Shouldn't be a huge problem if they go to school from the right teachers. Rugby League club pokie facilities in Sydney would turn over 10 or 20 times more than the facilities owned by your average SANFL club (and in the case of Penrif Panfers, significantly more than that); but you could bet very safely that they're all paying tax at the rock-bottom discounted rate.Wedgie wrote:Just on the target of ATO, something which perhaps is more relevent and has only been briefly discussed before is I wonder how long before the ATO looks at hitting SANFL clubs with a higher rate of tax because of the amount of money being turned over for football related activities?
Some clubs will be looking at ways to spend money on football related things just to keep under the ATO's radar Id imagine.
Perhaps trips interstate and overseas or sporting hubs?
Perhaps clubs will look at buying their ovals or parts of it and redeveloping that? (only after purchasing it of course, it would be folly to redevelop on land not owned by a club)
While I'm not a tax lawyer, I would have thought that 'not for profit' means 'not for profit' (i.e. technically, surplus income is never distributed to the members), and the ATO shouldn't dig too deep below that. The income-generating activities of not-for-profits are frequently divorced from the target of their expenditure (e.g. MSF spend all of their money trying to treat sick kids in Africa, but not too much of their income derives from either Africa or sick kids). Then again, tax law is a minefield, so who knows?
PS Presuming that councils own the land for the SANFL suburban ovals (and I know they do in at least a couple of instances), you could very safely bet that they're not selling. Community facilities, not to be handed over to private organisations, many of them used by other clubs (esp cricket), yadda yadda.
OOPS!!!!
