With the way they operate, can the rest of the world be far behind? From the WUWT tips and notes we have this news.
Will and also John from New Zealand say:
Greenpeace in New Zealand have just lost their court appeal to retain their charitable tax status. It seems that legally they’re now viewed as a political lobby group:
http://business.scoop.co.nz/2011/05/09/greenpeace-too-political-to-register-as-charity-nz-court/
Greenpeace too political to register as charity, NZ court rules
By Paul McBeth
May 9 (BusinessDesk) – Environmental lobbyist Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc. is too involved in political causes to register as a charity, the High Court has ruled.
Justice Paul Heath turned down an appeal last Friday that Greenpeace could register with the Charities Commission after the body rejected its 2010 application.
Justice Heath said Greenpeace’s political activities can’t be regarded as “merely ancillary” to its charitable purposes and that the commission was correct in disqualifying it for registration over the potentially illegal activities.
David Falkner says:
May 10, 2011 at 11:39 pm
“Charities do not mass profits”
Is that a fact? I have access to the internet (how many examples would you like me to quote?). It doesn’t matter what or how-much-profits charities amass I’m sure an excuse can be constructed that will allow for massive profits amassed by modern charities.
David Falkner
I know you mean well.
Well done New Zealand, I hope their example goes Worldwide!!
David Falkner says:
Charities do not mass profits
Sparks says:
“Is that a fact? I have access to the internet (how many examples would you like me to quote?). It doesn’t matter what or how-much-profits charities amass I’m sure an excuse can be constructed that will allow for massive profits amassed by modern charities.”
While I can’t speak to the laws of other countries, I’ve been involved with a number of charities in the US. Under 501(c)(3) – the most common (and desirable) non-profit designation, the term “non-profit” (as well as “charity”) does NOT refer to whether the organization makes a profit or not. Rather, it refers to the PURPOSE of the organization. Certain PURPOSES qualify an organization as non-profit or non-profit charity. ALMOST any otherwise legal activity is permitted, including owning and/or operating businesses in an otherwise for-profit manner (such as a bookstore). Generally, political activity is NOT permitted – especially lobbying.
A well-run charitable organization not only does but SHOULD amass profits. And no “excuse” is required.
Charities do not make profits. They only carry unexpended funds. They should carry extra funds because donations are highly sensitive to a wide range of factors. It is not like running a business where if you are making a good product, people will buy it.
David Falkner says:
Charities do not make profits. They only carry unexpended funds. They should carry extra funds because donations are highly sensitive to a wide range of factors. It is not like running a business where if you are making a good product, people will buy it.
Based on my past experience as a regional director for a 501(c)(3) non-profit, (operating under U.S. law) I would have to characterize that statement as incorrect. Donations are not the only source of revenue. And it WAS like running a business (in fact, a non-profit IS a business). We provided a service, and people paid for it, just like any for-profit business. The operating definition that allowed us to be a 501(c)(3) was our purpose, not our bottom line.
David:
I’ll concede that this disagreement may be a quibble about the specific definition of profit. What I see as profits, perhaps you don’t.
I was a member back in the early seventies. I held such high hopes for the organisation and its ideals back then.
“If you can bear to hear the truths you’ve spoken, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools”
Here in Hong Kong Greenpeace is pounding the streets to drum up support for the elimination of nuclear power. @23%, almost a quarter of the city’s electricity is derived from nuclear power. They offer no solutions. Do they expect the MTR ( underground rail system) to be pulled by pit ponies?
As a kiwi I am also very pleased to see common sense prevail with this decision, although a lot more is needed in the country’s politics and economy.
Jerome;
the difference is that donors to Greenpeace get nothing in return. Except a boost in self-righteousness.
Theoretical question: is that an “economic good”? I guess it must be, by definition, since people pay for it!
TonyG:
I would say that using the term profit when you refer to not-for-profit organizations seems a little redundant. In practice, they are the same thing, though. Except that a NFP doesn’t try to maximize left over funds, or at least shouldn’t. If they were to try that, they would be a pointless agency to have. That is my quibble about the term profit. 🙂
How did the Kiwi find the sheep in the tall grass?
Irresistable!
Yay – I love NZ.
Robin
David Falkner says:
I would say that using the term profit when you refer to not-for-profit organizations seems a little redundant. In practice, they are the same thing, though. Except that a NFP doesn’t try to maximize left over funds, or at least shouldn’t. If they were to try that, they would be a pointless agency to have. That is my quibble about the term profit. 🙂
Fair enough, regarding the reasoning and definitions. However, your understanding is not an accurate understanding of how non-profits necessarily work, and how they are defined. It is also a VERY common misconception by people not involved with management of non-profits (including many volunteers and employees) For a good primer on the basics, I would suggest reading through the introductory chapters of the Nolo Press Non-Profit Corporation book (not the exact title) that explains how you can have an organization determined to be a non-profit. They focus on 501(c)(3) but mention some of the others – 501(c)(3) is the only US code that allows ‘charity’ status, and is defined purely by the purpose of the organization.
Great news!! Greenpeace is always a political interest group disguised as charity group. They deserve such a verdict. I look forward to seeing their branches around the globe getting the same verdict.
Just as I have been installing a small woodburning stove in my modest home, this news comes as such a welcome encouragement.
another thing – I still have my old Greenpeace badge. What started with good intent but then hitched a lift with the bad boys and forgot what their founder members had in their souls.
TonyG
Hi, I’m just wondering, How can a charity amass 6-million per year through donations and other assorted practices from one small country, with no observable benefit to the public?
((At what point does the “charity” part come into it?))
Sparks says:
TonyG
Hi, I’m just wondering, How can a charity amass 6-million per year through donations and other assorted practices from one small country, with no observable benefit to the public?
A charity/non-profit certainly CAN “amass 6-million per year”, but one would expect it to be engaged in its charitable purpose. If it is not engaged in that purpose, then it may no longer qualify, and can have the status pulled. I can’t really offer much of an answer without details.
However, if you are referring to Greenpeace, then I think this article answers that question.