NZ masons lose tax exempt status

[Azaziel]

This from another list


Masons lose bid over charity status
By Hamish Rutherford - BusinessDay.co.nz - 29 Sept 2010
Freemasonry's national executive is conceding defeat in its battle to maintain the charitable status it has held for decades.

Last year, the secretive society's highest body in New Zealand, the Grand Lodge, lost the tax-exempt status it had held since 1933.

Responsibility for determining charitable status was passed from the Inland Revenue Department to the Charities Commission in 2008, forcing thousands of organisations to reapply for tax exemptions.

High-profile organisations including Greenpeace and the Sensible Sentencing Trust have had their applications rejected.

Freemasons New Zealand appealed to the High Court last month, arguing that the Grand Lodge's primary activities were "beneficial to the community" and therefore charitable.

As well as directly charitable activities such as university scholarships (which the commission conceded were charitable), the lodge also teaches public speaking and lessons on ethics to its members, which it argued should also be considered charitable.

Acting for the Crown, Tania Warburton argued that many of the activities of the Grand Lodge were primarily for the benefit of its members, not the entire community. She said its membership, limited to men over the age of 21 who reached the rank of master mason, was too exclusive for a charity.

Judge Simon France rejected the Freemasons' appeal. He concluded that the activities of the Grand Lodge, and freemasonry in general, "do not benefit the public other than indirectly and intangibly by seeking to produce members who are better citizens".

Laurence Milton, the grand secretary for Freemasons New Zealand, said the decision meant the Grand Lodge would have to apply for separate charitable status for its Fund of Benevolence, which did most of its charitable work.

The administration and other activities of the Grand Lodge would now be subject to tax.

"We'd have liked the decision to have been in our favour, but it really won't affect our charitable activity all that much at all. It just means a bit more work for me and my office," Mr Milton said.

The organisation spent NZ$3 million to NZ$4m on charity in New Zealand each year.

¡Un Triple Abrazo Fraterno para todos!

Don't forget to sign your organ donor card!
¡No se olvide de firmar su tarjeta de donante de órganos!
Nelson

[Tamrin]

Oct 3, 2010 7:50:41 GMT 10 Azaziel said:

Acting for the Crown, Tania Warburton argued that many of the activities of the Grand Lodge were primarily for the benefit of its members, not the entire community. She said its membership, limited to men over the age of 21 who reached the rank of master mason, was too exclusive for a charity.

Judge Simon France rejected the Freemasons' appeal. He concluded that the activities of the Grand Lodge, and freemasonry in general, "do not benefit the public other than indirectly and intangibly by seeking to produce members who are better citizens".

Thanks for that Terry

We should also note that Senator Nick Xenephon and others are currently calling for similar Public Interest tests for 'charities' to be applied here, at least partly in reaction to Scientology's tax exempt status.

Another aspect is that of similar tests being applied to cases of discrimination by private clubs in the US, where Freedom of Association has a degree of constitutional protection. The courts there have determined that what is protected is an individual, rather than a corporate right to such freedom. Thus, a family or other small, selective group might fairly claim constitutional protection, but a large group, which apart from specific discrimination on the basis of race, sex, etc., is generally non-selective, is not exempt from anti-discrimination legislation (please bear-in-mind that candidates for Freemasonry are rarely black-balled).

Source: The Courts and Freemasonry: Case Histories that Have or Could Affect Freemasonry, by Alphonse Cerza, 1986, Anchor Communications, Highland Springs, Virginia, pp.35 / 40.

[brandt]

They will first has to prove that Freemasonry exists as a special organization in which business or politics is handled or advocated.
That is a rough row to hoe around here.

[Tamrin]

In the US there was the case of Roberts vs. United States Jaycees, in which the Supreme Court, on June 26, 1984, determined that the Jaycees were not entitled to exclude women and involvement in business or politics was not given as a factor in their decision (Cerza, op. cit., pp.37/40).

Here we have some remunerated positions in Grand Lodge restricted to Freemasons, the GL runs a shop, and its online forum has a category "Jobs Offered / Jobs Wanted."

[brandt]

Well then the GL just handed it to the courts. In the US I don't think that Masonry will be able to go too much longer as single sex. That is of course unless they extend recognition to mixed and feminine lodges on an equal level. I don't think that will happen.

Eventually it will happen. The Jaycees, unlike Masonry, have as their purpose business. Anglo-Saxon Masonry may be able to hold out for a while still in the USA. There are several tumultuous matters on the table with US politics right now.

[Tamrin]

Oct 13, 2010 14:06:47 GMT 10 @brandt said:

They will first has to prove that Freemasonry exists as a special organization in which business or politics is handled or advocated.
That is a rough row to hoe around here.

While discrimination in business or politics may be specifically prohibited, the limitations to Freedom of Association are not restricted to such activities. Regarding the US, I can see no mention of them in Cerza's consideration of cases which may affect Freemasonry. Elsewhere (emphasis added) we read:

However, the implicit First Amendment right of association in the U.S. Constitution has been limited by court rulings. For example, it is illegal in the United States to consider race in the making and enforcement of private contracts other than marriage or taking affirmative action. This limit on freedom of association results from Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Code, as balanced against the First Amendment in the 1976 decision of Runyon v. McCrary.

In countries, such as Australia, bound by the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and its optional Protocol, there may still be loopholes with respect to private clubs (discussed by Cerza with respect to the US). However such loopholes are in contravention of the all-encompassing Convention and almost certainly would not withstand a formal challenge (unless the States Party concerned had previously registered a formal Reservation, as Australia had done regarding maternity leave and combat duty, both of which are now being addressed anyway).

The US is a party to the Convention but never ratified its commitment. Your Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), already ratified by a large majority of states, would, if passed, have basically the same effect as the international Convention. Of the ERA and the current US position we read:

How has the ERA been related to single-sex institutions?

Even without an ERA in the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions in recent decades have increasingly limited the constitutionality of public single-sex institutions.

In 1972, the Court found in Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan that Mississippi’s policy of refusing to admit males to its all-female School of Nursing was unconstitutional. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in the majority decision that a gender-based classification may be justified as compensatory only if members of the benefited sex have actually suffered a disadvantage related to it.

In the Court’s 1996 United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia decision, which prohibited the use of public funds for then all-male Virginia Military Institute unless it admitted women, the majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that sex-based classifications may be used to compensate the disadvantaged class “for particular economic disabilities [they have] suffered,” to promote equal employment opportunity, and to advance full development of the talent and capacities of all citizens. Such classifications may not be used, however, to create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of the traditionally disadvantaged class, in this case women.

Thus, single-sex institutions whose aim is to perpetuate the historic dominance of one sex over the other are already unconstitutional, while single-sex institutions that work to overcome past discrimination are constitutional now and, if the courts choose, could remain so under an ERA.

[brandt]

side note: one of the ERA problems was that difference versions were circulating. There needed to be a meeting to work out the differences. That never happened. Since the United States Senate never ratified the Convention on the Elmination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women the US is not legally bound to it.

There is a great difference between public institutions and private clubs. A public institution, one that receives tax dollars, is subject to anti-discrimination laws. Private clubs that function as business networks are also subject to anti-discrimination laws. Private clubs that do not serve those functions are not required to admit any person as a member.

My Masonic lodge is mixed. I am also a Martinist which is traditionally mixed gender. I am also a member of the American Legion (a veterans' organization) which has a qualification for membership prior service in the armed forces. None of the above can be forced to accept any person as a member.

I am a strong proponent of equal rights under the law. A woman should be able to perform any job that she is personally capable of doing. Equal protection under the law is a idea that we should all support. Unfortunately we cannot enforce equal outcomes without falling into some dark and murky waters.

[Tamrin]

While involvement in business or politics may be a factor in specific legislation regarding private clubs, that is not the whole story. Rulings regarding the application of your Civil Rights Act of 1964 (section 201e) have ruled out exemption from the Act by relatively large or generally non-selective clubs.

What constitutes "large" is not specified in the US but in the UK (a case might be argued for comity) their Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 prohibits discrimination by associations with 25 or more members.

[brandt]

Many clubs and fraternal organizations have been forced by the court to admit women. You posted information on some of those already. Involvement in business and/or politics is a large factor in many cases. Other cases have been effected by the "mutually benevolent" function of the organization. The offer of life insurance and other such things make a club more vulnerable to claims of civil rights infractions.
I do expect to see more and more suits brought forward that address these issues and the corpus of statutory law is going to continue to grow. Personally I would like to see the passage of an equal rights amendment that is concisely and precisely defined.

[Tamrin]

Let us hope Freemasonry manages to catch-up with society before the courts catch-up with us (perhaps they haven't done so yet because we are thought to be irrelevant).