Originally posted by OdBod I think you make some great points.But most Charities declare what that help is for,religious organisations tend not to be specific and decide themselves where that help should go.Do you not think that this creates grey area in which abuse can occur.
upon perusing the charity commissions website, there are general guidelines for the proper running of a charity including those dealing with the appropriation of funds. They are however quite general and much creativity could be used by the unscrupulous for their own selfish purposes. If you have a mind you can read about them here.
Originally posted by KellyJay We are talking about taxes not charity, you get to choose where your charity goes
we do not get much of a choice if any where our taxes go.
Kelly
The leaders of a religion decide where funds are spent and that process is legitimised with reference to a god. Charity enjoys certain tax advantages (and rightly so)which affects EVERYBODY not just religious people ,I for one would prefer a democratically elected secular government to decide how our wealth is redistributed,at least this system has to acknowledge the legitimacy of many view points in order to stay in power.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie One must however be a registered charity and it therefore begs the question how one attains the status without doing charitable works.
No, that point is easy.
If law says that kicking your cat is a charitable purpose, then in the eyes of the law, it is a charitable purpose. The Charity Commission would be unable to deny charitable status to my organisation if all it did was kick cats.
Therefore, as the law says that the advancement of religion is a charitable purpose, it is in the eyes of the law. However, there is no presumption that any religious organisation has to do any charitable works in the conventional sense to obtain its status.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie to remove the clause entirely is somewhat Draconian
No, I don't think it is Draconian. To the extent that a church uses its money for 'charitable purposes' (conventional sense) then it can get as much tax relief as it is entitled. I don't see why my taxes should support 'the advancement of religion'.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie it appears to me that a focus should be made on the charitable works themselves as being a legitimising factor as to whether one should receive tax relief or not.
Yes, and removing the clause I have suggested removing would retain this principle.
Originally posted by Rank outsider No, that point is easy.
If law says that kicking your cat is a charitable purpose, then in the eyes of the law, it is a charitable purpose. The Charity Commission would be unable to deny charitable status to my organisation if all it did was kick cats.
Therefore, as the law says that the advancement of religion is a charitable purpose, it is in ...[text shortened]... ious organisation has to do any charitable works in the conventional sense to obtain its status.
not so, it must to all intents and purposes not only must a charity demonstrate a level of public benefit, it must set out its aims in a clear and unambiguous manner. You could of course argue that kicking your cat was in the public interest although one feels that the charity commission my not see it in the same light and I do feel somewhat certain your cat may have some reservations as well. Examples of what constitutes a public benefit are provided. If you can cite a practice that is is proclaimed by charities as a public benefit but which may be demonstrated as being of little benefit, then you may have a case.
Originally posted by Rank outsider No, I don't think it is Draconian. To the extent that a church uses its money for 'charitable purposes' (conventional sense) then it can get as much tax relief as it is entitled. I don't see why my taxes should support 'the advancement of religion'.
why not, what if the advancement of religion is helping persons overcome all manner of adversities?
This point needs clarifying although what relevance it has i cannot say, anyhow, they are not your taxes, they are the governments taxes, its a nonsense for people to speak in terms of the tax payers money. As son as you give your taxes to the government they are no longer your taxes, any more than if you gave me fifty quid to buy a rather sporting deer stalker hat. When you deposit your money in a bank, whose money does it become, yours or the banks? It is exactly the same with taxation in accounting terms.
Originally posted by Rank outsider Yes, and removing the clause I have suggested removing would retain this principle.
how so if the religious charity ably demonstrated that through the application of its religious principles it was doing a charitable work, i don't see how you can differentiate between the twa!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie not so, it must to all intents and purposes not only must charity demonstrate a level of public benefit, it must set out its aims in a clear and unambiguous manner. You could of course argue that kicking your cat was in the public interest although one feels that the charity commission my not see it in the same light and I do feel somewhat certain y ...[text shortened]... blic benefit but which may be demonstrated as being of little benefit, then you may have a case.
OK - I was using the example to demonstrate that something can be a 'charitable purpose' in legal terms but does not need to be a charitable purpose in its natural sense.
However, I think you are misunderstanding the public benefit test. This is looking primarily at whether the charitable purpose (as defined) is also for the public benefit. It is not seeking to redefine what a charitable purpose is.
So, repairing the seats in a church (which is open to the public) is something of public benefit and is also within the definition of the 'advancement of religion'. I would not, however, see this is a charitable activity which should command taxpayer support.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie why not, what if the advancement of religion is helping persons overcome all manner of adversities?
This point needs clarifying although what relevance it has i cannot say, anyhow, they are not your taxes, they are the governments taxes, its a nonsense for people to speak in terms of the tax payers money. As son as you give your taxes to the gov ...[text shortened]... does it become, yours or the banks? It is exactly the same with taxation in accounting terms.
If the work can be shown to be achieving this, then it can qualify under the other definitions.
You know as well as I do what the use of a term like 'my taxes' / 'taxpayers money' is meant to convey. No one is challenging the Goverment's right to use this in the way they see fit. We are just challenging whether this is the right/best use of this money. Red herring.
Originally posted by Rank outsider OK - I was using the example to demonstrate that something can be a 'charitable purpose' in legal terms but does not need to be a charitable purpose in its natural sense.
However, I think you are misunderstanding the public benefit test. This is looking primarily at whether the charitable purpose (as defined) is also for the [b]public benefit. ...[text shortened]... would not, however, see this is a charitable activity which should command taxpayer support.[/b]
Yes there is certainly a disparity between the legal sense and what actually happens in reality. The church could of course argue that it needs to maintain its property in order to function as a charity and it seems that it would of course be hard to argue against this as most organisations don't meet in dilapidated surroundings. Do you feel that its in the public interest to maintain large cathedrals a buildings of immense historical significance?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie how so if the religious charity ably demonstrated that through the application of its religious principles it was doing a charitable work, i don't see how you can differentiate between the twa!
You can differentiate them because they are different things.
The question that is relevant for tax relief is whether you do things that are charitable. Your motivation for doing them is irrelevant.
The fact that you are doing charitable works in application of religious principles does not make the advancement of that religion a charitable purpose.
Also, I do not know of any religion where its entire set of religious principles all relate exclusively to charitable work.
Originally posted by Rank outsider If the work can be shown to be achieving this, then it can qualify under the other definitions.
You know as well as I do what the use of a term like 'my taxes' / 'taxpayers money' is meant to convey. No one is challenging the Goverment's right to use this in the way they see fit. We are just challenging whether this is the right/best use of this money. Red herring.
but why should it have to qualify under under other definitions simply because of the broad spectrum that religious teaching may encompass. If the religious teaching itself is proven through the application of its tenets to bring public benefit, why label it something other than a religious teaching? something nondescript, like education which may encompass a much broader spectrum and be open to even more abuse.
Originally posted by Rank outsider You can differentiate them because they are different things.
The question that is relevant for tax relief is whether you do things that are charitable. Your motivation for doing them is irrelevant.
The fact that you are doing charitable works in application of religious principles does not make the advancement of that religion a charitable purp ...[text shortened]... religion where its entire set of religious principles all relate exclusively to charitable work.
we are not talking of what motivates, but the application of religious tenets. If my religion dictates that of necessity I must look after fatherless boys and widows and I make it a habit to visit the elderly, how will you say that my going there is not charitable. Have I not given up my time and my resources in order to act charitably?
Originally posted by Rank outsider You can differentiate them because they are different things.
The question that is relevant for tax relief is whether you do things that are charitable. Your motivation for doing them is irrelevant.
The fact that you are doing charitable works in application of religious principles does not make the advancement of that religion a charitable purp ...[text shortened]... religion where its entire set of religious principles all relate exclusively to charitable work.
The fact that you are doing charitable works in application of religious principles does not make the advancement of that religion a charitable purpose.
Taxes
25 Jan '13 11:30
Back to Top