Close Search
 
MEDIA, JOBS & RESOURCES for the COMMON GOOD
News  |  Governance

Growing Disquiet At Government’s Draft NFP Tax Legislation


25 August 2011 at 2:18 pm
Staff Reporter
Specialist Not for Profit legal service, PilchConnect and Melbourne University’s Law School have joined the growing disquiet about the Federal Government’s draft tax legislation for Not for Profits and they have called for the legislation to be delayed.

Staff Reporter | 25 August 2011 at 2:18 pm


0 Comments


 Print
Growing Disquiet At Government’s Draft NFP Tax Legislation
25 August 2011 at 2:18 pm

Specialist Not for Profit legal service, PilchConnect and Melbourne University’s Law School have joined the growing disquiet about the Federal Government’s draft tax legislation for Not for Profits and they have called for the legislation to be delayed.

In July 2011, the Assistant Treasurer released for public consultation an exposure draft of legislation to restate the 'in Australia' special conditions for tax concession entities.

PilchConnect says its submission is particularly concerned with the impact that the draft legislation may have on small Not for Profit organisations.

PilchConnect says it also supports the submission prepared by the University of Melbourne Law School's Not for Profit Project.

Last week accounting firm, Moore Stephens said the new draft tax legislation put additional harsh restrictions on all Not for Profits.

Moore Stephens has written a submission responding to the draft legislation regarding the “In Australia” requirement for Not for Profits, saying new restrictions had snuck into the changes.

Tax Director at Moore Stephens Melbourne, Stephen O’Flynn, met with Department of Treasury (DoT) representatives on Wednesday 17 September to discuss the “Implementation issues related to Better Targeting of Tax Concessions”.

O’Flynn says while Treasury indicated that they were not wedded to the ‘In Australia” requirement but there would have to be strong grounds for change.

PilchConnect says it is particularly concerned that the Treasury has not provided a sufficient explanation or justification for what will be the wide-reaching implications of the Exposure Draft should it be enacted in its current form.

PilchConnect has endorsed the recommendations put forward by Melbourne University in its submission, and strongly urged the Treasury to delay the introduction of proposed legislation while the issues raised submission can be resolved and further explained to the sector.

In particular, PilchConnect has urged the Government not to proceed with the introduction of a new definition of ‘Not for Profit entity' and not to proceed with proposed s 50-50(3) (requirement to operate consistently with rules and purposes) or the repeal of s 50-75 (regarding gifts and government grants).

The University of Melbourne Law School’s Not for Profit Project is a three-year research project funded by the Australian Research Council which began in 2010.

This project is described as the first comprehensive Australian analysis of the legal definition, taxation, and regulation of NFP organisations (NFPs).

The Melbourne University Submission says it is deeply concerned that, although the Explanatory Material conveys the impression that the Exposure Draft largely ‘standardises’, ‘restates’ and ‘codifies’ existing requirements, in fact the Exposure Draft makes potentially far-reaching changes to current legal requirements.

The Submission says these changes will have significant adverse and, in many cases, apparently unintended, consequences on the NFP sector.

It says the concern is that, due to this misleading impression and the complexity and technical detail involved, many Not for Profit organisations may be unaware of the significance of the possible consequences of this reform.

The submission says it recognises that the Government has already adopted a policy position to restrict tax benefits on a geographical basis, however, it express reservations concerning the adequacy of the underlying justifications for these measures.

In particular, it asks whether these measures can be justified in a globalised era, where institutions are increasingly enmeshed in international networks and where concepts of ‘public benefit’ are no longer territorially bound.

It says no evidence of systemic avoidance issues has been presented to justify these new measures and it regrets that the tax reforms continue to be developed in isolation from the broader regulatory reform which will inevitably be introduced by the new Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC).

PilchConnect's submission, and the detailed submission prepared by Melbourne University, are available at:



PB Careers
Get your biweekly dose of news, opinion and analysis to keep you up to date with what’s happening and why it matters for you, sent every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

Got a story to share?

Got a news tip or article idea for Pro Bono News? Or perhaps you would like to write an article and join a growing community of sector leaders sharing their thoughts and analysis with Pro Bono News readers? Get in touch at news@probonoaustralia.com.au or download our contributor guidelines.

Advertisement

CFRE

Get more stories like this

FREE SOCIAL
SECTOR NEWS

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

A for-purpose recipe: the ingredients to drive impact and sustainability today

Heather Morecroft

Thursday, 24th September 2020 at 7:00 am

Election mania: What should I do during caretaker?

Neil Pharaoh

Monday, 21st September 2020 at 4:24 pm

Here’s how you can govern through a crisis

Maggie Coggan

Wednesday, 16th September 2020 at 5:48 pm

pba inverse logo
Subscribe Twitter Facebook
×

We need your help.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, Pro Bono Australia has seen a devastating fall in advertising and less people posting on our job board, which is how we fund our free news service. You can show us that you value the work we do by making a contribution.

 Make a contribution 

You have Successfully Subscribed!