nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

lazygal

Does anyone know anything about this organisation? Where it is funded from and by whom? Who runs it? Why it gets such a platform? I've been digging around a bit but its very difficult to find out anything about it.

I'm also mystified as to why David Quinn appears so often representing a relatively new body which seems to be largly self-appointed and why he is allowed such a platform.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mambo

Details of how a body can claim to be a charity
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/chy2.pdf

A charity:

applies its income for charitable purposes only, and

Does a lobby group / "think tank" count as "charitable purposes only". I don't see how. May be worth a letter to Revenue & Dept of Finance. Would be interesting to get their list of what does and what doesn't count as "charitable purposes".

Galvasean

I would imagine the Department of Finance are probably getting more anf more strict about what is and is not a charity in the search for more tax moneys. I'd guess a lot of charities that recieved 'charity status' te years ago would not have gotten it if hey applied today.

Peregrinus

(1) It's not Finance, it's the Revenue Commissioners. And, whatever else we can say about the Revenue Commissioners, they are actually pretty good at interpreting and applying the legislation as written, rather than distorting it through a policy of revenue maximisation.

(2) If the Iona Institute were liable to Corporation Tax, I seriously doubt that their liablity would be very big. I don't see them generating large profits, to be honest. So if the government authorities were to try to maximise revenue, chasing the charitable status of the Iona Institute through the courts would not necessarily be a good move, in cost/benefit terms.

ShooterSF

I doubt anyone here is looking to have their charitable status removed to save the economy. It should be removed because they aren't a charity from what I've observed. There are plenty of religious charities in this country St. V de P etc. and while I won't donate to them personally I agree they should have charity status because they do charity work. IONA doesn't.

mambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

(1) It's not Finance, it's the Revenue Commissioners. And, whatever else we can say about the Revenue Commissioners, they are actually pretty good at interpreting and applying the legislation as written, rather than distorting it through a policy of revenue maximisation.

(2) If the Iona Institute were liable to Corporation Tax, I seriously doubt that their liablity would be very big. I don't see them generating large profits, to be honest. So if the government authorities were to try to maximise revenue, chasing the charitable status of the Iona Institute through the courts would not necessarily be a good move, in cost/benefit terms.

But charity status also means donations (say from a few wealthy Opus Dei-type backers) qualify for tax relief.

lazygal

Is Youth Defence classed as a charity?

Kiwi in IE

Seems an unpleasant character that David Quinn. I had a letter published in the Independent a couple of months back, in response to his claims that my son is a 'disadvantaged child' because he has 'cohabiting' parents. It took a lot of editing before I had it civil enough to be printed. I suggested something along the lines of his opinions being more suited to conservative Catholic media, rather than a major daily newspaper in a First World country in the Twenty First century.

I think he would quite like to see all children of 'cohabiting' couples adopted out to good, married Catholic families and the mothers sent straight to the Magdeline Laundries. My partner might escape though seeing as the father in a 'cohabiting' relationship is not legally considered a parent.

recedite

mambo wrote: »

Details of how a body can claim to be a charity
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/chy2.pdf

applies its income for charitable purposes only

Revenue don't actually define what "a charity" is in that document. They just say the body should use its money for charitable purposes.

In other words, its not clear whether there is a "public good" requirement involved, or not.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

(2) If the Iona Institute were liable to Corporation Tax, I seriously doubt that their liablity would be very big. I don't see them generating large profits, to be honest. So if the government authorities were to try to maximise revenue, chasing the charitable status of the Iona Institute through the courts would not necessarily be a good move, in cost/benefit terms.

But surely they would have less money to spend on campaigns and lobbying, if they had to pay tax on their income?

fisgon

The idea that the Iona Institute is a registered charity is stomach-churning. They are a propaganda group, with a very clear theocratic agenda.

If they are a charity, Atheist Ireland should apply for charitable status. And if they are refused, the law on qualifying for charitable status should be added to the list of things that need to be changed for a secular Ireland. The key thing here is the assumption that promoting religion is "of benefit to society", which of course is patent nonsense.

PopePalpatine

I have to say, I feel my stomach churn when I see Breda O'Brien's face in the Irish Times on Saturday. There's something sinister about her articles. I know some may see this as a crappy analogy, but to me a woman backing the Iona Institute is like a black person backing the BNP.

Banbh

I've heard that the Revenue have applied the USC to priests, although they are usually exempt from income tax. Does anyone know the regulation in this area?

recedite

There's a bit of understandable confusion here in relation to taxation and charities. I'm no expert, but I'll give my take on it anyway...feel free to correct me.

1. Revenue would not expect to gain anything at all by taxing the non existent profits of a non-profit organisation.

2. If a non-profit organisation gains charitable status, any donations they receive are not tax deductible. Therefore the donation is effectively bumped-up by an amount equal to the donors normal tax rate, at a cost to Revenue.

People may be familiar with this concept of using gross income instead of net income to pay for something. It happens all the time with school donations and mortgage interest relief.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Revenue don't actually define what "a charity" is in that document. They just say the body should use its money for charitable purposes.

In other words, its not clear whether there is a "public good" requirement involved, or not.

There is. “Charitable purpose” is defined in the Charities Act 2009. There’s two parts to the definition:

First, to be charitable a purpose must be
- the prevention or relief of poverty or economic hardship
- the advancement of education
- the advancement of religion
- “any other purpose that is of benefit to the community”.

The last category is a bit of a catchall; it can include, e.g., animal welfare, care of the elderly or disabled (who may not be poor, and so don’t come in under the first head), cultural activities and the arts, community development, medical charities, etc.

Secondly, the purpose must be “of public benefit”. (This is what prevents, e.g., a trust established by me to pay my own daughter’s school fees from being charitable. It’s for the advancement of education, all right, but my daughter is not “the public”. Whereas a trust to provide scholarships for children from (say) Leitrim, or for the children of soldiers and sailors, would be charitable).

Simply having a charitable purpose, though, is not enough to qualify you for charitable tax reliefs. Before the revenue will approve you, there’s a further layer of tests applied. You must be legally established in Ireland, and have your central managements and control here. Your constitutional documents must require all your income and assets to be used for charitable purposes - i.e. it’s not enough that your activities include charitable purposes; they must be exclusively charitable. You must be non-profit - paying no dividends or the like to shareholders or investors, and on winding up transferring any remaining assets you have to another charity, not to the founders/investors/shareholders.

mambo wrote: »

But charity status also means donations (say from a few wealthy Opus Dei-type backers) qualify for tax relief.

Not quite. Recedite has it in post #45. If you contribute to an eligible charity you get no relief or refund, but the charity can reclaim from the Revenue the income tax that you paid on your donation.

(The usual allegation, or at least suspicion, in relation to the Iona Institute is that they are funded by US-based socially conservative groups. To the extent that this is true, charitable status in Ireland would be of limited use. You can’t reclaim tax on donations from donors who don’t themselves pay tax in Ireland.)

lazygal wrote: »

Is Youth Defence classed as a charity?

They’re not on the Revenue list. I don’t know if they have ever applied for charitable status.

fisgon wrote: »

The idea that the Iona Institute is a registered charity is stomach-churning. They are a propaganda group, with a very clear theocratic agenda.

If they are a charity, Atheist Ireland should apply for charitable status.

Atheist Ireland aren’t on the Revenue list of eligible charities. That may simply be because they haven’t applied, and that could easily be because they already have a minimal or no tax liability, and Revenue approval would be of no advantage, or of so little advantage that it’s not worth seeking it.

FWIW, the Humanist Association of Ireland is on the list.

Banbh wrote: »

I've heard that the Revenue have applied the USC to priests, although they are usually exempt from income tax. Does anyone know the regulation in this area?

Priests are not exempt from income tax.

Priests who are employed (e.g. as teachers, social workers, etc) pay PRSI (including levies and charges) like other employees (and their employers pay employer PRSI, even if they are charities). They qualify for the same social insurance benefits as other employees. Diocesan clergy are not employees; they pay PRSI (inc. levies/charges) as self-employed, and qualify for the same social insurance benefits as the rest of the self employed. There is a special PRSI contribution rate for Anglican clergymen, which I think reflects the fact that the Church of Ireland has lifetime housing arrangements for them, and so there are certain housing benefits for which they do not qualify. Or something like that.

oceanclub

I mailed Revenue and here's the letter I received; not too happy with it, it essentially says "none of your business, but _we'll_ er make sure Iona is doing charity stuff":

For reasons of taxpayer confidentiality, the Revenue Commissioners cannot comment upon the tax affairs of individual bodies.

The role of the Revenue Commissioners in relation to charities is confined to determining the eligibility of applications from bodies of persons or trusts for exemption under the provisions of Section 207 Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. For tax purposes, a charity is a body of persons or a trust, which is established for charitable purposes only. Its objects and powers must be so framed that every object to which its income or property can be applied is charitable. It must be bound, as to its main object(s) and the application of its income or property, by a binding trust. This means that it must be obliged by law to advance only its stated main object(s) and to apply its income and property to these exclusively.

Revenue operates controls and monitoring procedures to ensure that charities with the tax exemption comply with the terms of the exemption. Bodies, which are granted charitable tax exemption, are subject to periodic risk focussed reviews aimed at ensuring that the body is meeting its charitable objectives and complying with the conditions of the exemption. All relevant matters are taken into consideration in the context of such reviews and each case is examined on its individual merits and circumstances.

I trust this clarifies the position.

recedite

As long as "the advancement of religion" is assumed to be "a charity" then there is not much any of us can do. But I think the first step for any change is always to ask the question that challenges the assumption.
Once people are forced to think about it, reform becomes possible.

Skrynesaver

There is currently no legal framework for the registration of charities in Ireland. The role of the Revenue Commissioners in relation to charities is confined to determining the eligibility of applications from bodies of persons or trusts for exemption under the provisions of Section 207 Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. The full list of bodies granted charitable tax exemption under the provisions of Section 207 TCA 1997 is published on the Revenue Commissioners website at the following link:
http://www.revenue.ie/en/business/charities.html
For reasons of taxpayer confidentiality, the Revenue Commissioners cannot comment upon the tax affairs of individual bodies.

Charitable tax exemption is not granted to religious groups regardless of the work they do.

Following on from oceanclub's example I also enquired as to the reasoning, again no justification, though the assertion that there isn't a blanket tax exemption for religious groups is somewhat heartening, is there any way to extract a justification for their charitable status?

Peregrinus

The Charities Act 2009 provides that the advancement of religion is a charitable purpose (and it merely confirmed existing law in that regard). As long as that remains the case the Revenue Commissioners will treat the advancement of religion as charitable; you won't get them to justify that, since there job is to implement the law enacted by the Oireachtas, not to justify or comment on the policy which underlies it.

You could check the parliamentary debates when the Charities Act was under discussion to see what justification the government advanced for this treatment, and what observations the opposition made. And it would be interesting to know what the independent senators had to say about it.

Nothing will change in this regard unless and until the Oireachtas amends or replaces the Charities Act.

recedite

Skrynesaver wrote: »

the assertion that there isn't a blanket tax exemption for religious groups is somewhat......

Somewhat bizarre for a Revenue spokesperson to say that, given that if you download the list there are actually numerous religious groups there.
I chose the alphabetically ordered list, so the Amish of Waterford were near the start,(presumably not the horse-drawn buggy variety) then there are various parishes and dioceses etc..
Iona are there under their Dan Brown-esque codename; that being the Polish diminutive of Karol, the name of a popular Pope...... (Lolek)

Revenue fobbing you off with a holding letter is one thing, but fobbing you off with misinformation is just incompetence.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Somewhat bizarre for a Revenue spokesperson to say that, given that if you download the list there are actually numerous religious groups there.
I chose the alphabetically ordered list, so the Amish of Waterford were near the start,(presumably not the horse-drawn buggy variety) then there are various parishes and dioceses etc..
Iona are there under their Dan Brown-esque codename; that being the Polish diminutive of Karol, the name of a popular Pope...... (Lolek)

Revenue fobbing you off with a holding letter is one thing, but fobbing you off with misinformation is just incompetence.

I'm not sure that that's entirely fair, recedite. The fact that lots of approved charitable bodies appear to be religious in nature doesn't mean that religious bodies have a blanket tax exemption. It may simply reflect the fact that, for historical and other reasons, most formal charitable endeavours in this country are in fact organised by or through religious bodies, and are religiously inspired. Knowing what you know about Irish society, you'd expect a high proportion of religious entities in any list of charitable endeavours.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

You could check the parliamentary debates when the Charities Act was under discussion to see what justification the government advanced for this treatment, and what observations the opposition made. And it would be interesting to know what the independent senators had to say about it.

For those interested, I’ve done a quick and dirty scan of the Oireachtas debates on the Charities Act 2009 to see what was said about the notion that “advancement of religion” should be charitable in law.

For what it’s worth, nobody seems to have challenged the assertion head-on, and suggested that religion should simply be dropped from the list of charitable purposes.

But, from early on, there was a regularly-expressed concern that enterprises which were not, in reality, religious would assume a religious character in order to qualify for tax and other advantages as charities - or alternatively, that they would assume a religious character and not register as charities, while hoping that the public would assume they were charitable, and would support them accordingly.

Michael D. Higgins, then but a humble TD, described organizations for the advancement of religion as “a curious area”. He suggested that the legislation might need to distinguish between “genuine religions, ones established for tax purposes, and, most dangerous of all, cults”. And, less we miss the point, he added that “the Church of Scientology and others come to mind”. Higgins’s main concern, though, in the debates on the Bill was not the treatment of religion; he had a wider concern about establishing a human-rights based concept of charity. If anything, he wanted a broad concept of “charity” focused not just on poverty and economic issues but on broader issues of justice, and on social and cultural rights. I suspect, with that agenda, he would have been slow to start demanding wide exclusions from the notion of “charity”.

Jack Wall TD, of the Labour Party, put down an amendment to provide that “religion” was not to include “any organization or cult which . . . is primarily economic in nature or employs oppressive psychological manipulation of its adherents”. Amendments along these lines, though with slightly different wording, were discussed a couple of times as the Bill wound its way through the Dail and later the Seanad. Wall’s comments in support of the amendment suggested that he saw it as being directed at new movements that “are beginning to gain a foothold in Ireland”, rather than any of the long-established churches. He withdrew the amendment when the government promised further consideration of the question of whether religion should be automatically presumed to be “for the public benefit” (which it has to be, to have charitable status). Subsequently, an amendment to soften the presumption that the advancement of religion is always for the public benefit was passed.

In the Seanad, an amendment was moved by Dominic Hannigan (Labour) to provide that “humanism or any other philosophical life-stance” would get the same treatment as religion. David Norris supported the idea as regards humanism, but felt that the concept of “philosophical life-stance” was not well defined, and would “cover some groups I do not especially want to be covered”. Ivana Bacik also supported the amendment in so far as it would include humanism as charitable under the “advancement of religion” heading. The Labour party withdrew the amendment, though, because of the negative reaction to the vagueness of its language on “philosophical life-stances”. (Language about humanism never was inserted in the Bill, but as noted earlier in the thread the Humanist Association of Ireland does have recognition as a charity, presumably either because the authorities accept that humanism is a “religion” or because they accept that it is another “purpose that is of benefit to the community”.)

It was in the Seanad that the government brought forward its own amendment to organizations or cults whose principal object is making a profit, or who employ oppressive psychological manipulation of their own followers, or for the purposes of gaining new followers, and this amendment was passed. (It now appears as s. 3(1) of the Act.)

Galvasean

Excellent sluething there Per.

"It was in the Seanad that the government brought forward its own amendment to organizations or cults whose principal object is making a profit, or who employ oppressive psychological manipulation of their own followers, or for the purposes of gaining new followers, and this amendment was passed. (It now appears as s. 3(1) of the Act.) "

Although I can't think of any mainstream religion which does not fall foul of at least one of these criteria.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

He suggested that the legislation might need to distinguish between “genuine religions, ones established for tax purposes, and, most dangerous of all, cults”.

I've heard various definitions of a "cult" and how it differs from a mainstream "religion", but the best one is that in a cult, the founder is still alive and knows its a all a scam. Whereas in a religion, he's dead.

I'm a bit disappointed that in those debates, the assumption that furthering religion was a charitable enterprise went largely unchallenged, the only worry being that foreign religions might be able to benefit from the same legislation.
And this all slipped through in 2009, not 1809.

Peregrinus wrote: »

as noted earlier in the thread the Humanist Association of Ireland does have recognition as a charity, presumably either because the authorities accept that humanism is a “religion” or because they accept that it is another “purpose that is of benefit to the community”.

A third possibility is that they were already on the Revenue list as exempt from tax; those already on the Revenue exempt list were deemed to qualify for the new registered charity list.

Peregrinus

Galvasean wrote: »

"It was in the Seanad that the government brought forward its own amendment to organizations or cults whose principal object is making a profit, or who employ oppressive psychological manipulation of their own followers, or for the purposes of gaining new followers, and this amendment was passed. (It now appears as s. 3(1) of the Act.) "

Although I can't think of any mainstream religion which does not fall foul of at least one of these criteria.

Perhaps the Attorney-General’s threshold for “aggressive psychological manipulation” is a bit higher than yours! :-)

The “making a profit” rule is a bit of window-dressing, I think. It was always the case that any body, no matter how charitable its objects, which paid or could theoretically pay any kind of dividend/return on investment/interest/whatever you want to call it to members/investors/participants/sponsors/promoters/whatever you want to call them would be refused registration as an authorized charity by the Revenue Commissioners.

recedite wrote: »

A third possibility is that they [Humanist Association of Ireland] were already on the Revenue list as exempt from tax; those already on the Revenue exempt list were deemed to qualify for the new registered charity list.

Yes, but the definition of “charitable” in the 2009 Act was a statutory codification of the common law rules that had applied since forever. So even before 2009, to get on the Revenue approved list HAI would have to have been accepted has having as its object the “advancement of religion“ or “other purposes beneficial to the community”.

I would have thought that they’d come in under the “other purposes beneficial” heading myself, but Ivana Bacik’s take on this in the Seanad debate was interesting. She referred to HAI doing things for non-believers which churches generally do for believers, and which she obviously thought were Good Things - she mentioned weddings and funerals, and on that basis she felt they should be bracketed with religion (as did the Labour Party).

And I think this may point to a clue as to why there’s a generally willingness, not just in Ireland but in a lot of other countries, to continue accepting the advancement of religion as charitable. We think of religion as being defined by belief - if you believe in a supreme being or a supernatural order or whatever, you’re religious; if you don’t, you’re not. But whether an organization is charitable or not is determined ultimately by what it does, not what it believes. And, whatever your views about their core beliefs, it’s undeniably the case that religious bodies have been instrumental in a huge amount of undeniably charitable activity - schools, hospitals, elder care, relief of poverty, social care, even - as Bacik pointed out - celebrating weddings and funerals and such. And, more than that, they’ve undeniably been hugely instrumental in promoting the view that it’s important to do these things; they not only do charitable things themselves, but they strongly encourage both individuals and the community at large to take the moral obligation of charity seriously, and to do charitable things. So far as I can see, nobody else does this with quite the sustained enthusiasm that churches do.

In short, the presumption that religious bodies are charitable, whatever its limitations in theory, largely works in practice, even in societies considerably more secular than our own.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

it’s undeniably the case that religious bodies have been instrumental in a huge amount of undeniably charitable activity - schools, hospitals, elder care, relief of poverty, social care..............they not only do charitable things themselves, but they strongly encourage both individuals and the community at large to take the moral obligation of charity seriously, and to do charitable things.....

All true, in which case they should have no difficulty qualifying under the “purposes beneficial to the community” clause.
I see no reason for having a separate standalone clause, the “advancement of religion“ which qualifies a cult/religion as a charity, even if they display no purpose beneficial to the community. Why should "being a religion" automatically qualify them to be a charity?

I suspect its because a registered charity must plough all its income into charity work, not just some of it. Churches might have to split off their actual charity work into special tax exempt entities, leaving their other income exposed.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

All true, in which case they should have no difficulty qualifying under the “purposes beneficial to the community” clause.
I see no reason for having a separate standalone clause, the “advancement of religion“ which qualifies a cult/religion as a charity, even if they display no purpose beneficial to the community. Why should "being a religion" automatically qualify them to be a charity?

I suspect its because a registered charity must plough all its income into charity work, not just some of it. Churches might have to split off their actual charity work into special tax exempt entities, leaving their other income exposed.

No. It’s already the case that there are an awful lot of religious entities which are not registered charities because they fail that test. Veritas Publications Ltd, for instance, is a publisher, distributor and seller of religious books and periodicals. It’s wholly owned by the Irish bishops, and its stated purpose is to serve the needs of the Irish church. It undoubtedly passes the “advancement of religion” test. Nevertheless it’s not an authorized charity because it pays (or can pay) dividends to its shareholders, and so it is liable to Corporation Tax, etc, in the usual way. Dominican Publications is a similar entity owned by the Dominican Order; it’s not an authorized charity. And these examples could be multiplied. So religions already have to distinguish between their charitable and non-charitable entities.

Having as an object “the advancement of religion” doesn’t give you any kind of free pass with respect to the usual revenue requirements about central management and control, non-profit status, etc.

What it does do, as far as I can see, is get you a (rebuttable) presumption that your purpose is “of public benefit”. That probably makes very little difference to the likes of the Vincent de Paul, who would have absolutely no difficulty in satisfying that test, but it’s of more benefit to organizations like Trócaire, whose work is all done abroad. (“The public”, in charities law, generally means the public in Ireland). Now, nonreligious overseas aid charities do get authorized (Goal is on the list,for example) but as I understand it to get authorization they have to make the case that their objects are beneficial to the Irish public; Trócaire doesn’t have to make that case. (Presumably, they could make it if they had to.)

Secondly, the presumption of public benefit might be of use to a body whose purpose is very narrowly focused, and doesn’t include anything indisputably charitable, like the relief of poverty or the advancement of education. For example, is an enclosed convent a body with an object which is “of public benefit”? Is praying for the world “of public benefit”? Or what about a body which maintains a church or parish - is holding public worship “of public benefit”? The answer to these questions really depends on philosophical stances upon whose validity or truth the Revenue Commissioners are - ahem - ill-qualified to adjudicate. As the law stands, the Revenue Commissioners avoid that particular sh*tstorm, for which I suspect they are privately thankful.

Sarky

I occasionally have a look at the Iona wossname's website. I have yet to find a single article that doesn't sound bitter, crazy and/or hateful towards some group or other.

It's also a pretty shabby website. :eek:

Galvasean

Sarky wrote: »

I occasionally have a look at the Iona wossname's website. I have yet to find a single article that doesn't sound bitter, crazy and/or hateful towards some group or other.

It's also a pretty shabby website. :eek:

The closest one I saw was the recent on where they reported that 'over 90% of Irish Catholics believe in God' as if it were some kind of achievement.

Sarky

Galvasean wrote: »

The closest one I saw was the recent on where they reported that 'over 90% of Irish Catholics believe in God' as if it were some kind of achievement.

The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Having as an object “the advancement of religion” doesn’t give you any kind of free pass with respect to the usual revenue requirements about central management and control, non-profit status, etc.

I realise that. If Veritas pays dividends, it makes a profit and cannot be considered a charity. Even if the shareholders happen to be bishops.

My point is that if an organisation is "not for profit" it fulfills the first requirement to be a charity.
The second requirement is that all its energies and resources are devoted to some public good.

If a church devotes a small proportion of its resources to helping the poor, or even none at all, and the rest is spent within the church, it will still qualify as a charity on the "advancement of religion" cause.

Just as a school will still qualify on the "advancement of education" clause, even if they help nobody outside of their school community.

If a school qualifying as a charity is slightly suspect, then a religion qualifying is well dodgy. At least we all agree that education is "a good thing". Not so with religion.