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.

Australian tax analysis - cases, commentary, commercial applications and questions [7th Ed.]

"Australian Tax Analysis, seventh edition, provides a comprehensive examination of taxation law with a practical commercial perspective. The seventh edition of this text features: two new chapters: "Offsets" and "Superannuation and Employer Responsibilities"; selected case extracts; Tax Commissioner Rulings; thought-provoking commentary; instruction on how to read the Acts; and engaging problem-based practice questions."--Publisher's website.

Prescriptions for reform of Australia's superannuation tax concessions

The highly controversial and often politicised issue of Australia’s retirement savings regime featured prominently throughout the two day Federal Government’s October 2011 Tax Forum. Calls for reform of this regime are by no means new. Reform debate over the years has focused on each of the three separate pillars: the age pension, compulsory superannuation, and voluntary saving, as well as the interaction of those three elements. However, recently there has been a significant shift away from reliance on the age pension, with its associated risks falling to the government, to a defined contributions scheme where the associated risks fall to the individual taxpayer. Consequently, Australia’s superannuation regime is predominantly subject to current debate, and, as such, the subject of this article. This article considers the history of Australia’s retirement savings regime, along with a framework for evaluating the superannuation tax concessions. It then discusses the recommendations of the Australian Future Tax System (AFTS) Review Panel and ensuing debate at the Tax Forum. Finally, it suggests two proposals to achieve the objectives of the AFTS Review in relation to retirement, those objectives being a system which is broad and adequate, acceptable to individuals, robust, simple and approachable, and finally sustainable. The first, whilst potentially requiring some tinkering’, is relatively simple and a blue print has already been provided to the Federal Government – the adoption of Recommendations 18 and 19 of the AFTS Review. The second is one of management. Superannuation concessions are fundamentally categorised as tax expenditures and the management of these tax expenditures, not just the reporting, should be undertaken.

Advance pricing arrangements : an Australian Tax Office success or a legislative failure?

Australia’s domestic income tax legislation and double tax agreements contain transfer pricing rules which are designed to counter the underpayment of tax by businesses engaged in international dealings between related parties. The current legislation and agreements require that related party transactions take place at a value which reflects an arm’s length price, that is, a price which would be charged between unrelated parties. For a host of reasons, it is increasingly difficult for multinational entities to demonstrate that they are transferring goods and services at a price which is reflective of the behaviour of independent parties, thereby making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the relevant legislation. Further, where an Australian business undertakes cross-border related party transactions there is the risk of an audit by the Australian Tax Office (ATO). If a business wishes to avoid the risk of an audit, and any ensuing penalties, there is one option: an advance pricing arrangement (APA). An APA is an agreement whereby the future transfer pricing methodology to be used to determine the arm’s length price is agreed to by the taxpayer and the relevant tax authority or authorities. The ATO views the APA process as an important part of its international tax strategy and believes that there are complementary benefits provided to both the taxpayer and the ATO. The ATO promotes the APA process on the basis of creating greater certainty for all parties while reducing compliance costs and the risk of audit and penalty. While the ATO regards the APA system as a success, it may be argued that the implementation of such a system is simply a practical solution to an ongoing problem of an inherent failure in both the legislation and ATO interpretation and application of this legislation to provide certainty to the taxpayer. This paper investigates the use of APAs as a solution to the problem of transfer pricing and considers whether they are the success the ATO claims. It is argued that there is no doubt that APAs provide a valuable practical tool for multinational entities facing the challenges of the taxation of global trading under the current transfer pricing regime. It does not, however, provide a long term solution. Rather, the long term solution may be in the form of legislative amendment.

An examination of tax-deductible donations made by individual taxpayers in Australia for 1997/98

This paper analyses the amount and type of tax-deductible donations made by Australian taxpayers to charities for the period 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998. The information has been extracted from the Australian Taxation Office's publication Taxation Statistics 1997-98 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 1997 to 30 June 1998. This report is the latest publicly available summary. At the time of writing.

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...

Does charity begin and end at home for tax exemptions?

Charitable organisations have remained exempt from income tax in Australia since the first comprehensive state income tax legislation in 18841 through to the current Income Tax Assessment Act 1977. The charitable exemption was also part of the English income tax legislation from its inception in 1799. The Federal Treasurer has released exposure draft legislation which seeks to remove taxation exemptions from some tax exempt organisations that perform any of their activities outside Australia or make trust distributions overseas. The proposed legislation is in response to alleged tax avoidance arrangements which involve tax exempt organisations and charitable trusts. The paper begins by describing the current charity tax exemption provisions under the Income Tax Assessment Act (ITAA). It then turns to tracing the background policy history of the amendments which appear to be at odds with the form and intent of the proposed provisions. The proposed amendments and their practical consequences are then closely scrutinised and found wanting in a number of respects. Alternative strategies are suggested to arrive at an equitable solution to the avoidance mischief.

Small business entity tax concessions : through the eyes of the practitioner

The often competing imperatives of equity, simplicity and efficiency in the income tax regime, particularly the notion of simplicity, has been most evident within Australia’s small business sector over the last decade. In an attempt to provide tax simplification and reduce the tax compliance burden faced by Australian small businesses, provisions collectively referred to as the ‘simplified tax system’ or STS were introduced. The STS was designed to provide eligible small businesses with the option of adopting a range of ‘simplified’ tax measures designed to simplify their tax affairs whilst at the same time, reducing their tax compliance costs. Ultimately, a low take-up rate and accompanying criticisms led to a remodelled and rebadged concessionary regime known as the ‘Small Business Entity’ (SBE) regime which came into effect from 1 July 2007. This paper, through a pilot study, investigates the SBE regime though the eyes of the practitioner. In line the Australian Federal Government’s objective of simplification and reduced compliance costs, the purpose of the study was to (1) determine the extent to which the SBE concessions are being adopted by tax practitioners on behalf of their clients, (2) gain an understanding as to which individual SBE tax concessions are most favoured by practitioners, (3) determine the primary motivation as to why tax practitioners recommend particular SBE concessions to their clients, and (4) canvass the opinions of practitioners as to whether they believed that the introduction of the SBE concessions had met their stated objective of reducing tax compliance costs for small businesses. The findings of this research indicate that, while there is a perception that the SBE concessions are worth embracing, contrary to the policy intent, the reasons behind adopting the concessions was the opportunity to minimise a clients’ tax liability. It was revealed that adopting particular concessions had nothing to do with compliance costs savings and, in fact, the SBE concessions merely added another layer of complexity to an already cumbersome and complex tax code, which resulted in increased compliance costs for their small businesses clients. Further, the SBE concessions allowed tax practitioners the opportunity to engage in effective tax minimisation, thereby fulfilling the client advocacy role of the tax practitioner in maximising their clients’ tax preferences.