Greenpeace – working for others.

13 comments on “Greenpeace – working for others. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. BernyD 1

   4 September 2012 at 3:09 pm

   So they get retrospectively taxed because they stepped on toes.
   Just another stick to threaten people with.
2. Blue 2

   4 September 2012 at 3:56 pm

   No they get retrospectively taxed because they are a Multinational Corporate Giant making millions. No different to any other, except they wear a charitable facade.
   • lprent 2.1

     4 September 2012 at 5:14 pm

     Apart from GST and other sales taxes – how does a non-profit organisation get taxed? If you don’t make a profit then you don’t get taxed on the profit.

     Still a pathetic dickhead I see – even after your long break…
     • Fortran 2.1.1

       5 September 2012 at 2:22 pm

       The ability to “Not make a profit” is not difficult at all.
       As a not for profit organisation no proper audits are necessary.
       Have you never heard of Head Office expenses overseas – the Aussie Banks all do it as a way to reduce their whatever liabilities in New Zealand.
       Of every dollar give to Greenpeace a fixed portion (40% I think) is automatically channeled offshore.
       I have asked often for a copy of the accounts, before subscribing, and have been told there are none available.
       • lprent 2.1.1.1

         5 September 2012 at 3:08 pm

         As a not for profit organisation no proper audits are necessary.

         Complete and utter bullshit. I’ve done work around a number of medium to large not-for-profit’s at various times as well as a few smaller ones especially when I was doing system support decades ago. Their accounting practices are more pedantic and nit-picky than most of the for-profit’s for the obvious reason that they’re usually a damn sight shorter on reliable income and they are directly accountable to the regulatory body that gives them whatever status they have. I’ve often worked with their auditors and helped when they have had the IRD or charities commission or even WINZ or the lotteries board peering at their transactions.

         Head Office expenses

         Which is still not a “profit”. If a organisation is using services from another part of the same organisation like their management, computers, lawyers, accountants, funds, etc then they are usually expected to pay for those services as expenses.

         The legislation, IRD, auditors, stakeholders, various accountants, and lawyers set what is permissible to expense to parent organisations based on actual usage of resources regardless of what type of organisation it is. There are whole frigging areas of accounting and law devoted to the topic of allocating overhead expenses.

         Profit is what is made AFTER expenses.

         There is a particular area that you are probably straining towards is that the NZ Greenpeace will be contributing towards campaigns that are run outside of NZ like the rainbow warrior and the like. Well duh! That is what they are set up to do. The purposes of any organisation especially trusts and charities are set in their charters or other binding documents. If you want to know what they are not permitted to do, then read them, some of the law binding the organisation, whatever the IRD and/or other regulatory bodies state they must do, and whatever documents that they are required to make public.

         Or even better in this case just read the greenpeace website which is pretty clear about what they do. I can’t be arsed to look up the link – it is kind of hard to miss.

         I suspect you have bugger all idea what in the hell goes on at the accounting levels of ANY organisation. Moreover I suspect that like the many of the supremely confident but terminally ignorant you are projecting what you’d like to happen legally rather than what is actually set down in law. Rather than exerting effort to find out, you make inane comments so people who do make the effort educate you.

         A lazy wishful thinking fool in other words…

         Typically at this point I’ll hear some whining about how nasty I am.. 😈 But I really like putting the effort in to make the lesson stick. It is fun for me…
   • mike e 2.2

     4 September 2012 at 5:22 pm

     Yeah right Blue its just a bullying tactic to silence a very big thorn in the side of big corporates and their pathetic little trolling yes men who can only follow and never lead except when theirs money in it.
3. ghostwhowalksnz 3

   4 September 2012 at 5:06 pm

   Arent they a ‘non profit’ ? So I dont think they pay tax on ‘profits’ anyway.

   IRD : A non-profit organisation is any society, association or organisation (incorporated or not):
   that is not carried on for the profit or gain of any member, and whose rules do not allow money, property or any other benefit to be distributed to any of its members.

   The Charity status is all about getting donations from supporters to be tax deductible for the donor.

   A little bit of honesty about the real purposes of the court appeal wouldnt go astray ?

   And this from IRD is interesting.
   “However, if a charity runs a business, it may not be liable for income tax on any profits that it uses for charitable purposes within New Zealand.”
   • lprent 3.1

     4 September 2012 at 5:09 pm

     I didn’t put it in the post however the post (and press release) state this at the base

     NOTE: GREENPEACE has not lost its donee status which allows our supporters to make tax deductable donations. The IRD determines if organisations meet the test for donee status while the Department of Internal Affairs determines which organisations meet the criteria for charitable status.
     • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1.1

       4 September 2012 at 5:49 pm

       So they want to get tax free profits from their businesses then. There doesnt seem to be a point to the expensive court battle ?
4. fnjckg 4

   4 September 2012 at 5:09 pm

   Wow! a multitude of mesmerizing articles in todays Standard
   (faster broadband, faster faster)
5. xtasy 5

   4 September 2012 at 11:17 pm

   How bizarre – “The Elizabethan Statute” or what it is called.

   So promoting religion and public prayer qualifies?

   Greenpeace are clearly advancing education by informing about environmental issues and dangers, and they are wanting to protect the environment, which is beneficial to the community. They are also not politically aligned, nor do they put a political agenda forward, as they do not bind themselved to any party or political organisation.

   As much as many churches and other religions organisations may offer charitable services, some also are good at getting money out of members, like the Mormons do with their 10 per cent tithing, which partly goes into advancing their church and building more churches, propagating their interpretation of religion and sending out missionaries to “convert” more.

   Yet that is accepted as a “charitable” organisation, as the register tells me.

   It sounds more like legalistic hair splitting, to create more problems for Greenpeace, as the government and they “system” it upholds consider them a “thorn in their side”.

   Maybe just start “prayer meetings” before and after activities? Bang, “charitable purpose”, and you should likely “qualify”.
6. captain hook 6

   5 September 2012 at 6:46 am

   so far greenpeace is the only organisation that sticks up for the trees and the whales while the rest of the world indulges itself in a frenzy of external referencing by psychological comparisons of the size of its car to the size of its dick.
   greenpeace needs every penny to combat the destruction of the planet by pinheads.
7. lprent 7

   5 September 2012 at 6:49 am

   As a side issue. We’re getting some greenpeace banners coming through. I approved them the other day which is why I was poking around the greenpeace site yesterday. And I see that they are there this morning.

   They are freebies ads filling otherwise unused advert space.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS