Ancillary Funds 2000-2012

Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs) are trusts to which Australian taxpayers can make tax deductible donations, enabling families, businesses and individuals to create a tax effective closely held charitable trust, whose sole purpose must be to provide money, property or benefits to deductible gift recipients. This Current Issues Information Sheet charts the movement in approval of PAFs, donations made to and distributions made by PAFs during the period 2000-01 to 2011-12. This information sheet also examines for the first time Public Ancillary Funds (PuAFs).

101 Ways to save money on your tax - legally! 2013 - 2014

Whether you use a few tips or all 101, you can feel comfortable knowing that just one tip alone will be more than enough to pay for the tax-deductible investment you make in this book.

An examination Of tax–deductible donations made by individual taxpayers in Australia for 1999/2000

Each year QUT’s Centre of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies collects and analyses statistics on the extent of tax-deductible donations 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 claimed by Australian taxpayers to deductible gift recipients (DGRs) for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. This information has been extracted from the Australian Taxation Office's publication Taxation Statistics 1999-2000 which provides an overview and profile of the income and taxation status of Australian taxpayers using information extracted from their income tax returns for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. The 1999/2000 report is the latest report that has been made publicly available...

Charities and the industry commission

On 27 October 1994 the Industry Commission (the Commission) handed down a draft report on its inquiry into charitable organisations. The Commission had spent nearly 12 months investigating community social welfare organisations (CSWOs) including the appropriateness of the present taxation treatment of charitable organisations. The draft report makes recommendations for the taxation of CSWOs including alterations to their exemption from sales tax, fringe benefits tax and other indirect taxes with alterations to the threshold of tax deductible gifts and range of organisations qualifying for public benevolent status. This article examines the current taxation treatment for these organisations and the recommended changes made by the Industry Commission.

Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs)

PAFs are trusts to which taxpayers can make tax deductible donations.1 The term private ancillary fund is defined in the taxation legislation and has some similarities with the US private family foundation. This new arrangement allows families, businesses and individuals to create a tax effective closely held charitable trust which was not possible prior to the initiative. The sole purpose of a PAF must be to provide money, property or benefits to funds, authorities or institutions, which are deductible gift recipients (DGRs).

Tax concessions in support of charitable giving: an international comparison

The Australian taxation system encourages charitable giving through tax deductibility for donations made by individuals and companies, and via tax exemption for income distributed to charities through charitable trusts. Other means of giving, such as through bequests enjoy little tax concessions...

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.

The Definition of Charity and its Nexus with Tax Preference Issues

Charity, since the Reformation, has been secularised to the extent that the continued use by the courts of analogies to a four hundred year old statute in order to determine charitable purpose with respect to tax exempt status, is giving rise to absurd situations. Tax exempt status is generally assigned by an agent of the government, for example the Inland Revenue Department in New Zealand, without any evaluation of the impact of the activities of the charitable organisation on social or economic policies. It is only when the activities of the charitable organisation are challenged in the courts, that the charitable organisation may lose its privileged position. From this brief analysis, it can be seen that the situation which is developing is a classic case of 'putting the cart before the horse'. A recent New Zealand case demonstrates the folly of assigning tax exempt status without first having examined the charitable purposes of the trust, and without having conjointly undertaken an evaluation of the social and economic impact of that charitable organisation. It is apparent that there is a need for substantial changes in charity law, with respect to charitable purpose and fiscal issues, in today's social and economic climate.

Symone Anstis : the tax advocate for higher education students

Many who have taken a tax course in the last few years will be aware of the plight of Ms Symone Anstis. Her story is a simple one. The year is 2006 and Ms Anstis, an undergraduate student is undertaking a teaching degree at the Australian Catholic University. To support herself she works at Katies earning $14,946, and receives Youth Allowance of $3,622. In her tax return for that year Ms Anstis claims $920 for ‘self-education expenses’ comprising travel, supplies, student administration fees, depreciation on her computer, textbooks and stationery. These expenses totalling $1,170 are correctly reduced by the non-deductible first $250, per s 82A of the Income Tax Assessment Act (1997) (Cth) (ITAA97). Ms Anstis claims a deduction for ‘self-education expenses’ on the basis that a condition of receiving Youth Allowance is the enrolment and satisfactory progress in an acceptable course of study. Generally, a deduction is allowed where a loss or outgoing is incurred in gaining or producing assessable income and that loss or outgoing is not of a private or domestic nature. Ms Anstis claims the expenses are incurred to meet the requirements of maintaining Youth Allowance so the nexus is satisfied. On assessment, the Commissioner of Taxation disallows the deduction claimed on the basis that ‘self-education expenses’ are only deductible if they have a relevant connection to the taxpayer’s current income-earning activities or they are likely to lead to an increase in a taxpayer’s income from his or her current income-earning activities in the future.

Corporate philanthropy, reputation risk management and shareholder value: A study of Australian corporate giving

This study examines the role of corporate philanthropy in the management of reputation risk and shareholder value of the top 100 ASX listed Australian firms for the three years 2011-2013. The results of this study demonstrate the business case for corporate philanthropy and hence encourage corporate philanthropy by showing increasing firms’ investment in corporate giving as a percentage of profit before tax, increases the likelihood of an increase in shareholder value. However, the proviso is that firms must also manage their reputation risk at the same time. There is a negative association between corporate giving and shareholder value (Tobin’s Q) which is mitigated by firms’ management of reputation. The economic significance of this result is that for every cent in the dollar the firm spends on corporate giving, Tobin’s Q will decrease by 0.413%. In contrast, if the firm increase their reputation by 1 point then Tobin’s Q will increase by 0.267%. Consequently, the interaction of corporate giving and reputation risk management is positively associated with shareholder value. These results are robust while controlling for potential endogeneity and reverse causality. This paper assists both academics and practitioners by demonstrating that the benefits of corporate philanthropy extend beyond a gesture to improve reputation or an attempt to increase financial performance, to a direct collaboration between all the factors where the benefits far outweigh the costs.

101 Ways to save money on your tax - legally! 2014-2015

Stop giving your money away!You work hard for your money, and you work even harder to set and keep a budget that makes the most of it. But when tax time arrives, do you feel shorted on your return? Nearly everyone has to pay taxes, but the government is only entitled to so much of your money. You might be letting them keep hundreds or even thousands of dollars that rightfully belong to you. No matter what your accounting habits have been so far, you can still claim what's yours.101 Ways to Save Money on Your Tax—Legally! 2014 – 2015 is your ultimate guide to maximising your return. Author Adrian Raftery, a.k.a. Mr. Taxman, is Australia's leading personal taxation expert. In the book, Raftery provides the information you need to get back every single dollar you're entitled to, plus tips and tricks that help you get the most out of deductions related to:•You, your family, and your property•Education, employment, and small business•Investment property, shares, and superannuation•Special circumstances, including medical expenses and leviesThe book also contains advice on related matters, including tax-effective investments, tax planning, and how to find a great accountant. All information has been updated to reflect tax law changes wrought by the May 2014 budget. If you're tired of paying too much tax and seeing too little return, 101 Ways to Save Money on Your Tax—Legally! 2014 – 2015 is your comprehensive guide to putting things right, starting now.

Taxing hard-to-tax markets

Tax enforcement costs constrain the government s ability to observe economic transactions, giving rise to hard-to-tax (HTT) markets. In these markets transactions are untaxed and consumers are better o¤ than in taxed markets. This paper studies a novel approach to combat evasion in HTT markets: consumer auditing, which rewards consumers for re- questing transaction receipts. We develop a Hotelling-type spatial model of sales taxation to analyze the welfare and distributional e¤ects of the implementation of this policy. We and that consumer auditing allows for a lower tax rate and greater provision of the public good in the economy. We show that this policy not only can enhance welfare, but also equalize utilities of consumers across markets

Do brazilian states engage in the fiscal war of ports? An empiric study of tax competition and an analysis of a natural experiment: the brazilian senate resolution 13/2012

O fim do ano de 2014 marcou o segundo aniversário da Resolução 13/2012 (R13) do Senado brasileiro. Grosso modo, R13 constituiu-se de um normativo do Senado cujo objetivo era o de por um fim na Guerra Fiscal dos Portos (FWP), uma competição fiscal entre os estados que se dá através da concessão de benefícios fiscais sobre operações interestaduais com mercadorias importadas de modo a atrair empresas importadoras para o território do estado concedente. R13 diminuiu o nível da tributação sobre tais operações, esperando com isso diminuir os lucros auferidos e a propensão das firmas de aceitarem tais regimes especiais de incentivação fiscal. Nada obstante, R13 gerou uma grande discussão sobre se os benefícios da atração de investimentos para um estado em particular superariam ou não os custos que esse estado incorreria em renunciar receitas tributárias em razão concessão desses benefícios fiscais. O objetivo do presente trabalho é o de dar uma contribuição a essa discussão, testando se um comportamento de interação estratégica entre estados, tal como aquele que supostamente ocorre no contexto da FWP, de fato emerge dos dados de importação coletados de janeiro de 2010 a maio de 2015, e, também, testando se a R13 de fato afetou tal comportamento de interação estratégica. Utiliza-se aqui um modelo de econometria espacial, no qual se especifica uma matriz de pesos que agrega o nível de importação das jurisdições concorrentes, organizando os dados em um painel de efeitos fixos. Os resultados sugerem que existe um comportamento de interação estratégica entre os estados e que a R13 de fato impactou tal comportamento.

The law of collateral inheritance, legacy and succession taxes, embracing the American and many English decisions, with forms for New York state, and an appendix giving the statutes of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Connecticut,

Mode of access: Internet.