Article in The Australian: Jehovah's Witnesses facing tax turmoil

by AndersonsInfo 16 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Pete Zahut

  In a statement, Watchtower director Terry O’Brien denied the ACNC had moved to strip the organisation of its charity registration. “The ACNC has assured the - directors that they do not intend to revoke Watchtower Australia’s charity status,” Mr O’Brien said.

  
  

  If what O'Brien says is true, and the ACNC didn't move to have their charitable status removed, then why did the Watchtower file for a review of the ACNC's decision?

  
  

  According to an application for judicial review filed by Watchtower, the ACNC’s decision is “unlawful” and an “unreasonable and inappropriate exercise” of its discretion.
• 

  Corney

  The corrected version of the article says:

  Mr O'Brien said any suggestion that the commission had revoked the organisation's charitable status was "simply false" and "misleading".

  It is correct that the Commission notified Watchtower Australia (by the November 24 show cause notice) of concerns possibly warranting revocation of charitable status - namely that the organisation have not ensured its directors act in its best interests and failed to "take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of vulnerable individuals outside Australia" when donating overseas (nothing indicates the Commission questioned the very practice of sending funds to foreign entities); both issues involve insufficient paperwork, I guess. The November notice also asked Watchtower for comments, sent on 18 March.

  The lawsuit is about preventing the ACNC from revoking Watchtower's charitable status; its subject is the proposed revocation decision.

  
  

  
  

  
  

  Apparently, the Commission subsequently informed the org, either formally or informally, that it decided not to deregister Watchtower as a charity; once (and if) it is official, the court case becomes moot and will then be quickly withdrawn/dismissed.

  The sources (the corrected article and the court application) are available here (not reader-friendly, though): https://youtu.be/OJeszWNAWOk
• 

  Vidiot

  Okay, so now I'm deducing that the article was reporting on the November threat to yank the Org's "charity" status in response to their failure to join the Aussie redress scheme, and their eleventh-hour reconsideration was the referred-to resolution.

  It wasn't two separate things, it was flawed reporting on one.

  
  

  Still begs the question, though...

  ...just how dependent on its tax-exemption IS the WTS that the actual prospect of losing it brings about such a drastic about-face, after all prior protests to the contrary and the potential problems the decision could cause?
• 

  Rocketman123

  If the WTS there didn't have tax exempt status all donations and profits such as what may occur at assemblies, personal donations, investments the WTS have would be subject to taxation.

  Money has a way clarifying things doesn't it ?
  
• 

  Rocketman123

  The people who run the WTS/JWS must not be very smart because when the org. first refused the Aussie redress scheme that hit the media giving the JWS a bad pubic image, then they realized it was going to cost them some cash so they changed their minds.

  JWS are supposed to obey government rules and laws anyways so why didn't they say well I guess we should do this brothers ?
  
• 

  Vidiot

  Don't kid yourself, Rocket...

  ...at this point, it's becoming pretty apparent that the Org doesn't give a rat's ass about their public image anymore. It's a lost cause.

  These days, virtually every decision is made towards...

  a) ...as you said, keeping their "charity" status to stay in the black, and...

  b) ...reinforcing the fiction of "God's Earthly Organization" in the eyes of the rank-and-file (trust me, the importance of this cannot be overstated, for a whole shit-ton of reasons).
  

  The real trick will be juggling the two...

  ...especially if certain public steps they need to take to keep their tax-exemption too deeply undermine the Organizational fiction.
• 

  Corney

  The lawsuit is officially dismissed by agreement of the parties: https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD108/2021/3911836/event/30661186/document/1762828

  The story is officially over but I'm still curious about the details (that are unlikely, unfortunately, to be disclosed).