Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Another question for those who would see furthering religion removed as a charitable purpose: Is your desire driven by your attitude toward organised religion? Or because you think it would impact on the likes of Destiny Church?
-
OK, here's a question for those of you who would like to see the religion exemption on income tax removed: how many charities that do the work of alleviating poverty have no religious ties? Where would you draw the line?
The simple fact is, the major churches do an enormous amount of work in their communities. Whether or not you think organised religion is a good thing, it is impossible to argue that there is nothing good that comes from what the churches do. Much of that is supported by the scriptural calls for caring for those who are in a less-privileged position to oneself. Similarly, you would find that a lot of people consider spiritual wellness to be of no lesser import to quality-of-life than physical and intellectual wellness. It's not a popular position on PAS, but it's one that is actually supported by medical observation. You may not believe in a higher being, but a lot of people do. Who are you to declare that, just because it offends your agnostic/atheistic sensibilities, attending to the spiritual needs of people is of less value than attending to their need for education and exercise?
-
They're as bad as each other. Holmes for perpetuating the nonsense that the police can just come and seize your stuff because they feel like it, and Collins for not stomping on that and crushing it dead.
Holmes' example of the guy on the Shore who's being hassled by the cops because his vehicles and appearance meet "the profile" would be able to stop a forfeiture hearing in its tracks by presenting a letter from the Lotteries Commission to confirm that he had, indeed, won a million dollars on such-and-such-a-date. Bang, case closed, and that's assuming the Police got more evidence than just that he looks sus and has expensive cars. Collins could've knocked that thread on the head in 30 seconds, but the woman is too stupid to even understand what the law says judging by her woeful performance in that interview.
-
Although there's something about exempt gifting to the trust's beneficiaries, isn't there?
Yes. To the tune of $27k/year per trust. Multiple trusts with identical trustees will get the spidey-senses of IRD investigators going, too, so it's not a particularly easy restriction to get around.
-
Like most wealthier kiwis, you can guarantee that the Tamakis have a tidy family trust or trusts that receive dividends from Proton and income from their church. Or they need a better accountant.
Oh, sure. But that's not something uniquely available to Pope Brian in his role as a cleric. Also, using trusts as tax-avoidance mechanisms is technically illegal. The IRD has the power to go through trusts to ensure that tax is being paid, and if they start investigating the affairs of Destiny and the Tamakis you can be quite sure that they'll look very, very closely at everything.
-
I wouldn't call that guess educated.
Steve, really? I thought it was a very educational guess. Oh, wait, you said educated not educational. My bad.
-
My understanding, and what I believe was the case that Matthew set out earlier, is that no-one (save the Governor-General?) is exempt from tax on personal income?
That certainly meshes with my understanding, and that particular understanding is actually formally educated rather than just gleaned from too much time spent browsing legislation.govt.nz :P Well, on the question of nobody being exempt on income tax, anyway. Not totally certain about the GG, but that does ring bells and I'm pretty sure that Pope Brian is remunerated to a far higher level than the GG in any case.
-
It has never been before our House of Representatives, it has never been law.
Never been in our statute law? Balls. I quote from section 5 of the Charities Act 2005: charitable purpose includes every charitable purpose, whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community
You are indeed correct that I was incorrect in saying that advancement of culture is a specific category of charitable work (rusty memory of a lecture that only mentioned the classes of charitable work), but that's as far as it goes. Advancement of religion absolutely is a statutorily-defined category of charitable activity under NZ law. Even if it weren't, the intervening decades of case law, from the Privy Council on down, have bedded it in so thoroughly that it would require explicit legislation to overturn that position.
the likes of Tamaki and a whole bunch of other people do not have to pay income tax because of a legal decision made more than a century ago in another country
Again, balls. Destiny Church is tax-exempt, certainly, but Pope Brian ain't. Not on his salary from Destiny, and not on any of the money he gets from Proton. Not on anything that Destiny supplies that could be considered a fringe benefit, either. Whether or not the donations from his congregation are tax-exempt has nothing to do with the church thing and everything to do with the gift thing. It's not even certain that those donations are tax-exempt, as I alluded to on the previous page.
The tax exemption extends as far as the income of the charitable organisation, and no further. It does not extend to the employees, and it does not extend to taxable benefits paid to those employees. It does not, by reading of the Estate and Gift Duties Act 1968 extend to gifts made by the organisation, either, except where those gifts go to other tax-exempt organisations.
-
Sacha, did I mention that I am the author of the post that has now turned into the longest thread in PAS history? *grin*
-
Matthew, I would bet my house and several limbs that there will be an early election, pre-World Cup.
Possibly, yes. But National are then stuck with putting it closer to a Budget that is likely to contain unpalatable truths, and also to a change-over in ACC that will have Labour trotting out hordes of small-business owners to talk about how much time they've had to spend dealing with the change, and how it's costing them far more than they'll save through lower premiums.
As I said, perfect storm. They've got a bad-news start to the year, with ACC and the Budget (I don't see any way for the Budget in '11 to be anything other than BAU, with no money available for any kind of lolly-scramble), and the RWC to book-end the year, smack on the (edit: absolute latest) end of the parliamentary term, likely with a nice gloss of cost-overruns, shambolic public transport, and probably a few stories about tourists getting robbed, raped or scammed on tickets.