Charitable grants and donations from maching gaming sources : Does it all work out in the wash up?

Material for this paper comes partly from a report commissioned by the Department of Family Services, Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. The report is the result of a multi-strategy research project designed to assess the impact of gaming machines on the fundraising capacity of charitable and community organisations in Queensland. The first Queensland gaming machine was commissioned on 11 February 1992. By 30 November 1994 there were: · 636 clubs operating 13,162 gaming machines · 436 hotels/taverns operating 3,468 gaming machines.1 It was anticipated that the introduction of gaming machines would impact on charities and community organisations. The adverse impacts would be through competition with charity gaming and disposable income that might otherwise be directed towards donations. Some also expressed concern that charities would be relied on to finance social services for problem gamblers. This paper seeks to describe the donations and grants derived by charities from Gaming Machine revenues. Such revenues primarily come from either government distributions from its gaming machine taxes and levies or gaming machine club donations. A final comment is made on the opinions of charitable fundraising professionals about the impact of gaming machine levies on club donations.

The Industry Commission inquiry into charitable organisations : the draft report implications for the future of community services

In December 1993, the Commonwealth Assistant Treasurer., Mr George Gear announced an Inquiry into Charitable Organisations in Australia. The inquiry would be undertaken by the Industry Commission, the structure charged by the Commonwealth to oversight its micro-economic reform agenda. The inquiry had been on the Industry Commission's forward workplan since 1992. In July 1993 a draft terms of reference was prepared for comment by the State Premiers...

Effect on charitable bodies of taxation alternations

It appears that the Industry Commission terms of reference will include a review of (among other things) the appropriateness of the present taxation treatment of charitable organisations. It is uncertain exactly which taxation treatments might be reviewed. However, at a federal government level, a review of the current taxation treatment of charitable organisations could refer to a review of the following taxation measures...

Charitable organisations : the options for government in the years ahead

I stand before you with some diffidence because my knowledge and involvement in this field is far less than yours. I can only claim to have had a long interest in the field of philanthropy. Until recently that interest had been in a general and not in an analytical way. Due to a conjunction of circumstances about a year ago I have taken a much more disciplined approach to the subject. This culminated in a large submission I made, as a private Senator, to the Prime Minister before Christmas on the subject of philanthropy.

Will-making prevalence and patterns in Australia: Keeping it in the family

This article provides evidence of the prevalence of wills and the principles underpinning the intended distribution of estates in Australia. Intentions around wealth transfers and the social norms that underpin them occur in the context of predicted extensive intergenerational transfers from the ageing baby boomer generation, policies of self provision and user pays for care in old age, broader views on what constitutes ‘family’, the increased importance of the not-for-profit sector in the delivery of services, and the related need for philanthropy. A national telephone survey conducted in 2012 with 2,405 respondents aged 18 and over shows that wills are predominantly used to distribute assets to partners and/or equally to immediate descendants. There is little evidence that will makers are recognising a wider group of relationships, obligations and entitlements outside the traditional nuclear family, or that wills are being replaced by other mechanisms of wealth transfer. Only a minority consider bequests to charities as important. These findings reflect current social norms about entitlements to ‘family’ money, a narrow view of what and who constitutes ‘family’, limited obligation for testators to recompense individuals or organisations for care and support provided, and limited commitment to charitable organisations and civil society.

Should tax incentives for charitable giving stop at Australia's borders?

Around the world, philanthropic gifts are increasingly crossing borders, driven by globalisation and facilitated by liberalised cross-border tax incentives. Australia is considered to have one of the strictest regimes for the tax treatment of cross-border donations. With bipartisan political support for a significant reduction in the amount and scope of Australian foreign aid, the nation’s international presence through the ‘soft power’ of aid will fall increasingly upon private philanthropy. Are the current tax incentives for Australian cross-border philanthropy and the supervision of those incentives appropriate to both facilitate and regulate international giving? To address this question, this article analyses the amount of Australian cross-border philanthropy and explains the current legislative architecture affecting the tax deductibility of cross-border gifts. It then examines the Australian Government’s proposed ‘in Australia’ reform agenda against the underlying fiscal and regulatory policy imperatives, and makes recommendations for the future tax treatment of Australian cross-border philanthropy.

Good times and philanthropy : giving by Australia's affluent

This report draws upon the latest research to examine giving trends by affluent individuals in Australia and how these compare with overseas counterparts. It is driven by several factors. Giving by individuals matters enormously to the nonprofit sector, far exceeding business donations. Whether the richest of the population gives commensurate with their wealth is a question worth asking.

Beyond charity : outlines of a jurisprudence for civil society

There is not a single, coherent, jurisprudence for civil society organisations. Pressure for a clearly enuciated body of law applying to the whole of this sector of society continues to increase. The rise of third sector scholarship, the retreat of the welfare state, the rediscovery of the concept of civil society and pressures to strengthen social capital have all contributed to an ongoing stream of inquiry into the laws that regulate and favour civil society organisations. There have been almost thirty inquiries over the last sixty years into the doctrine of charitable purpose in common law countries. Those inquiries have established that problems with the law applying to civil society organisations are rooted in the common law adopting a ‘technical’ definition of charitable purpose and the failure of this body of law to develop in response to societal changes. Even though it is now well recognised that problems with law reform stem from problems inherent in the doctrine of charitable purpose, statutory reforms have merely ‘bolted on’ additions to the flawed ‘technical’ definition. In this way the scope of operation of the law has been incrementally expanded to include a larger number of civil society organisations. This piecemeal approach continues the exclusion of most civil society organisations from the law of charities discourse, and fails to address the underlying jurisprudential problems. Comprehensive reform requires revisiting the foundational problems embedded in the doctrine of charitable purpose, being informed by recent scholarship, and a paradigm shift that extends the doctrine to include all civil society organisations. Scholarly inquiry into civil society organisations, particularly from within the discipline of neoclassical economics, has elucidated insights that can inform legal theory development. This theory development requires decoupling the two distinct functions performed by the doctrine of charitable purpose which are: setting the scope of regulation, and determining entitlement to favours, such as tax exemption. If the two different functions of the doctrine are considered separately in the light of theoretical insights from other disciplines, the architecture for a jurisprudence emerges that facilitates regulation, but does not necessarily favour all civil society organisations. Informed by that broader discourse it is argued that when determining the scope of regulation, civil society organisations are identified by reference to charitable purposes that are not technically defined. These charitable purposes are in essence purposes which are: Altruistic, for public Benefit, pursued without Coercion. These charitable puposes differentiate civil society organisations from organisations in the three other sectors namely; Business, which is manifest in lack of altruism; Government, which is characterised by coercion; and Family, which is characterised by benefits being private not public. When determining entitlement to favour, it is theorised that it is the extent or nature of the public benefit evident in the pursuit of a charitable purpose that justifies entitlement to favour. Entitlement to favour based on the extent of public benefit is the theoretically simpler – the greater the public benefit the greater the justification for favour. To be entitled to favour based on the nature of a purpose being charitable the purpose must fall within one of three categories developed from the first three heads of Pemsel’s case (the landmark categorisation case on taxation favour). The three categories proposed are: Dealing with Disadvantage, Encouraging Edification; and Facilitating Freedom. In this alternative paradigm a recast doctrine of charitable purpose underpins a jurisprudence for civil society in a way similar to the way contract underpins the jurisprudence for the business sector, the way that freedom from arbitrary coercion underpins the jurisprudence of the government sector and the way that equity within families underpins succession and family law jurisprudence for the family sector. This alternative architecture for the common law, developed from the doctrine of charitable purpose but inclusive of all civil society purposes, is argued to cover the field of the law applying to civil society organisations and warrants its own third space as a body of law between public law and private law in jurisprudence.

Charities, civil society and the charity law reviews on the island of Ireland

This article considers the opportunity, presented by the coincidence of simultaneous charity law reviews in the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland, for an adjustment of charity law frameworks to maximise appropriate and effective charitable activity within each jurisdiction,while also facilitating the coordination of some such activity between both. It examines the nature of civil society and charity law, and the relationship between them. The article argues that a creative legislative response to this opportunity could address themes of social inclusion common to both jurisdictions and thereby contribute to the consolidation of civil society on this island.

An examination of tax-deductible donations made by individual Australian taxpayers in 2007-08

Each year, The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies (CPNS) at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) collects and analyses statistics on the amount and extent of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australians in their individual income tax returns to deductible gift recipients (DGRs). The information presented below is based on the amount and type of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australian individual taxpayers to DGRs for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007. This information has been extracted mainly from the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) publication Taxation Statistics 2006-07. The 2006-07 report is the latest report that has been made publicly available. It represents information in tax returns for the 2006-07 year processed by the ATO as at 31 October 2008. This study uses information based on published ATO material and represents only the extent of tax-deductible donations made and claimed by Australian taxpayers to DGRs at Item D9 Gifts or Donations in their individual income tax returns for the 2006-07 income year. The data does not include corporate taxpayers. Expenses such as raffles, sponsorships, fundraising purchases (e.g., sweets, tea towels, special events) or volunteering are generally not deductible as „gifts‟. The Giving Australia Report used a more liberal definition of gift to arrive at an estimated total of giving at $11 billion for 2005 (excluding Tsunami giving of $300 million). The $11 billion total comprised $5.7 billion from adult Australians, $2 billion from charity gambling or special events and $3.3 billion from business sources.

Lifting the lifegiving dollar : case samples of creative practice in health and medical research philanthropy

This study aims to stimulate thought, debate and action for change on this question of more vigorous philanthropic funding of Australian health and medical research (HMR). It sharpens the argument with some facts and ideas about HMR funding from overseas sources. It also reports informed opinions from those working, giving and innovating in this area. It pinpoints the range of attitudes to HMR giving, both positive and negative. The study includes some aspects of Government funding as part of the equation, viewing Government as major HMR givers, with particular ability to partner, leverage and create incentives. Stimulating new philanthropy takes active outreach. The opportunity to build more dialogue between the HMR industry and the wider community is timely given the ‘licence to practice’ issues and questioned trust that applies currently somewhat both to science and to the charitable sector. This interest in improving HMR philanthropy also coincides with the launch last year by the Federal Government of Nonprofit Australia Limited (NAL), a group currently assessing infrastructure improvements to the charitable sector. History suggests no one will create this change if Research Australia does not. However, interest in change exists in various quarters. For Research Australia to successfully change the culture of Australian HMR giving, the process will drive the outcomes. Obviously stakeholder buy-in and partners will be needed and the ultimate blueprint for greater philanthropic HMR funding here will not be this document. Instead it will be the one that wears the handprint and ‘mindprint’ of the many architects and implementers interested in promoting HMR philanthropy, from philanthropists to nonprofit peaks to government policy arms. As the African proverb says, ‘If you want to go fast, go alone; but if you want to go far, go with others’.

Charity law reforms : overview of progress since 2001

In the UK, Singapore, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, as in many other jurisdictions, charity law is rooted in the common law and anchored on the Statute of Charitable Uses 1601. The Pemsel classification of charitable purposes was uniformly accepted, and together with a shared and growing pool of judicial precedents, aided by the ‘spirit and intendment’ rule, has subsequently allowed the law to develop along much the same lines. In recent years, all the above jurisdictions have embarked on law reform processes designed to strengthen regulatory processes and to statutorily define and encode common law concepts. The reform outcomes are now to be found in a batch of national charity statutes which reflect interesting differences in the extent to which their respective governments have been prepared to balance the modernising of charitable purposes and other common law concepts alongside the customary concern to tighten the regulatory framework.