Taxing charities : reform without reason?

The proposal to tax the unrelated business income of charitable organisations was announced in the 2011 budget, but the course of events has overtaken the stated policy rationale. We identify and discuss the policy for the imposition of the new tax and demonstrate that the measure is unnecessary given a recent judgement by the High Court, establishment of a new charity regulator and a better understanding of the applicable tax theory.

Third sector partnerships : opportunities and risks

The establishment by the Prime Minister of the Community Business Partnerships Board along with recent taxation reform has drawn attention to corporate philanthropy in Australia. Definitions and models are needed as each of the potential partners – government, corporations and nonprofit organisations – attempts to come to grips with opportunities. The intending partners will need to determine their responsibilities and desired outcomes so that they may work effectively towards mutually beneficial working relationships. Performance indicators need to be determined, benchmarks developed and best practice promoted. A dearth of research exists in this area (Burch, 1998; Industry Commission Report, 1995; Lyons & Hocking, 1998). More exhaustive research, collection and analysis of appropriate data will aid the process. This particular research indicates a lack of understanding between corporations and nonprofit organisations. There are risks inherent in the proposed partnerships, such as inability to reach agreement, potential for increased costs, and failure to deliver by one of the partners. This paper assesses opportunities and risks, suggests topics for high level debate, and indicates models for the development of partnerships.

Reform in taxation.

Mode of access: Internet.

Taxation of land values : an explanation with illustrative charts, notes and answers to typical questions of the land-labor-and-fiscal reform advocated by Henry George /

First edition published under title: Outline of Louis F. Post's lectures; second and third editions, The single tax; fourth and fifth editions, Taxation of land values.

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.

An examination of recent taxation amendments, corporate law reforms and Queensland legislative reforms affecting nonprofit organisations

There is a tax amendment bill which will be debated. The Government has promised to outline its plan for the reform of the taxation system sometime this year. The plans appear to go beyond the mere introduction of some sort of goods and services tax to reform of the whole taxation system including fiscal relations with the States. Not for profit organisations will find their taxation environment will change. Governments are reluctant to permit exemptions to a GST style arrangements. GST trade offs such as reduced income tax rates and abolishing indirect taxes are useless to nonprofit organisations, as many are already exempt from such imposts. Administrative changes to tax collections may also have an impact. If the government decides to make an individual PAYE taxpayer return optional in exchange for no or standard deductions, this may have an effect on fundraising. The FBT and salary packaging schemes that not for profit organisations use will be under intense scrutiny. A regionalisation of the ATO along the successful model of the ASC would see discrete areas such as not for profit exemptions being centralised in one regional office for the whole of Australia. For example the Tasmanian ASC Office has the responsibility for much work in respect of corporate charities and not for profit companies.

The 1998 tax reform proposal fringe benefits tax and nonprofit organisations

Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) is a tax payable by employers on the value of certain fringe benefits that have been provided to their employees or to associates of those employees. It was introduced on 1 July 1986 to improve the equity of the taxation system because non-salary and wage benefits were escaping the taxation base. FBT ensures that tax is paid on those fringe benefits provided in place of, or in addition to, salary or wages of employees.

Revitalising the Australian Shipping Industry through Tax Reform: Alchemy or Piracy?

The Australian Federal Government has recently passed reforms to the shipping industry. These reforms are aimed at removing barriers to investment in Australian shipping, fostering global competitiveness and securing a stable maritime skills base. The shipping reform package adopts a two pronged approach designed to achieve its stated goals by providing both a ‘stick’ and ‘carrot’ to industry participants. First, the ‘stick’ is delivered via the provision of tighter regulation of coastal trading operations through a new licencing system, along with the introduction of a civil penalty regime and an increase in existing penalties. Second, the ‘carrot’ is delivered via taxation incentives available to vessels registered in Australia where the registrant meets certain specified criteria. These incentives, introduced through amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and contained in the Tax Laws Amendment (Shipping Reform) Act 2012, provide five key tax incentives to the shipping industry. From 1 July 2012, amendments give effect to an income tax exemption for qualifying ship operators, accelerated depreciation of vessels, roll-over relief from income tax on the sale of a vessel, an employer refundable tax offset, and an exemption from royalty withholding tax for payments made for the lease of certain shipping vessels.

Australia - taxation of trusts – the problem of aligning concepts of income

The Australian government is currently considering options for the rewrite and reform of the current provisions which apply to the taxation of trust income. This article provides a discussion of the current regime and the proposed reforms. It is suggested that a major revamp of taxation of trust income in Australia is problematic and a simpler approach may be to leave the law as is, with modification where necessary to address key issues as and when they arise.

The Role of the G20 in Taxation Regulation

This chapter explores the status of the current programs designed to address global tax avoidance, critiques the role that the G20 plays in the reform agenda, and considers the part that Australia will play in the process.

Developing nations need more than words from G20 tax reform

Tax reform is squarely on the agenda for the G20 Brisbane summit in November. The current international tax regime is broken and it’s going to take significant effort on a global scale to fix it. In a recently released CEDA Report on securing the G20’s future, I recommended the role Australia could play in ensuring real and substantive progress is made in international tax reform. There’s a very real need to ensure the Brisbane summit is not just a “talkfest”. One group that stands to significantly win or lose from reform, or lack of it, is developing nations.

G20 tax reform plan should prevent another Lux leaks

The G20 Communique is good news on the international tax reform front. As part of the G20 commitment to boost economic resilience the Communique commits G20 nations to taking action to ensure fairness in the international tax system. This means they are looking at ways to ensure profits are taxed where economic activities deriving the profits are performed and where value is created.

What if tax reform was a fundamental human right?

As an election looms in Australia, the tax debate continues unabated. Self-interest abounds. When we remove self-interest, we are often reduced to standard design principles for a taxation system. Lost in this discussion is the fundamental purpose of tax, which is to finance government expenditure. Most would argue that tax revenue should be sufficient to meet basic economic and social needs of the community. But how does a community determine what these basic economic and social needs should be? One way is by using a human rights framework. This can provide guidance for both developing and developed countries considering tax reform.

Tax Reform and Payout Policy:Do Shareholder Clienteles or Payout Policy Adjust?

Changes in taxation of corporate dividends offer excellent opportunities to study dividend clientele effects. We explore payout policies and ownership structures around a major tax reform that took place in Finland in 2004. Consistent with dividend clienteles affecting firms’ dividend policy decisions, we find that Finnish firms altered their dividend policies based on the changed tax incentives of their largest shareholders. While firms adjust their payout policies, our results also indicate that ownership structures of Finnish firms also changed around the 2004 reform, consistent with shareholder clienteles adjusting to the new tax system.