archive-au.com » AU » K » KYLIEMAXWELL.COM.AU

Total: 158

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • legal advice
    commence Fill out the ATO s forms themselves The answer to all those questions can be yes but there is a reason why you would choose a lawyer to do the job and it s a simple reason because if the ATO or the ACNC says no to your application a lawyer is going to be able to challenge that decision for you based on reasons given by the lawyer to you as to why your nonprofit would be entitled to the endorsement in the first place Why face the frustration that you could endure by applying to the ATO for the nonprofit yourself only to have the application rejected Go to the experts with a history of making successful applications for these endorsements and focus on your fundraising faster instead of a rejection Kylie has the necessary experience for both applying for your nonprofit s DGR endorsement and challenging incorrect decisions by the ATO With the future of these applications an uncertainty as the ACNC commencement date draws near you should place your trust in someone who has followed the nonprofit reform process of Treasury from its inception Kylie Maxwell Solicitor offers not only this service to your nonprofit but also a range of other Sydney legal services including property law advice dispute resolution services and endorsements for income tax exemption Kylie Maxwell Solicitor is able to help you with all of your nonprofit issues so call now on 61 405 124 975 or send Kylie an email Or if you are not ready to speak to Kylie now then sign up for a free newsletter on this page to the right or below Filed Under Charities Nonprofits Tagged With charities deductible gift recipient DGR legal advice nonprofits Leave a Comment Office 61 2 9889 2881 Mobile 61 405

    Original URL path: http://www.kyliemaxwell.com.au/tag/legal-advice/ (2014-01-05)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Payroll tax changes lead to employment reshuffles
    an activity that may be said in some cases not to be related to the purposes of the nonprofit for which it received an endorsement from the Australian Taxation Office The Hon Bill Shorten MP in his media release in May 2011 when the UBIT was first suggested by Treasury was careful to word his media release to say that the UBIT will not apply to op shops that sell second hand household items and clothing at discounted prices to those in charitable need The State payroll tax requirement that activities be undertaken by employees in relation to the religious charitable benevolent philanthropic or patriotic purposes of the nonprofit also suggests that an eye needs to be kept on this concept The question that arises is whether nonprofits that operate op shops in areas of general affluence need to be cautious in relation to both State taxes and future Federal taxes on the basis that customers are sometimes not those in need One certainty is that the new section 48 requires that Chief Financial Officers of nonprofits who are assessing the risk of being levied by the Office of State Revenue with payroll taxes liaise with Human Resources personnel Together they need to analyse Whether considering the demographic of customers who visit each op shop any wages paid to staff of the op shop are paid in advancement of the religious charitable benevolent philanthropic or patriotic purposes of the institution or body and How they might go about demonstrating the demographic of such customers and Whether the paid staff in question are working exclusively in the op shop or whether they are engaged in other activities and whether those other activities are advancing the religious charitable benevolent philanthropic or patriotic purposes of the nonprofit Those op shops in affluent areas need to consider operating purely with the help of volunteers so as to ensure that there are no wages paid to employees working at op shops that form part of the calculation of payroll tax liabilities at the end of the financial year Those op shops that have a demographic amongst their customers of needy individuals will need to ensure that if they have paid staff at the op shop then those paid staff are engaged exclusively in the selling of discounted items and not that they also undertake some commercial activities for the nonprofit that are unrelated to the religious charitable benevolent philanthropic or patriotic purposes of the institution or body A close eye should be kept on the specific formulation of employees duties in Job Specifications so as to ensure that employee duties do not transgress the exclusively involved in activities to promote the religious charitable benevolent philanthropic or patriotic purposes rule It is a certainty that if a payroll tax liability results for the nonprofit these Job Specifications will be at issue in any Court dispute to object to the payroll tax liability Nonprofits also to be keeping evidence and a log of how they might demonstrate

    Original URL path: http://www.kyliemaxwell.com.au/2012/08/14/%ef%bb%bfpayroll-tax-changes-employment-reshuffles/ (2014-01-05)
    Open archived version from archive

  • payroll tax
    just one example of an activity that may be said in some cases not to be related to the purposes of the nonprofit for which it received an endorsement from the Australian Taxation Office The Hon Bill Shorten MP in his media release in May 2011 when the UBIT was first suggested by Treasury was careful to word his media release to say that the UBIT will not apply to op shops that sell second hand household items and clothing at discounted prices to those in charitable need The State payroll tax requirement that activities be undertaken by employees in relation to the religious charitable benevolent philanthropic or patriotic purposes of the nonprofit also suggests that an eye needs to be kept on this concept The question that arises is whether nonprofits that operate op shops in areas of general affluence need to be cautious in relation to both State taxes and future Federal taxes on the basis that customers are sometimes not those in need One certainty is that the new section 48 requires that Chief Financial Officers of nonprofits who are assessing the risk of being levied by the Office of State Revenue with payroll taxes liaise with Human Resources personnel Together they need to analyse Whether considering the demographic of customers who visit each op shop any wages paid to staff of the op shop are paid in advancement of the religious charitable benevolent philanthropic or patriotic purposes of the institution or body and How they might go about demonstrating the demographic of such customers and Whether the paid staff in question are working exclusively in the op shop or whether they are engaged in other activities and whether those other activities are advancing the religious charitable benevolent philanthropic or patriotic purposes of the nonprofit Those op shops in affluent areas need to consider operating purely with the help of volunteers so as to ensure that there are no wages paid to employees working at op shops that form part of the calculation of payroll tax liabilities at the end of the financial year Those op shops that have a demographic amongst their customers of needy individuals will need to ensure that if they have paid staff at the op shop then those paid staff are engaged exclusively in the selling of discounted items and not that they also undertake some commercial activities for the nonprofit that are unrelated to the religious charitable benevolent philanthropic or patriotic purposes of the institution or body A close eye should be kept on the specific formulation of employees duties in Job Specifications so as to ensure that employee duties do not transgress the exclusively involved in activities to promote the religious charitable benevolent philanthropic or patriotic purposes rule It is a certainty that if a payroll tax liability results for the nonprofit these Job Specifications will be at issue in any Court dispute to object to the payroll tax liability Nonprofits also to be keeping evidence and a log of

    Original URL path: http://www.kyliemaxwell.com.au/tag/payroll-tax/ (2014-01-05)
    Open archived version from archive

  • UBIT
    just one example of an activity that may be said in some cases not to be related to the purposes of the nonprofit for which it received an endorsement from the Australian Taxation Office The Hon Bill Shorten MP in his media release in May 2011 when the UBIT was first suggested by Treasury was careful to word his media release to say that the UBIT will not apply to op shops that sell second hand household items and clothing at discounted prices to those in charitable need The State payroll tax requirement that activities be undertaken by employees in relation to the religious charitable benevolent philanthropic or patriotic purposes of the nonprofit also suggests that an eye needs to be kept on this concept The question that arises is whether nonprofits that operate op shops in areas of general affluence need to be cautious in relation to both State taxes and future Federal taxes on the basis that customers are sometimes not those in need One certainty is that the new section 48 requires that Chief Financial Officers of nonprofits who are assessing the risk of being levied by the Office of State Revenue with payroll taxes liaise with Human Resources personnel Together they need to analyse Whether considering the demographic of customers who visit each op shop any wages paid to staff of the op shop are paid in advancement of the religious charitable benevolent philanthropic or patriotic purposes of the institution or body and How they might go about demonstrating the demographic of such customers and Whether the paid staff in question are working exclusively in the op shop or whether they are engaged in other activities and whether those other activities are advancing the religious charitable benevolent philanthropic or patriotic purposes of the nonprofit Those op shops in affluent areas need to consider operating purely with the help of volunteers so as to ensure that there are no wages paid to employees working at op shops that form part of the calculation of payroll tax liabilities at the end of the financial year Those op shops that have a demographic amongst their customers of needy individuals will need to ensure that if they have paid staff at the op shop then those paid staff are engaged exclusively in the selling of discounted items and not that they also undertake some commercial activities for the nonprofit that are unrelated to the religious charitable benevolent philanthropic or patriotic purposes of the institution or body A close eye should be kept on the specific formulation of employees duties in Job Specifications so as to ensure that employee duties do not transgress the exclusively involved in activities to promote the religious charitable benevolent philanthropic or patriotic purposes rule It is a certainty that if a payroll tax liability results for the nonprofit these Job Specifications will be at issue in any Court dispute to object to the payroll tax liability Nonprofits also to be keeping evidence and a log of

    Original URL path: http://www.kyliemaxwell.com.au/tag/ubit/ (2014-01-05)
    Open archived version from archive

  • admin
    the fact that Bill had expended a significant amount in improvements to the house and property over the years before and during the marriage The documents tendered included a letter written in 2012 about improvements completed in 1995 by the builder that had been involved in the improvements backdated It specified that carpets had been laid three bathrooms and a laundry had been renovated wallpaper and painting had been refurbished in several rooms tiling had been done a kitchen had been replaced all to a total of 110 000 00 Some further evidence the case report does not say the type of evidence was tendered that maintenance was later done to the swimming pool some tree lopping was done a retaining wall was replaced alarm monitoring was paid for general repairs were done house painting was done home and contents insurance was paid for all to the tune of just short of 88 000 00 Justice Stevenson of the Supreme Court of New South Wales said that the law in relation to deceased estates required that Bill prove that the matters upon which Bill expended funds resulted in an increase in value of the property He said that some evidence did not affect value such as the evidence as to insurance premiums and alarm monitoring and in the absence of detailed evidence as to what was actually done let alone of an increase in value he could reach no conclusions on the matter The case illustrates the importance of obtaining written evidence about value increases resulting from property improvements and taking photographs that can be tendered to show work done over a prolonged period or at least in order to obtain a later valuation of the improvements to the house in a retrospective manner If you have any questions about

    Original URL path: http://www.kyliemaxwell.com.au/author/admin/page/3/ (2014-01-05)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Deceased Estates: Evidence Showing Property Improvements and Value Increases Essential
    Bill had expended a significant amount in improvements to the house and property over the years before and during the marriage The documents tendered included a letter written in 2012 about improvements completed in 1995 by the builder that had been involved in the improvements backdated It specified that carpets had been laid three bathrooms and a laundry had been renovated wallpaper and painting had been refurbished in several rooms tiling had been done a kitchen had been replaced all to a total of 110 000 00 Some further evidence the case report does not say the type of evidence was tendered that maintenance was later done to the swimming pool some tree lopping was done a retaining wall was replaced alarm monitoring was paid for general repairs were done house painting was done home and contents insurance was paid for all to the tune of just short of 88 000 00 Justice Stevenson of the Supreme Court of New South Wales said that the law in relation to deceased estates required that Bill prove that the matters upon which Bill expended funds resulted in an increase in value of the property He said that some evidence did not affect value such as the evidence as to insurance premiums and alarm monitoring and in the absence of detailed evidence as to what was actually done let alone of an increase in value he could reach no conclusions on the matter The case illustrates the importance of obtaining written evidence about value increases resulting from property improvements and taking photographs that can be tendered to show work done over a prolonged period or at least in order to obtain a later valuation of the improvements to the house in a retrospective manner If you have any questions about deceased estates do

    Original URL path: http://www.kyliemaxwell.com.au/2012/06/27/deceased-estatesproperty-improvements/ (2014-01-05)
    Open archived version from archive