mate
Patron Meritorious
Thanks to our illustrious team at the Senate Inquiry, the CofS is now reeling. In addition to which, the NZ government has denied charity status to CCHR. So before they can recover and regroup, it is time to go in for a killing blow, to knock them out cold.
So how do we this? Well, thanks to the very first submission, the Senate Inquiry received, that by Dr Matthew Turnour, a former state and federal MP, we have the means. Dr Turnour points out that the ATO already has the means to revoke the CofS’s tax-exempt status.
This could be through an ATO Ruling TR2005/21, paragraph 100, which states:
He also points out that there are common law rulings, which might also be applicable, such as
So how do we use this? We use it with “saturation bombing” of the Federal Treasurer, the Hon Wayne Swan, and the Assistant Treasurer, Senator the Hon Nick Sherry, as well as the Australian Taxation Commissioner and his deputies. Names and positions can be found on http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/18206.htm&page=1&H1. Note that there are no email addresses for the ATO, so that you would need to either Fax or send a letter.
Here are some possible approaches you might like to consider, in your emails/letters. You could refer to some or all of the points made by Dr. Turnour, you could refer to some of the points made by Carmel and the others, you could raise the points you made in your submission. Urge them to take action now.
Ideally, keep it down to a page and a half to two pages. Remember, you do want them to read it.
Regards, David.
So how do we this? Well, thanks to the very first submission, the Senate Inquiry received, that by Dr Matthew Turnour, a former state and federal MP, we have the means. Dr Turnour points out that the ATO already has the means to revoke the CofS’s tax-exempt status.
This could be through an ATO Ruling TR2005/21, paragraph 100, which states:
100. A purpose contrary to public policy is not charitable. If a purpose is either unlawful or a lawful purpose is to be carried out by unlawful means it is also not charitable. For example, a school for thieves might, in a sense, advance education, but it is not a charitable institution.
He also points out that there are common law rulings, which might also be applicable, such as
It has been the common law position since at least 1871 decision of Cocks v Manners that organizations that are ‘adverse to the very foundation of all religion or subversive of all morality or religion’ are not entitled to the status of charities.
It follows that even if Scientology, falls within the scope of a religion for the purposes of charity law it does not mean that it is a charity entitled to exemption from income tax if the purposes it pursues fall foul of these tenets basic to religion and morality. In reasoning consistent with this limitation, the United States Supreme Court, considered the racist practices of Bob Jones University in 1983 as being enough to extinguish an entitlement to exemption for a university that might otherwise have enjoyed the status of a charitable organization in that country.
Second, the common law also excludes from the class of charities, organizations pursuing purposes that are illegal or against public policy. These are discussed in the context of the ATO Ruling in the section below.
Third, we also mention that the pursuit of business purposes is not charitable at common law. There is a suggestion that Scientology is a business.
So how do we use this? We use it with “saturation bombing” of the Federal Treasurer, the Hon Wayne Swan, and the Assistant Treasurer, Senator the Hon Nick Sherry, as well as the Australian Taxation Commissioner and his deputies. Names and positions can be found on http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/18206.htm&page=1&H1. Note that there are no email addresses for the ATO, so that you would need to either Fax or send a letter.
Here are some possible approaches you might like to consider, in your emails/letters. You could refer to some or all of the points made by Dr. Turnour, you could refer to some of the points made by Carmel and the others, you could raise the points you made in your submission. Urge them to take action now.
Ideally, keep it down to a page and a half to two pages. Remember, you do want them to read it.
Regards, David.