevolent institution, and other not-for-profit benefits on behalf of all Commonwealth agencies.

The ACNC will also implement a 'report-once use-often' reporting framework for charities, provide education and support to the sector on technical matters, and establish a public information portal by 1 July 2013.

Minister Plibersek said the Interim Commissioner and Chair of the Taskforce, Susan Pascoe AM, has assembled a strong team from across Government to establish the ACNC.

"I am delighted that David Locke, Executive Director of Charity Services, from the Charity Commission of England and Wales has been brought on board the Taskforce to provide expert guidance based on international experience.

Treasury has also recently brought together all of its work on the Government's important not-for-profit reform agenda into one place on its website - www.treasury.gov.au.

"Charities make an important contribution to Australian society, and receive a range of support from Commonwealth, state, territory and local governments, in the form of tax concessions and grants, and the public in terms of donations and volunteering," Mr Shorten said.

"It therefore is important there is a clear framework for both the public and regulatory agencies for recognising entities as charitable. The introduction of a definition of charity will, over time, go a long way to provide the sector with the certainty and clarity they are calling for."

Canberra
28 October 2011

[Feral]

OK, sure as hell the CofS will be trying to sway the final outcome and definition in their favour though various front groups, mirages and proxies , it'll be an effort to appear to be legitimate by having other groups "not connected" to them echoing the same sentiments for apparently different and noble motives.

This is what they do so well, deceive, dissemble and appear to be the voice of the many.

When the FWO matter was going through they had *way* too long to bring it round to their hand and I'm sure Mr. Walker QC was very handy to them at that time, he's possibly been retained for this vitally important matter too.

We need to represent ourselves on this one and lobby for all it's worth to get a straight definition for CHARITY that doesn't include their mad version of saving the world, the whole agonised future of every man woman and child as well as the whole damned universe which will apparently fall into a pile of shit if the upper OTEE levels aren't released.

My two bob.

[Royal Prince Xenu]

A. that would be 'retroactive'

B. IANAL, especially in australia, but that would almost certainly be contrary to law, i.e. ex post facto taxation. Doesn't work well in practice.

C. the articles state the legislation takes effect as of July 1st


Mark A. Baker

You're right. You're not a Lawyer, and neither am I. The Australian Tax Office has previously been successful in getting some of its "rulings" applied retro-actively.

[Feral]

You're right. You're not a Lawyer, and neither am I. The Australian Tax Office has previously been successful in getting some of its "rulings" applied retro-actively.

This is true.

ML

Feral

[Infinite]

..


. . . Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious organisation basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organisation. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors. I have evidently failed in designating HASI Ltd. as a non-profit organisation and cannot transfer HASI Inc. assets to any but a non-profit corporation . . .

HCOPL - RELIGION - 29 OCTOBER 1962
..

. . . just about fifty years to the day since this organised criminal conspiracy to defraud got started.

[RogerB]

Here’s a thought, and I’m really thinking out loud here . . . .

There is a principle that should be introduced into the equation for evaluating whether an organization is charitable and/or dedicated to a service for the benefit of society.

It is this: Any organization that has as any part of its stated policy, doctrines or conduct of affairs that it is to do harm to any other group or member of our society not part of its membership or not in agreement with it, is to be denied charitable status as it has, by its conduct and stated objectives and policies, forfeited the right to be considered charitable.

If we were to get that sentiment written into the law as part of determining charitable status, guess whose written, much vaunted HCOP’s would be a noose around their neck . . . :biggrin:

My view is that this is something we could benefit from by contributing it to the input the government is seeking.

PS: and I'll do some more thinking on this as the day goes along :p :yes:

In other words, we ought be able to come up with a litany reasons/causes for the denial of charitable status to an organization based on our experience and knowledge of the Cof$ HCO/PLs, ED's, stated Directives and conduct. :yes:

Rog

[Bill]

OK, sure as hell the CofS will be trying to sway the final outcome and definition in their favour though various front groups, mirages and proxies ,
You forgot their favorite method: Blackmail.

[Gadfly]

Here’s a thought, and I’m really thinking out loud here . . . .

There is a principle that should be introduced into the equation for evaluating whether an organization is charitable and/or dedicated to a service for the benefit of society.

It is this: Any organization that has as any part of its stated policy, doctrines or conduct of affairs that it is do harm to any other group or member of our society not part of its membership or not in agreement with it, is to be denied charitable status as it has, by its conduct and stated objectives and policies, forfeited the right to be considered charitable.

If we were to get that sentiment written into the law as part of determining charitable status, guess whose written, much vaunted HCOP’s would be a noose around their neck . . . :biggrin:

My view is that this is something we could benefit from by contributing it to the input the government is seeking.

PS: and I'll do some more thinking on this as the day goes along :p :yes:

In other words, we ought be able to come up with a litany reasons/causes for the denial of charitable status to an organization based on our experience and knowledge of the Cof$ HCO/PLs, ED's, stated Directives and conduct. :yes:

Rog

I love it!!!!!!! :thumbsup:

Great idea Roger - keep thinking out loud. :yes:

[Mimsey Borogrove]

We should stress the point that a charitable organization definition must include that the charity must be financially transparent, it must publish widely, it's annual income and annual expenses thus proving it's proper use of the funds.

There must also be a limitation for a multi-national charity taking funds out of the country, and any funds raised, other than for a specific international disaster relief, must be spent in Australia.

There must be also a limitation of funds placed in reserve. Perhaps a ratio of money spent on annual charity relief to funds placed in reserve, say 10% in reserve and 20% spent on salaries, operational funds and 70% on charitable work?

Mimsey

[RogerB]

We should stress the point that a charitable organization definition must include that the charity must be financially transparent, it must publish widely, it's annual income and annual expenses thus proving it's proper use of the funds.

There must also be a limitation for a multi-national charity taking funds out of the country, and any funds raised, other than for a specific international disaster relief, must be spent in Australia.

There must be also a limitation of funds placed in reserve. Perhaps a ratio of money spent on annual charity relief to funds placed in reserve, say 10% in reserve and 20% spent on salaries, operational funds and 70% on charitable work?

Mimsey

Yes, Mimsey . . . good thinking!

If the clever folks on ESMB keep chewing on the issues of a) sensible restrictions on operations such as Mimsey's above and, b) points that would debar acceptance for charitable status, I reckon we could come up with really great concepts to be included in the coming legislation :yes:

R

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Here is the link for those interested in making a submission to the Ausie Government. Be sure to read or at least skim the consultation paper and fact sheet at the bottom of their web site - it gives some interesting data.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?NavId=&ContentID=2161


Consultation Paper - A Definition of Charity
Date: Friday, 28 October 2011
Content ID: 2161
Abstract: The Government has released a Consultation Paper on the definition of charity as part of a consultation process to provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment.

The Government announced in the 2011-12 Budget that it would introduce a statutory definition of charity, applicable across all Commonwealth laws from 1 July 2013.

This Consultation Paper outlines the background to a statutory definition, including previous recommendations and inquiries, as well as developments that have occurred since the 2003 consultation package on a charity definition was released.

It discusses elements of a possible core definition of charity by raising for discussion possible refinements to the exposure draft of the Charities Bill 2003. It also covers Australian Disaster Relief Funds, interactions with State and Territory laws and transitional issues.

The Consultation Paper makes frequent references to the exposure draft of the Charities Bill 2003. The exposure draft and related explanatory material are available on the Board of Taxation website.

Making a submission
Interested parties are invited to comment on the consultation paper. While submissions may be lodged electronically or by post, electronic lodgement is preferred. For accessibility reasons, please submit responses sent via email in a Word or RTF format. An additional PDF version may also be submitted.

All information (including name and address details) contained in submissions will be made available to the public on the Treasury website unless you indicate that you would like all or part of your submission to remain in confidence. Automatically generated confidentiality statements in emails do not suffice for this purpose. Respondents who would like part of their submission to remain in confidence should provide this information marked as such in a separate attachment. Legal requirements, such as those imposed by the Freedom of Information Act 1982, may affect the confidentiality of your submission.

Closing date for submissions on the discussion paper: Friday, 9 December 2011

Address written submissions to:
The Manager
Philanthropy and Exemptions Unit
Personal and Retirement Income Division
The Treasury
Langton Crescent
PARKES ACT 2600

Email: NFPReform@treasury.gov.au

For enquiries, please call Robyn Vincent on (02) 6263 2758.

Documents Available:
Acrobat (PDF)
Consultation Paper - A Definition of Charity 991.39kb
Fact Sheet - A Definition of Charity 193.81kb

Microsoft Word (RTF)
Consultation Paper - A Definition of Charity 2,240.29kb
Fact Sheet - A Definition of Charity 8,464.87kb

[Lucretia]

My understanding is that $cn is only considered a charity in Oz because that is the automatic status of a religion, and $cn has been judged a religion previously. Is the not-for profit regulator going to be able to distinguish between a stand alone non-charity and a non-charity masquerading as a religion?
Or have I got this arse-up?

[Feral]

Here’s a thought, and I’m really thinking out loud here . . . .

There is a principle that should be introduced into the equation for evaluating whether an organization is charitable and/or dedicated to a service for the benefit of society.

It is this: Any organization that has as any part of its stated policy, doctrines or conduct of affairs that it is to do harm to any other group or member of our society not part of its membership or not in agreement with it, is to be denied charitable status as it has, by its conduct and stated objectives and policies, forfeited the right to be considered charitable.

If we were to get that sentiment written into the law as part of determining charitable status, guess whose written, much vaunted HCOP’s would be a noose around their neck . . . :biggrin:

My view is that this is something we could benefit from by contributing it to the input the government is seeking.

PS: and I'll do some more thinking on this as the day goes along :p :yes:

In other words, we ought be able to come up with a litany reasons/causes for the denial of charitable status to an organization based on our experience and knowledge of the Cof$ HCO/PLs, ED's, stated Directives and conduct. :yes:

Rog

This is great and so is Mimsey's, it aligns with the "Public Benefit Test" model that was proposed and which I assume is still going to be the tool for determining who is in and who is out.

[Feral]

My understanding is that $cn is only considered a charity in Oz because that is the automatic status of a religion, and $cn has been judged a religion previously. Is the not-for profit regulator going to be able to distinguish between a stand alone non-charity and a non-charity masquerading as a religion?
Or have I got this arse-up?

I think there will now be a separation of religion and charity given the harm that some cults have done, the "Public Benefit Test" will be the determining factor.

I love it because if and when Scientology does lose it's tax exempt status it will be tantamount to the Australian people assigning the a condition of "liability".

Most time consuming and difficult condition assignment I've ever been involved with!!

[degraded being]

My understanding is that $cn is only considered a charity in Oz because that is the automatic status of a religion, and $cn has been judged a religion previously. Is the not-for profit regulator going to be able to distinguish between a stand alone non-charity and a non-charity masquerading as a religion?
Or have I got this arse-up?

I think that it's a case of no longer giving a religion a blanket approval for tax exemption on everything. It will not affect their status as a religion per se, but the different things that they do will be looked at to see whether or not it is "charitible work", and that has to meet certain criteria. So, since auditing is not a general benefit to the community, but only to the individuals who do it (if there is any benefit), they might not get tax exemption on it. Same with training and other things. I think that's the general idea. The people who get sukered into "voulnteer minister crap may get a tax exemption on something, but they probably pay their own expenses so the tax exemption would possibly go to them and not the COS. That would piss COS off.

[Lucretia]

Thanks Feral and DB. I have been following this with interest but didn't ever understand that they would separate out a bona fide charitable status from the religious status. I can't possible believe they could see the C of $ as anything but a money making concern, religion notwithstanding.