Is the tax regime for charities and not-for-profit entities "fit for purpose"? Ann O'Connell
By: O'Connell, Ann
.
Material type: 
ArticleSubject(s): ENTIDADES SIN FINALIDAD LUCRATIVA | FUNDACIONES BENÉFICAS | IMPUESTOS | GASTOS FISCALES | POLITICA FISCAL | AUSTRALIA
In:
Australian Tax Forum: a journal of Taxation Policy, Law and Reform v. 38, n. 2, 2023, p. 267-304Summary: Tax concessions for charities and not-for-profifits are well established and available in most countries around the world. Australia is unique in providing concessions to an extremely broad range of entities beyond the notion of “charity”. Many of the specifific concessions were introduced decades ago, and there is no mechanism to check if the concessions are still justifified. This article considers some examples where the concessions are available to entities that either do not need or, alternatively it could be argued, do not deserve taxpayerfunded support. This article argues that as a result of the lack of concern about tax policy, the piecemeal approach to amending the legislation and the inertia about changing the system to remove provisions that no longer serve the intended purpose, we not only have a system that is not fifit for purpose, but could be described as “a dog’s breakfast”.
| Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artículos | IEF | IEF | OP 1867/2023/2-4 (Browse shelf) | Available | OP 1867/2023/2-4 |
Browsing IEF Shelves Close shelf browser
Resumen.
Tax concessions for charities and not-for-profifits are well established and available in most countries around the world. Australia is unique in providing concessions to an extremely broad range of entities beyond the notion of “charity”. Many of the specifific concessions were introduced decades ago, and there is no mechanism to check if the concessions are still justifified. This article considers some examples where the concessions are available to entities that either do not need or, alternatively it could be argued, do not deserve taxpayerfunded support. This article argues that as a result of the lack of concern about tax policy, the piecemeal approach to amending the legislation and the inertia about changing the system to remove provisions that no longer serve the intended purpose, we not only have a system that is not fifit for purpose, but could be described as “a dog’s breakfast”.
There are no comments for this item.