bdo - not-for-profit tax concession survey 2013

not-for-profit

tax concession survey 2013

2 not-for-profit tax concession survey 2013

introduction ............................................................................................... 4

About the survey ....................................................................................... 5

Q1 Are you confident that if any tax concessions were removed, compensation through grants from government would ensure you are no worse off? ................................................................................ 6

Q2 if your organisation did not have income tax exemption, would it limit your organisation’s activities? ...........................................7

Q3 Does your organisation hold any investments that generate dividends to which franking credits are attached? ................................ 8

Q4 if your organisation is unable to access a refund of franking credits, would this impact on your organisation’s decision to hold share investments in its investment portfolio? ...................................... 8

Q5 if the tax deductible donation threshold is raised to $25, what impact will this have on your organisation’s donation base? .....10

Q6 if the tax deductible donation threshold is raised to $25, do you think your supporters will make more or fewer donations? .........10

Q7 if the tax deductibility of donations is limited, what impact do you think this will have on your organisation’s donation base? .....12

Q8 Does your organisation use the fBt concession as a means of reducing your employment costs? .....................................................14

Q9 Are the fBt concessions an effective means of attracting and retaining people in your organisation? ...........................................14

Q10 Do you believe fBt concessions should continue to be provided to nfp employers? ...................................................................15

Conclusion.................................................................................................16

Survey supporters .....................................................................................17

About BDo ................................................................................................18

contents

not-for-profit tax concession survey 2013 3


introduction

Meaningful reform or just another element of uncertainty?

Not-for-profit organisations exist to fulfil a clear and purposeful goal. There appears to be a theme that to best achieve this they need certainty. Yet, as our survey shows, there is a resounding lack of confidence in the Government’s ability to effectively support the sector if the key tax concessions were to be removed.

More startling though is the result that almost all respondents believe they would have to limit their organisation’s activities if they did not have an income tax exemption. Imagine the financial expense and operational pressure on governments if this reduction in activities occurred and it fell upon the three levels of government to fill the gap. Perhaps this is a statistic that will make our nation’s politicians – regardless of their persuasion - sit up and listen.

Another result worth noting is the perceived impact of the proposed raising of the tax deductible donation threshold to $25. Respondents’ views on how such a change would impact their organisation’s donation base received a divided view – 46.5% consider it would decrease their donation base to some extent, 51.7% believe it would cause no change. It is this division that makes the need for targeted and meaningful reform – not broad brush changes – all the more important.

So, do the results of our survey provide us with optimism that Australia’s not-for-profit sector has confidence in its ability to keep providing a valuable service into the future?

No. What we see is a sector that is astute and open to the concept of change, but unwilling to abandon or compromise the services it provides to meet the community needs. In our opinion, this is a fair and reasonable position.

By working together with the sector we are dedicated to making this position not just heard, but understood, by the Government. We are striving to contribute to the reform agenda and to do what we can to make sure this sector gets the clarity and certainty it deserves.

Australia’s not-for-profit (NFP) sector is one of vital importance; not only because of the valuable services its members provide, but because of the positive, and often intangible, impact it has on communities around the country. Few other sectors can lay claim to such a profound and meaningful influence on people’s lives.

It is with this in mind that we see a strong need, as professionals in this space, to help inform the reform agenda currently being considered by the Federal Government.

For one month between 8 January 2013 and 8 February 2013, we gave not-for-profit organisations the chance to raise their voice and be heard on an issue of key importance – the Federal Government’s Not-for-profit Sector Tax Concession Working Group’s discussion paper. We wanted to find out whether the proposed concessions outlined by the Tax Concession Working Group had provided any level of certainty for the future direction for Australia’s not-for-profit organisations.

We also wanted to know whether the sector believed this was meaningful reform, or just reform for the sake of reform.

The collective response indicates that it is the latter.

The results contained in this report are gathered from the responses of almost 180 survey respondents. Respondents represent charities and non-charities of varying sizes and include both those with Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status and those without. The respondents’ participation in this survey demonstrates their desire to provide input into the decision making process and inform the Government’s thinking when it comes to taxation reform that goes to the very heart of their operations.


about the survey

tyPe oF not-For-ProFit orGanisation

78% of participants responded from a charity.

22% of participants responded from a non-charity.

inDustry

Of the charity respondents, the top three categories were:

1. Public benefit2. Education3. Religion.

The top three categories of respondents not registered as a charity:

1. Local sporting and community clubs 2. Industry associations and employee associations3. Retired services league organisations.

turnover

The participant organisations’ annual turnover included:

• 10% with less than $100,000

• 34% between $100,000 and $5 million

• 56% with greater than $5 million.

DeDuctiBLe GiFt reciPients

71% of participants are Deductible Gift Recipients.

29% of participants are not Deductible Gift Recipients.

your coMMents

“Tax concessions are a crucial aspect that enables our business to remain viable. Removal or negative modification will have an impact on our longer term sustainability.”

“This is an important sector that operates on minimal finances for the majority of the stakeholders in NFP. There is a minority that make a lot of money and perhaps concessions for them should be reviewed. However, for the smaller entities, it is extremely difficult as is to keep quality staff and to attract donations so changes that will directly impact this will not have a positive effect on the NFP sector or the general community. Services may have to close.”

“Clearly the not-for-profit and charity sector is a giant with various estimates of the value of their contribution to our nation... much of this goes unseen and few ‘ stick up’ for our sector. Clearly the topics in this survey highlight areas of ‘low hanging fruit’ for our needy Treasury and Treasurer. However, if all these changes are implemented the Golden Goose may soon be hanging in the larder!”


question 1

Are you confident that if any tax concessions were removed, compensation through grants from government would ensure you are no worse off?

83.8% of participants are not confident.

bdo coMMents

“While the replacement of one or more of the more complex tax concessions by a federal government grants system can be praised for promoting simplification, such a system must be balanced with the NFP industry’s traditional concerns of underfunding, timeliness of funding, and the imposition of excessive obstacles in the way of funding. Those NFPs relying on grants may tend to be increasingly dependent on government grants for their financial survival, their level of activities rise and fall in line with the availability of grants, and their targeted activities restricted to those funded by the grants rather than those that may be needed by the community.”

your coMMents

“We, like many other NFPs, ‘enjoy’ the tax free income status (on the basis that profits are reinvested in achieving our worthy mission for the community’s benefit) but do not receive government grants - so we would likely lose without winning compensation in other areas.”

10.1%

83.8%

1.1%5%

0

20

40

60

80

100

NOTSURE

NOTCONFIDENT

CONFIDENTVERYCONFIDENT

The tax concession landscape for not-for-profit organisations in Australia has been developed over many years by successive governments in response to Australian society’s changing needs.

Recent federal governments, via a number of reviews, have acknowledged that the current system of tax concessions has been developed unsystematically and requires reform to meet the current and future needs of not-for-profit organisations.

There has also been much recent activity in trying to understand the NFP sector prior to introducing significant reform. Particular recent reviews, from which a large proportion of the ideas in the NFP Sector Tax Concession Working Group Discussion Paper are sourced, include:

• Productivity Commission Research Report: Contribution of the Not-for-profit-sector (January 2010); and

• Australia’s Future Tax System: Report to the Treasurer (December 2009).

The Productivity Commission report identified that the Federal Government currently already provides significant grant and other direct funding to NFP sector participants who provide services on behalf of the government. However, as stated in the Productivity Commission’s report, “underfunding by government of NFPs for service delivery has been a repeated theme”1. It is therefore not surprising that proposals to replace direct tax concessions with grant funding are met with scepticism by the NFP sector.

The ‘cost’ to governments of providing tax concessions is unquantifiable given that reporting requirements are currently inconsistent amongst organisations in the sector. We would therefore ask the question: can meaningful reform actually occur without the Government actually knowing the extent of the financial impacts of reform on the sector?

The data collection process that will result from the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) reporting requirements may provide a level of data in the future that will assist in determining the financial implications.

1 Page 280, Productivity Commission Research Report: Contribution of the Not-for-profit-sector (January 2010)


question 2

If your organisation did not have income tax exemption, would it limit your organisation’s activities?

93.6% of participants consider that restricting the income tax exemption would, to some extent, limit their organisation’s activities.

Based on these responses, any changes made by the Government to the categories of organisation that are eligible for the income tax exemption should aim for simplification, based on conceptual and broad based definitions, and clarification of which NFPs are eligible. The Government’s move towards creating a legal definition of a charity has the potential to be a step in the right direction.

However, the removal of the income tax concession for any entity will only add to the strain on NFPs’ scarce resources and will threaten the existence of those NFPs impacted.

bdo coMMents

“Of those participants who feel removal of the income tax exemption would impact on their organisation, 69% feel removal of the income tax exemption would severely limit their organisation’s activities.”

your coMMents

“NFPs do not all run at a loss. A well run NFP that makes a modest surplus will potentially have to give a percentage of that surplus over to the ATO. It makes no sense to fund an organisation with public money then tax the entity when surpluses are made.”

“If NFPs are taxed on returning a surplus budget it would be counter intuitive to the ethos of financial sustainability. NFPs provide services not supplied by government, therefore government should not profit from NFP activities.”

“If there was a decent tax free threshold, then it might not be an issue. But as an organisation that works in the community, for the community, I think we are contributing to society. Tax should be about fair distribution of common good as well as raising funds for the Government to run things.”

SEVERLY LIMITITS ACTIVITIES 63.6%

SLIGHTLY LIMITITS ACTIVITES 30%

CAUSE NO CHANGE 6.4%

SLIGHTLY INCREASEACTIVITIES 0%

EXTEND ITS ACTIVITIES 0%

Exemption from income tax is a valuable concession to NFP’s as it provides direct subsidisation of their activities.

The response from participants to this question indicates that the income tax exemption is valued significantly by the NFP industry.

Breaking down the response further indicates that, of those participants who feel removal of the income tax exemption would impact on their organisation, 69% feel removal of the income tax exemption would severely limit their organisation’s activities.

The responses to this question confirm the NFP industry’s view that their services fill a gap in government provided services and the contribution of NFPs is therefore valuable to the betterment of society as a whole. Similar to government, having a public objective in a NFP structure should not attract income tax.

The responses also identify that the scope of proposed income tax exemption reform may extend to a review of the mutuality principle, which is relied on by all member based organisations that do not currently meet any of the specific income tax exemption categories.

It is acknowledged that the current income tax exemption eligibility rules are complex and could benefit from reform. The complexity of the rules is only exacerbated when the Government takes a reactive approach to countering the outcomes from recent unfavourable court decisions, for example, the proposed introduction of new rules aiming to tax the unrelated commercial operations of NFPs. Such action only adds to the complexity encountered by all NFPs.


question 3

Does your organisation hold any investments that generate dividends to which franking credits are attached?

73% of all survey participants currently do not obtain refunds of franking credits.

question 4

If your organisation is unable to access a refund of franking credits, would this impact on your organisation’s decision to hold share investments in its investment portfolio?

57.3% of participants consider that not being able to receive franking credit refunds would not change their organisation’s investment strategy.

Cash refunds of franking credits are potentially available as a tax concession to most Deductible Gift Recipients, income tax exempt charities that have an Australian focus and other specified organisations. One of the main reasons for providing refunds of franking credits to income tax exempt NFPs is to apply the established principle that company profits should be taxed only at the tax rate of the ultimate shareholder receiving those profits, i.e. via a dividend.

However, access to franking credit refunds is economically limited to those eligible entities that have the funds to invest in franked dividend yielding equities.

The position illustrated by the survey responses was that only 27% of survey respondents actually received refunds of franking credits. Of those respondents, 81% take the franking credit refund into account when evaluating particular equity investments against each other and 79% take the franking credit refund into account when deciding whether to hold equity investments.

Interestingly, even though upwards of 78% of respondents potentially qualify for refunds of franking credits on the basis they are charities, only 32% of these respondents have investments that facilitate these refunds. When asked to consider if the removal of franking credits would impact on their decision to hold equity investments, 57% of all survey respondents indicated this would not impact on their investment decisions.

A number of respondents indicated that their organisations do not have the resources available for investment and so would be unconcerned by a removal of franking credit refunds. However, for those entities that have the resources to invest, and currently include investments to receive franking credit refunds, removal of the concession would impact on their investment returns and reduce the level of services they could provide.

NO 27%

YES 73%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

NOT LIKELY TOCHANGE ITSINVESTMENT

LESS LIKELY TOHOLD SHARES

MORE LIKELYTO HOLD SHARES

57.3%

42.1%

0.6%


your coMMents

“The refund of franking credits allows us to provide significant support for the sector.”

“We have a few dollars in the bank and no prospect of ever being able to invest anywhere else.”

“Franking credits paid to non-income tax paying organisations are a direct subsidy to them. They can, and almost certainly do, lead to differences in the degree of public assistance granted to similar organisations purely because some income tax exempt organisations receive an offset against something they don’t have i.e. an income tax bill. Apart from emotion and self-interest there is little by way of fact that can be argued to support this form of discrimination as between similar organisations.”

bdo coMMents

“Respondents tended to support the argument raised by the NFP Sector Tax Concession Working Group that “NFPs that are entitled to refunds of franking credits are likely to be large, well-resourced NFPs”.

Based on the views of survey participants it appears that those NFPs who currently receive franking credit refunds do take the franking credits into account when considering selection of both asset category and individual investments.”


question 5

If the tax deductible donation threshold is raised to $25, what impact will this have on your organisation’s donation base?

Participants were divided in their view of the impact that an increase in the deduction threshold would have on their donation base.

51.1% of participants consider an increase in the deduction threshold would decrease their donation base to some extent.

45.4% of participants consider an increase in the deduction threshold would not change their donation base.

question 6

If the tax deductible donation threshold is raised to $25, do you think your supporters will make more or fewer donations?

Participants were also divided in their view of the impact that an increase in the deduction threshold would have on the donations they receive from their supporters.

51.7% of participants consider an increase in the deduction threshold would not change donations.

46.5% of participants consider an increase in the threshold would decrease donations.

The Australian concept of being able to claim a tax deduction for cash donations of more than $2 has been around for more than 80 years.

The NFP Sector Tax Concession Working Group Discussion Paper has adapted the $25 deduction threshold proposal from that outlined in the ‘Australia’s Future Tax System: Report to the Treasurer (December 2009)’. That report states that:

The Review favours retaining gift deductibility, and raising the gift deductibility threshold to $25 per recipient organisation per income year. A higher threshold would reduce the reporting burden for donors who have to retain receipts to be entitled to the tax deduction, and for DGRs that need to issue a large number of receipts for small donations.

Whilst the 2009 report suggested a minimum of $25 per organisation per year, the NFP sector Tax Concession Working Group suggested a minimum of $25 per donation.

The distinction potentially has a significant impact in circumstances where the aggregate of donations may exceed $25 but each individual donation is less than $25.

Survey participants were clearly divided in their views on what an increase in the $2 gift deduction threshold would mean for their organisations. However, breaking down the survey participants’ responses further identifies that:

• 74% of participants answering these two questions were DGRs, while 26% were not DGRs

• Of the DGR respondents, in relation to Q5:

− 58% thought their donation base would decrease to some extent; and

− 38% thought their donation base would not change.

0

10

20

30

40

50

SIGNIFICANTLYDECREASE

SLIGHTLYDECREASE

NO CHANGE SLIGHTLYINCREASE

SIGNIFICANTLYINCREASE

2.9%

45.4%

30.2%

20.9%

0.6%

WILL REMAIN THE SAME 51.7%

FEWER 46.5%

MORE 1.8%



− 52% thought that their supporters would make fewer donations; and

− 47% thought that the level of donations made by their supporters would not change.

This breakdown appears to indicate that most organisations with DGR status are concerned that their donation funding will be negatively impacted to some extent.

Comments made by survey participants shed some light on the results.

• There is concern this reform option may erode organisations’ donation base as donors may be tempted to rationalise who they make gifts to, in order to be able to claim a tax deduction

• There is concern that if the $25 threshold is not cumulative in some way then the threshold increase may deny deductions for donors who provide gifts progressively throughout a year, or who provide a larger number of smaller denominated donations

• There is concern this option for reform overlooks the fundraising strategies of different DGR organisations, particularly that some organisations have a fundraising strategy of seeking a larger number of smaller donations, while other organisations seek larger donations from fewer donors. The survey results support this by identifying that 25% of respondents indicated that 50% or more of the donations they receive are under $25

• Few participants identified that they currently suffer administratively from having to issue receipts for donations of between $2 and $25.

The ‘Australia’s Future Tax System: Report to the Treasurer (December 2009)’ also stated that:

In 2007–08, tax deductions for donations to NFP organisations were valued at $1.8 billion. Of these, $16 million were claimed by people with total donations of $25 or less.

Based on the figures quoted in the Report, less than 1% of all donations claimed as tax deductions were made by individuals who claimed less than $25 in total as donation deductions in the relevant year. The Report does not identify the value of deducted donations that were individually less than $25 but which together total more than $25, and which the reform also seeks to impact on.

bdo coMMents

“Most survey participants with DGR status are concerned their donation funding will be negatively impacted by the proposed increase in the donation deduction threshold to $25. Before any increase in the deduction limit is proposed, a full analysis of the financial impact on DGRs would be required.”

your coMMents

“We would continue to acknowledge donations regardless of their size so there would be very little saving in our administrative burdens by increasing the cap.”


question 7

If the tax deductibility of donations is limited, what impact do you think this will have on your organisation’s donation base?

69.2% of participants consider that donations made to their organisation would decrease to some extent.

This breakdown appears to indicate that a very large proportion of organisations with DGR status are concerned their donation funding will be negatively impacted. The theme emerging from respondents’ additional comments indicates that their concern may rest particularly with wealthier donors decreasing their donations to take into account their reduced tax benefit.

Based on this view, survey participants may favour those reform options that continue to provide an additional tax incentive for wealthier donors.

A particular comment made in the Working Group’s discussion paper is that:

The Treasury has performed preliminary analysis of shifting to a two-tiered offset with a 34 per cent offset for donations of up to $1,000 per year, and a 38 per cent offset for donations of more than $1,000 per year. It is estimated that this would produce revenue savings of around $135 million per year. A $1,000 threshold provides an incentive for high income earners to maintain their current level of donations. Under these thresholds, it is estimated that donations to DGRs would decline by around 5 per cent due to the behavioural response of high income earners, which would outweigh the response of low income earners in total dollar terms.

The ‘Australia’s Future Tax System: Report to the Treasurer (December 2009)’ stated that:

In 2007–08, tax deductions for donations to NFP organisations were valued at $1.8 billion. Of these, $16 million were claimed by people with total donations of $25 or less.

Combining these statistics appears to indicate that, based on the $1.8 billion of deducted donations in 2007-08, a 5% decline in donations to DGRs could take away at least $90 million of donations from DGR organisations, at the expense of the Government recovering an additional $127 million in income tax.

The NFP Sector Tax Concession Working Group has identified 10 options for reforming the rules surrounding the deductibility of gifts.

The view taken by the Working Group is that allowing donors to claim tax deductions at their individual marginal tax rates creates inequity amongst donors, as wealthier donors on higher marginal tax rates receive more benefit from claiming a tax deduction than donors on lower marginal tax rates.

One of the reform options proposed is that a donor’s tax deduction for gifts be replaced with a tax offset at either a single standard rate for all taxpayers, or a two-step rate where the base tax offset rate increases once a taxpayer’s donations exceed a set amount, e.g. $1,000 per year. Under this model, taxpayers on marginal tax rates lower than the tax offset rate would benefit from making donations to DGRs.

The Working Group identifies another option that proposes a hybrid system, working in conjunction with the tax offset system, to allow wealthier donors to claim tax deductions for donations they make through a Private Ancillary Fund.

As mentioned above, 69% of all survey participants consider donations to their organisation would decrease to some extent if donation deductions were limited. Breaking down the survey participants’ responses further identified that:

• 74% of participants answering this question were DGRs, while 26% were not DGRs


− 80% thought their donation base would decrease to some extent; and

− 20% thought their donation base would not change.

SIGNIFICANTLYDECREASE

SLIGHTLYDECREASE

NO CHANGE SLIGHTLYINCREASE

SIGNIFICANTLYINCREASE

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

30.8%

39%

30.2%


bdo coMMents

“80% of respondents from organisations with DGR endorsement thought their donation base would decrease to some extent if the current tax deductibility of donations is limited. We call on the Working Group to favour those reform options that continue to provide an appropriate tax incentive for taxpayers making larger donations.

The rationale for allowing full income tax deductions for donations to DGRs is that the donor taxpayer should not be disadvantaged by giving away part of their income to a DGR. If the deductibility of such donations is limited it will have the effect of taxing many taxpayers on the donations they make to DGRs.”

your coMMents

“Our donations have quadrupled since we were endorsed for DGR - it makes a huge difference.”

“This is obviously an area for macro consideration and we are presently largely unaffected. However, undoubtedly, higher income earners are attracted to the benefit of knowing that they receive a tax deduction for such donations knowing that they effectively are donating pre-tax dollars to such organisations and any change that negatively affects the high income donors will have a deeper impact on overall donations.”

“Large donations from high net worth individuals and philanthropists would dry up if deductibility was set at a fixed tax rate and not at the marginal tax rate (unless the fixed rate was at the highest marginal tax rate).”


question 8

Does your organisation use the FBT concession as a means of reducing your employment costs?

69.1% of participants utilise FBt concessions.

Following the release of the Australia’s Future Tax System: Report to the Treasurer (December 2009) and the Productivity Commission Research Report: Contribution of the Not-for-profit-sector (January 2010) there has been a lot of commentary regarding the FBT concessions currently provided to employers in the NFP sector.

The NFP Sector Tax Concession Working Group summed up the concerns with the FBT concession system by stating in its discussion paper that:

FBT concessions allow some entities in the NFP sector to offer attractive remuneration benefits to employees. However, the FBT concessions are complex, impose significant compliance burdens and raise concerns about fairness. Inequality arises because there are inconsistencies related to who is eligible for the concessions and also because fringe benefits tend to be provided to employees with higher disposable incomes.

As a result of these concerns, the Working Group has proposed eight options for reforming the FBT concessions, broken up into:

• Short term reforms aimed at addressing some of the perceived inequities in the current FBT concession system; and

• Longer term reforms aimed at replacing the FBT concessions with different concessions, including:

− Direct grant funding to NFPs by the Government

− Indirect income tax concessions to NFP employers or NFP employees

− Retention of FBT concessions, but limiting the concessions to only those benefits provided to NFP employees that are incidental to their employment.

question 9

Are the FBT concessions an effective means of attracting and retaining people in your organisation?

73.3% of all survey participants consider the FBt concessions are effective for attracting and retaining people.

NO 30.9%

YES 69.1%

NO 26.7%

YES 73.3%


question 10

Do you believe FBT concessions should continue to be provided to NFP employers?

91.8% of all survey participants agree with the comment.

NO 8.2%

YES 91.8%

The current system of FBT concessions in the NFP sector is seen by the vast majority of our survey participants as being invaluable for the attraction and retention of staff in the sector.

Breaking down the survey participants’ responses further identifies that:

• 69% of participants answering Q9 and Q10 utilise the FBT concessions, while 31% do not utilise the concessions.

• Of the respondents who utilise the FBT concessions, in relation to Q9:

− 93% thought the FBT concession was an effective means of attracting and retaining people in their organisation; and

− 7% thought the FBT concession was not effective.

• Of the respondents who utilise the FBT concessions, in relation to Q10:

− 98% thought the FBT concessions should continue to be provided to NFP employers; and

− 2% thought the FBT concession should no longer be provided.

This breakdown appears to indicate that almost all NFP organisations that currently utilise the FBT concessions think the FBT concessions are effective for attracting and retaining employees in the sector and should continue to be provided.

In proposing options for reform, apart from the retention of the current FBT concession system with certain modifications, in its discussion paper the Working Group does not appear to have specifically addressed the NFP industry’s concerns regarding being able to attract and retain staff in the sector.

In addition, the longer term reform proposals, except for the retention of amended FBT concessions, appear to represent a ‘poke in the dark’, as none of the models appear to have been economically modelled and the Working Group has not appeared to consider the results, if any, of other countries using such methods.

Without some insight into what effect reforms may have on the ability for NFPs to attract and retain staff, it is extremely difficult for the NFP sector to make meaningful analysis and evaluation of any suggested changes to the current FBT concession system.

bdo coMMents

“The survey results indicate that without a viable alternative for making NFPs competitive in the employment market, respondents would overwhelmingly rather retain the current FBT concession system.”

your coMMents

“It’s the only way we can match salaries to the public sector and thereby recruit and retain staff. The original intent of the FBT concession was that it would be indexed. This has never occurred and it must be aligned with CPI increases. We offer packaging to all staff not just those at the higher income levels.”

“Our employees could all earn a higher salary with a non-NFP employer. The FBT concessions help to attract staff but it still does not make us equally competitive with non-NFP employers.”


conclusion

The respondents’ participation in this survey demonstrates their desire to provide input into the decision making process and inform the Government’s thinking when it comes to taxation reform that goes to the very heart of their operations.

Collectively, the respondents conveyed a clear message - there is a resounding lack of confidence in the Government’s ability to effectively support the sector if the key tax concessions were to be removed.

By working together with the sector we are dedicated to making this position not just heard, but understood, by the Government. We are striving to contribute to the reform agenda and to do what we can to make sure this sector gets the clarity and certainty it deserves.


survey supporters

ausae

The Australasian Society of Association Executives is the peak body for senior association managers in Australia and New Zealand. AuSAE membership is a powerful investment in the career of an association professional. AuSAE provides a range of tools, knowledge and support to assist members to improve the performance of their association, raise their profile, create strong networks within the association community (both globally and within Australasia) and more rapidly advance their career as an association manager. Visit www.ausae.org.au to learn more.

chartered secretaries australia Chartered Secretaries Australia (CSA) is the independent leader in governance and risk management. As the peak professional body in Australia delivering authoritative accredited education and the most practical training and information in the field, CSA is focused on improving organisational performance and transparency.


about bdo

138Present in over 138 countries

fifththe BDo network is the world’s fifth largest accountancy network

1,204offices everywhere you need them

54,933Partners and staff worldwide

BDO has been involved in the not-for-profit sector for more than 95 years, providing advice in the areas of audit, tax and advisory. Our team can support clients with the issues and complexities of:

• NFP reform implications

• Tax exemptions and concessions

• Strategic business planning

• Identification of risk in the not-for-profit sector

• IT strategy and infrastructure

• Project management implementation.

Working in close cooperation with clients, our experienced team help organisations to design cost-effective approaches to improving operational performance, while maintaining a strong commitment to the communities they serve.

As the fifth largest accounting and advisory network, BDO operates in 1,204 offices across 138 countries employing 54,933 people globally.

In Australia, BDO draws expertise from more than 170 partners and over 1,370 people from offices in Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Darwin, Hobart, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney.

adelaide

brisbane

cairns

darwin

hobart

Melbourne

perth

sydney

distinctively different – it’s how we see youAudit • tAx • Advisory

1300 138 991 www.bdo.com.au

This publication has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The publication cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Please contact the BDO member firms in Australia to discuss these matters in the context of your particular circumstances. BDO Australia Ltd and each BDO member firm in Australia, their partners and/or directors, employees and agents do not accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information in this publication or for any decision based on it.

BDO refers to one or more of the independent member firms of BDO International Ltd, a UK company limited by guarantee. Each BDO member firm in Australia is a separate legal entity and has no liability for another entity’s acts and omissions. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation (other than for the acts or omissions of financial services licensees) in each State or Territory other than Tasmania.

BDO is the brand name for the BDO network and for each of the BDO member firms.

© 2013 BDO Australia Ltd. All rights reserved.

bdo - not-for-profit tax concession survey 2013

Documents

key tax concessions

income tax exemption

notforprofit organisations

organisations activities

tax deductibility of

profittax concession

organisations donation

fbt concessions