Jump to content
The World News Media

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have taken legal action against Australia’s charity watchdog...


Recommended Posts

  • Member

Jehovah’s Witnesses facing tax turmoil

The secretive Christian group has begun legal action against the charity watchdog after it quietly revoked the organisation’s tax-exempt status over concerns with its opaque global structure.   https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?offerset=ta_4for4_premium&sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnation%2Fjehovahs-witnesses-facing-tax-turmoil%2Fnews-story%2F64acd93d531eb6b7301dda758e7ee2ff&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D7EC7ED7628D12DA5-58A80C25FED2095D|MCORGID%3D5FE61C8B533204850A490D4D%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1618785359&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

I received this alert in my Google feed as well as the exjw who posted it.  I am not getting a subscription to the Australian newspaper to verify the article.  I'll leave that up to the readers here. I am sure it will come out in other news sites soon.  As usual, the organization puts money ahead of the lives of individuals.

This is the copied article supplied by the exjw:

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have taken legal action against Australia’s charity watchdog after it ­revoked the organisation’s tax-­exempt status over concerns with the religion’s opaque global donations structure and alleged failure to protect vulnerable people.

The organisation’s charitable arm, the Watchtower Bible and Tract ­Society of Australia, which posted an income of $32m in the year to August 31, has been ­accused of pushing cash offshore after directors splashed $16m of its total expenses on undisclosed­ ­donations and “overseas aid”.

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission informed Watchtower in November of its intention to revoke the ­organisation’s charity status, citing a litany of concerns about alleged contraventions of the Corporations Act and a failure to comply with a host of governance and conduct standards.

Lawyer and abuse survivor Alec Spencer, a PhD candidate at James Cook University, said the ACNC’s decision was comparable to the abolition of the so-called “Ellis defence” in NSW in 2018, which ended the Catholic Church’s long-standing immunity to lawsuits.

“If registration were to be removed, it would serve as a wake-up call for many other religious charities who have systemically failed to protect sexually abused children,” he said.

“The removal of charitable registration would be an extraordinary outcome, both for the commission and the religious charity sector in particular.”

The charity, which is seeking judicial review of the ACNC’s ­decision in the Federal Court, has been accused of “operating outside of Australia” and breaching its requirement to protect vulnerable people, including children, when conducting operations overseas.

In a statement, Watchtower ­director Terry O’Brien denied the ACNC had moved to strip the ­organisation of its charity registration. “The ACNC has assured the ­directors that they do not intend to revoke Watchtower Australia’s charity status,” Mr O’Brien said.

However, court documents filed last week reveal the ACNC sent a notice to revoke Watchtower’s charity registration to the group’s directors in November.

The ACNC has accused Watchtower’s directors of failing to comply with key conduct standards, including a requirement to disclose conflicts of interest and a requirement to protect children who are accessing benefits under the charity’s programs.

If the court upholds the ACNC’s decision, Watchtower will lose its status as a registered charity and will not be entitled to receive tax concessions, including lucrative tax breaks.

According to an application for judicial review filed by Watch­tower, the ACNC’s decision is ­“unlawful” and an “unreasonable and inappropriate exercise” of its discretion.

The organisation, which has nearly 70,000 members in Australia, has allocated almost $120m from 2014-20 to “donations and overseas aid”.

“As a donor, I would be very troubled by this,” Mr Spencer said. “And as a regulator, their hands are tied due to the differential treatment bestowed on basic ­religious charities.

“The ACNC could deregister a charity but the decision and why that occurs is not disclosed,” he said. “It allows them to operate in a cloud of secrecy.”

Watchtower argues that the decision contains multiple errors of law, including that the legislation confers “no function with respect to child protection” on the ACNC.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse warned that there were systemic problems within the ­Jehovah’s Witness religion in dealing with abuse, including a failure to report credible alle­gations to the police.

The commission heard Jehovah’s Witnesses had documen­tation of abuse allegations by 1800 children involving more than 1000 perpetrators since 1950.

Former church member and child abuse survivor Lara Kaput said revocation of Watchtower’s charity status would be a “watershed moment” if it were upheld by the Federal Court.

“They were reticent to revoke their charity status because the charity commission knew it would set a precedent, and they don’t want that to happen,” Ms Kaput said.

An ACNC spokeswoman said it was unable to comment on the “particular circumstances of a charity” and whether or not a charity was being investigated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Views 2.3k
  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just another thought.  Did the Wt. retract their "news" (hogwash) about God sending a typhoon to Micronesia?  I haven't seen a retraction as of yet. 

Jehovah’s Witnesses facing tax turmoil The secretive Christian group has begun legal action against the charity watchdog after it quietly revoked the organisation’s tax-exempt status over concern

@TrueTomHarley, If you'll remember at the outset, I said: If I was weaselly, I would not have brought the correction to this forum that the Australian made, as soon as I saw it. These word

  • Member
5 hours ago, Arauna said:

that is an opinion - your opinion... don't bother to reply in a barrage.

"For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing concealed that will not be brought to light."  Mark 4:22

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

We do give aid to others. And in this time of lockdown,  it has become crucial - so they need money to do this.... It does not fall like manna from heaven......

Then perhaps they could be transparent, instead of "opaque".  What do they have to hide?


14 hours ago, Witness said:

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have taken legal action against Australia’s charity watchdog after it ­revoked the organisation’s tax-­exempt status over concerns with the religion’s opaque global donations structure and alleged failure to protect vulnerable people.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 minutes ago, Arauna said:

They are transparent because they have made a court case.


15 hours ago, Witness said:

In a statement, Watchtower ­director Terry O’Brien denied the ACNC had moved to strip the ­organisation of its charity registration.

For now, this is the only statement that counts. It could change, but for now O’Brien is the way to go.

These other opposing characters live on fumes and wishful thinking, reporting the slightest rumor as fact. We have seen 4Jah quoting a lawyer’s advertisement for clients as though it were a news item. (and then not backing down when called on it!!) Well, no advertising would ever say something not true, is his position. Does it become clear why some here have unkindly called him a dodo?

Lloyd’s chum did the same, heralding rumor to the heavens, and then removing it. He certainly didn’t want to contribute to the “lying apostate” stereotype, and to prove it, he resolved to take down the mother of all lies he had posted, after it had registered with the gullible ones.


For now, it is enough to know that the underlying rationale is bogus—not completely hogwash, but shamelessly overstated, as Holly Folk pointed out:


Who knows? Should it turn out as Witness hopes, maybe Australia will become another France, which imposed a 60% tax on Witness finances that took many years for the ECHR to throw out as discriminatory.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Arauna said:

They are transparent because they have made a court case.

Anyone can make a court case and still lie, still cover their sins.  See the video.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

If they were hiding something they would just accept unfair treatment and keep quiet.

Firstly, if the Wt is hiding pertinent information, and it is found out, would the treatment doled out on them, be unfair?  Wt fights tooth and nail, whether they are right or wrong.       

1 Cor 6:7 - Actually, if you are bringing lawsuits against each other, it is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member



Correction from The Australian to yesterday’s story suggesting ACNC had withdrawn Watchtower’s charity status. This was false. (Article behind paywall, but someone sent me the content below)renderTimingPixel.png



 CORRECTION: If any readers understood an earlier version of this article as suggesting the ACNC had withdrawn Watchtower’s charitable status, The Australian withdraws that suggestion. The Jehovah’s Witnesses say they have resolved legal action with Australia’s charity watchdog. after it threatened to revoke their tax-exempt status in November last year. Watchtower ­director Terry O’Brien said the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission confirmed on April 14 that they would not be revoking the organisation’s charity status and that the matter had been closed. Mr O’Brien said The Australian’s suggestion that the ACNC had revoked their charitable status was false.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

What's the difference, YOU reposted it!! Own your own failures!!!

I "reposted" WTJWorg lies about 1941. Who are you going to blame? Me or WTJWorg Company?

Cartons of Children that had been deposited in The Arena were now opened, and Judge Rutherford instructed the children how to come and each get a copy thereof, those in the rear half of The Arena marching in two columns out through a side exit, and those in the front half of The Arena marching up over the platform and out through a rear exit. As the march began, the orchestra (minus all its children instrumentalists) struck up and rendered songs, "Children of the Heavenly King," "The Sword of the Lord and of Gideon," and "Who Is on the Lord's Side'" while the vast audience sang. Never was there a more moving Sight in these "last days". Many, including strong men, wept at the demonstration. Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided Instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon. What a gift I and to so many! The manner of releasing the new book Children was an outnght surprise to all, but the almighty hand of the All-wise One, Jehovah, was in it, and the maneuver was most blessed indeed. Thereafter Children, the author's edition, was disposed of to adult conventioners, on a contribution.    Wt, September 15 Page 288

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, Witness said:

Correction from The Australian to yesterday’s story suggesting ACNC had withdrawn Watchtower’s charity status. This was false.

Do I have a basis for yet another story of false news being so eagerly related and almost immediately thereafter declared hogwash? 


Yes, yes—big print. I got it, you ol battle ax—a prominent retraction.

Would that it would prevent your next breathless heralding of your wishful thinking as though fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
    • I'm not bothered by being singled out, as you seem to be accustomed to defending and protecting yourselves, but it's a good idea to keep your dog on a leash. Speaking of which, in a different thread, TTH mentioned that it would be great if everyone here shared their life stories. As both of you are the librarians here, I kindly ask you to minimize any signs of intimidation or insincerity. It is you people who need to be "banned" here. However, it is quite evident that you hold a negative influence, which God recognizes, therefore you are banned from your own conscience in His eyes.
    • One issue with historian Flavius Josephus is that he suggests that the Royal Captain of the (Guard) can also be regarded as General Nebuzaradan. A confusion arises from Josephus' account of the captives mentioned in Jeremiah, as he claims that they were taken from Egypt instead of Babylon. Since Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in Rilah, he directed his generals to lay siege to Jerusalem. This could potentially account for the numerous dispatches that Nebuchadnezzar would have sent to the west, but the considerable distance to Borsippa still poses a challenge. As a result, the Babylonians managed to gain control of regions such as Aram (Syria), Ammon, and Moab. The only territories that remained were the coastal cities, where the Egyptians held sway. King Josiah decided to form an alliance with Babylon instead of being under Egyptian rule. So, that part of the territory was covered until King Josiah was defeated.  It's interesting how they started back then in 4129, but still end up with the same conclusion with Zedekiah's Defeat 3522 607 B.C. 3419 607 B.C. even though their AM is different.  
  • Members

    • Mapanda

      Mapanda 0

      Last active:
    • BTK59

      BTK59 186

      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.