Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:30 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:07 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:27 pm
Posts: 1689
Wolfy, are you sure they were "funnelling the club's revenue through the social club so as to avoid paying tax"? If so, how do you know this????

_________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:14 pm 
Offline
Geoff Southby

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:41 am
Posts: 5540
Location: Big Blue office at the bottom end of town
OK, I might be speculating, but if we're talking the alleged million dollars here, then we've been making a truck load of money through the pokies don't you think! Especially as St Kilda's bill is reportedly only $50k...

_________________
If meat is murder then yoghurt must be burglary
GO YOU BIG RED FIRE ENGINE
Move aside Kouta, Lance etc - you're holding us back... from entering the under 18s


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:16 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:27 pm
Posts: 4129
Wolfister wrote:
Do you think funnelling the club's revenue through the social club so as to avoid paying tax isn't dodgy?

Clearly 14 other clubs thought it was dodgy....

This is clearly different to a family tax situation.

Given our reportedly massive exposure - an exposure 15 other clubs don't have - I don't think it's unreasonable to hold someone to blame... you're right Agro, it's not just black and white... some faces should be very red...


So you are totally au fait with the tax and income arrangements of the other AFL clubs? Well I am not.

For example: What about the relationship between the MCC and MFC? Don’t know the detail but do you know the relationship between the MCC the MFC and the MCG Trust and how it affects their tax exposure? What about the “Red & Blueâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:17 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:27 pm
Posts: 4129
Wolfister wrote:
OK, I might be speculating, but if we're talking the alleged million dollars here, then we've been making a truck load of money through the pokies don't you think! Especially as St Kilda's bill is reportedly only $50k...


In other words you are making strong allegations against the Board with no detailed knowledge. Hmmmm........


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:18 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:27 pm
Posts: 1689
I agree, however, as we have Bruce Mathieson (Mr Pokies) on the board, maybe we have more pokies than Saints, maybe we get a better cut from the pokies, maybe we have had them for a longer period, maybe our pokies are located in a better region for gaming than the Saints.

_________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:19 pm 
Offline
Geoff Southby

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:41 am
Posts: 5540
Location: Big Blue office at the bottom end of town
Which club's getting the bill?

You're right, it's a sweeping statement - but based on the facts reported today, we're the only club with massive tax bill based on this changed interpretation.

_________________
If meat is murder then yoghurt must be burglary
GO YOU BIG RED FIRE ENGINE
Move aside Kouta, Lance etc - you're holding us back... from entering the under 18s


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:28 pm 
Offline
Robert Walls
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:50 am
Posts: 3193
Location: Whistler
for reference:

ATO Draft Ruling, seems to be dated 2005.


Findings from the Cronulla case ATO legal database, 1990.

The decision seems to revolve around what is the main purpose of the Social Club: providing facilities and benefit for its members and guests; or the promotion of the sport and the football club.

Keep in mind that sporting CLubs are generally exempt from paying taxes., as they are generally non-profit in that their activities do not result in profit distribution to the members.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:49 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:27 pm
Posts: 4129
Headplant wrote:
for reference:

ATO Draft Ruling, seems to be dated 2005.


Findings from the Cronulla case ATO legal database, 1990.

The decision seems to revolve around what is the main purpose of the Social Club: providing facilities and benefit for its members and guests; or the promotion of the sport and the football club.

Keep in mind that sporting CLubs are generally exempt from paying taxes., as they are generally non-profit in that their activities do not result in profit distribution to the members.


Thanks for that - especially the point regarding sporting Clubs and tax... did not think of that...

So does this mean that the way the SC was set up, was not for the purpose of tax minimisation (but maybe to protect JE's power structure, or to hide the numbers from the public or whatever) ? Anyone know?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:58 pm 
Offline
Geoff Southby
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 3:54 pm
Posts: 5274
Location: Melbourne
mikkey wrote
Quote:
Anyone know?


No, we all speak crap remember.

_________________
"We used to sit around and talk about how bad the game plan was." Anthony Koutoufides


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:04 pm 
Offline
Geoff Southby
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:43 am
Posts: 5175
Location: Corner of Queen and Collins
mikkey, you could pay a consultant $500000 to answer your question and still not get there.

pretty sure you cant ever set antying up for a sole purpose of tax minimisation, it can be a joint purpose but the tax system is that complex and that highly structured that minimisation in itself is not allowed to be the goal.

i really wouldn't worry with the specifics.

what worries me more is the number of posters claiming to have experience in tax; surely that makes us the biggest bunch of loser dorkos ever?

ps although i did meet my wife on a tax conference...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:05 pm 
Offline
Geoff Southby

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:41 am
Posts: 5540
Location: Big Blue office at the bottom end of town
Headplant wrote:
Keep in mind that sporting CLubs are generally exempt from paying taxes., as they are generally non-profit in that their activities do not result in profit distribution to the members.


Although elite sporting clubs would be handled differently wouldn't they? Wouldn't Carlton FC be a trading company?

I'm sure we've been paying some tax!

_________________
If meat is murder then yoghurt must be burglary
GO YOU BIG RED FIRE ENGINE
Move aside Kouta, Lance etc - you're holding us back... from entering the under 18s


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:06 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:27 pm
Posts: 4129
TheGame wrote:
mikkey wrote
Quote:
Anyone know?


No, we all speak crap remember.


Thats right... how could I forget.... just have to re-read your posts to refresh my memory... :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:07 pm 
Offline
Geoff Southby
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 3:54 pm
Posts: 5274
Location: Melbourne
Stop it Mikkey I've got a stitch in my side that was so funny.

_________________
"We used to sit around and talk about how bad the game plan was." Anthony Koutoufides


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:14 pm 
Offline
Robert Walls
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:50 am
Posts: 3193
Location: Whistler
Wolfister wrote:
Headplant wrote:
Keep in mind that sporting CLubs are generally exempt from paying taxes., as they are generally non-profit in that their activities do not result in profit distribution to the members.


Although elite sporting clubs would be handled differently wouldn't they? Wouldn't Carlton FC be a trading company?

I'm sure we've been paying some tax!


I believe we are in the same category as the 100 member Ski CLub of which I was Secretary for 17 years .... non -profit and not liable for income tax. If you look at those two links, that is what the whole argument is about.

I have no idea on the reasons for the complex Football Club/Social Club structure ... but I suspect it is for some kind of legal reasons, and most likely related to taxation. But that is just my guess, it's not my field.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:25 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:00 am
Posts: 23123
Watching accountants argue is like watching people solve a problem you didn't know you had in a way you don't understand.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:11 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley

Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:00 am
Posts: 6154
Jarusa wrote:
Watching accountants argue is like watching people solve a problem you didn't know you had in a way you don't understand.


If you want to know what God thinks of money, look at the people he gives it to.
- ANON.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:00 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:27 am
Posts: 33188
Location: In the box.
molsey wrote:
mikkey, you could pay a consultant $500000 to answer your question and still not get there.

pretty sure you cant ever set antying up for a sole purpose of tax minimisation, it can be a joint purpose but the tax system is that complex and that highly structured that minimisation in itself is not allowed to be the goal.

i really wouldn't worry with the specifics.

what worries me more is the number of posters claiming to have experience in tax; surely that makes us the biggest bunch of loser dorkos ever?

ps although i did meet my wife on a tax conference...

molesy the reason why there are so many of us claiming to be expert on tax is cos Carlton has a huge amount of us wogs supporting it....

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:34 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:49 am
Posts: 1651
Tax Liability? Can Caro be a bit more specific? Is it for PAYG withholding, FBT or GST?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:19 am 
Offline
Robert Walls
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 3508
Location: Under Whelmed
Seems to me you are the rude one or you can not read.

I explained in my earlier post that
a) that my understanding was based on the way I have first hand seen tax issues being handled in business and how disputes with the ATO can occur.
b) that we do not know enough detail – but that the arrangement has been in place for a long time – so it seems to be down to a change in interpretation which happens in business tax issues a lot. So based on that I can not see how people can jump to conclusions about either the old Board under JE doing anything wrong or the new Board being at fault.
[quote]

Been away for a bit, but I think you'd better re-read my posts Mikkey. Apparently I conveyed detail on how I've been involved in negotiations directly with the ATO over penalties etc.
etc etc. Not too much about bagging anyone; blaming anyone: just some thoughts on the issue, when it occurred etc.

Get off your I know big business horse, you ain't the only rider in town

_________________
This might sound extreme in the context of alleged sexual assault, drunken violence and a drug trafficking charge...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 44 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group