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.

Government : charity boundaries

The Preamble1 was the initial legislative statement of matters construed by government to constitute charitable purposes in a common law context. It provided an outline of what was to become the core agenda for government’s relationship with charity. The resulting implied partnership, as viewed by government, endured for four centuries and in many different cultural contexts across the common law world. During that period, judicial mediation on the balance to be struck between government interest in acquiring value for granting tax exempt privileges and the right of individuals to freely dispose of property in accordance with their particular altruistic wishes steadily broadened the range of purposes deemed to be charitable, the vagaries of donor choice often prevailing over government interest in acquiring value for tax exemption.

Modernising charity : steps to an alternative architecture for common law charity jurisprudence

This chapter addresses the question, how can the common law concept of charity law be modernised? There are difficulties with the present jurisprudential conception. The focus of the chapter is not on those difficulties, however, but rather on the development of an alternative architecture for common law jurisprudence. The conclusion to which the chapter comes is that charity law can be modernised by a series of steps to include all civil society organisations. It is possible if the ‘technical’ definition of charitable purpose is abandoned in favour of a contemporary, not technical concept of charitiable purpose. This conclusion is reached by proposing a framework, developed from the common law concept of charities, that reconciles into a cohesive jurisprudential architecture all of the laws applying to civil society organisations, not just charities. In this section, first the argument is contextualised in an idea of society and located in a gap in legal theory. An analogy is then offered to introduce the problems in the legal theory applying, not just to charities, but more broadly to civil society organisations. The substantive challenge of mapping an alternative jurisprudence is then taken in steps. The final substantive section conceptualises the changes inherent in a move beyond charities to a jurisprudence centred on civil society organisations and how this would bring legal theory into line with sectoral analysis in other disciplines.

A Transformational Role : Donor and charity perspectives on major giving in Australia

Tapping into the thoughts of nearly 50 Australians involved with major giving, this study seeks to know more about why and how people give in what might be called ‘momentous’ ways. It tracks both their triumphs and trials. Perhaps most importantly, it gives a public voice to the perceptions, attitudes, concerns and stories of Australians who have chosen to act philanthropically in a sizeable and ongoing way. In counterpoint, the views, experiences and frustrations of seasoned fundraising professionals who work to generate major giving across a range of causes form the other voices in this study. Thus, donors talk about giving, and occasionally raising support from their peers, and fundraisers talk about developing major gifts. This research has been supported by the Perpetual Foundation, the EF and SL Gluyas Trust and the Edward Corbould Charitable Trust under the management of Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd.

An examination of tax-deductible donations made by individual Australian taxpayers in 2008-09, ACPNS Working Paper 54

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 2008 to 30 June 2009. This information has been extracted mainly from the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) publication Taxation Statistics 2008-09. The 2008-09 report is the latest report that has been made publicly available. It represents information in tax returns for the 2008-09 year processed by the ATO as at 31 October 2010.

Charity law

Charity Law - 2nd edition addresses the modern law relating to this sector. Like the first edition, it comes at a time of public concern about the law regulating charitable activity. While concentrating on both legal and practitioner issues, this book also explores the modern concept of charity. It examines and explains the regulatory framework for charity and the need for transparency and public accountability. It gives you a complete understanding of the changes introduced by the Charities Act 2009, giving particular attention to the responsibilities of the new regulatory authority for charities, the importance of the role now statutorily allocated to the public benefit principle, and the significance of a new extended range of charitable purposes.

Foundations for giving : why and how Australians structure their philanthropy

Philanthropic foundations in Australia have traditionally been labelled ‘icebergs’. Much of what they do and who they are is not apparent on the surface. Many are unknown and apart from an occasional biography, almost all are sparsely documented in terms of the very personal decisions behind establishing them. Practically and academically, scant data exist on the decision journeys people make into formalised philanthropy. This study seeks to fill that gap. It is believed to be the largest such study of foundation decision-making ever undertaken in this country. It is the latest in a series of ACPNS research into types of considered (versus spontaneous) giving in Australia. This research has been supported by the Perpetual Foundation, the EF and SL Gluyas Trust and the Edward Corbould Charitable Trust under the management of Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd.

Give and take in major gift relationships

This article investigates the complex phenomenon of major gift giving to charitable institutions. Drawing on empirical evidence from interviews with 16 Australian major donors (who gave a single gift of at least AU$10,000 in 2008 or 2009), we seek to better understand donor expectations and (dis)satisfaction. Given growing need for social services, and the competition among nonprofit organisations (NPOs) to secure sustainable funding, this research is particularly timely. Currently, little is known about major donors’ expectations, wants and needs. Equity theory, with the concept of reciprocity at its core, was found to provide a useful framework for understanding these phenomena. A model of equitable major gift relationships was developed from the data, which portrays balanced relationships and identifies potential areas of dissatisfaction for major donors. We conclude by offering suggestions for NPOs seeking to understand the complexities of major gift relationships, with practical implications for meeting donors’ needs.

Tax concessions for charities : competitive neutrality, the tax base and "public goods" choice

It is argued that concerns arise about the integrity and fairness of the taxation regime where charitable organizations, which avail themselves of the tax exemption status while undertaking commercial activities, compete directly with the for-profit sector. The appropriateness of the tax concessions granted to charitable organizations is considered in respect of income derived from commercial activities. It is principally argued that the traditional line of reasoning for imposing limitations on tax concessions focuses on an incorrect underlying inquiry. Traditionally, it is argued that limitations should be imposed because of unfair competition, lack of competitive neutrality, or an arbitrary decision relating to a lack of deserving. However, it is argued that a more appropriate question from which to base any limitations is one which considers the value attached to the integrity of the taxation regime as a whole, and the tax base specifically compared to the public good of charities. When the correct underlying question is asked, sound taxation policy ensues, as a less arbitrary approach may be adopted to limit the scope of tax concessions available to charitable organizations.

Options for the development of the New Zealand Law of Charities

The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies was briefed to advise the Charities Commission of New Zealand on ways in which the law of charity might be developed. The substantive issue underpinning the brief is a need to enable charity law in New Zealand to continue to develop in accordance with the societal values of New Zealand. This is an options paper and as such it does not explain the current law, but is intended to generate constructive discussion. Four options are sketched, with important issues and implications for each. No recommendation is made to adopt a particular option; there are strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats with each of the four approaches canvassed.

Giving: The next generation – parental effects on donations

This paper provides a summary of what is known from social science research about the effects parents have on the donations of their children. It then goes on to summarize two on-going research projects. The first project provides estimates of the strength of the relationship between the charitable giving of parents and that of their adult children. The second provides estimates of the effect of inheritances on charitable donations. Both projects use data from the Center on Philanthropy Panel Study (COPPS); accordingly, the paper provides an introduction to these data. Finally, the paper draws implications for fundraisers from the two on-going projects, and suggests several other areas in which COPPS can generate knowledge to improve the practice of fundraising.

Case studies of statutory interventions into the common law concept of charity

This paper considers four examples of statutory interventions into the common law concept of charity, namely, those of Pennsylvania, Barbados, the definition recommended by the Report of the Inquiry into the Definition of Charities in Australia, and the Recreational Charities legislation of the United Kingdom. It comments on some issues affecting each style of intervention. The paper does not argue against statutory intervention but submits that legislative changes are best made by deeming a particular purpose to be charitable, or not charitable, so that, except to that extent, the common law concept remains intact – this is the approach adopted by the Recreational Charities legislation.