New Australian not for profit regulator coming

[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 . . .

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

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.

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 . . .

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

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.

Rog

I love it!!!!!!!

Great idea Roger - keep thinking out loud.

[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

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/contentit...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