Supplied. The peculiar reply.
ODT 18.7.14 (page 16)
â The CST continues to be registered as a charitable trust with the Charities Commission. What is the trust’s current work all about? Are the trustees still being paid? From which funding source?
For more information, enter *carisbrook* in the search box at right.
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Filed under Business, Carisbrook, Construction, CST, DCC, DCHL, Democracy, Design, DVML, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, NZTA, ORC, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design
 | Paul on New Zealand Bill of Rights Act… |
 | Brent on New Zealand Bill of Rights Act… |
| Paul on Commercial residential, 143-19… |
| Paul on Commercial residential, 143-19… |
 | Elizabeth on Commercial residential, 143-19… |
 | Mike on LEAVE the Statue Alone âgormle… |
 | Rob Hamlin on Delta #EpicFail and Metiria Tu… |
 | Hype O'Thermia on Commercial residential, 143-19… |
| Hype O'Thermia on Delta #EpicFail and Metiria Tu… |
 | Peter on Delta #EpicFail and Metiria Tu… |
| Peter on Commercial residential, 143-19… |
| Hype O'Thermia on Delta #EpicFail and Metiria Tu… |
| Hype O'Thermia on Delta #EpicFail and Metiria Tu… |
 | Tom on LEAVE the Statue Alone âgormle… |
| Elizabeth on LEAVE the Statue Alone âgormle… |
What if? Dunedin... 
One assumes that this means that they have been made to report to the current ongoing investigation and at some point it will be published (and Malcolm’s just about fed up with people asking, I mean who do you think I am?).
I wish I could hold $26,000 parties.
The deed of the CSCT states that the CSCT was set up for three specific purposes only:- to build, own and run the replacement to Carisbrook. The conflict between these written objectives and the DCC’s decision to use that to conduct an ‘unbiased???’ feasibility analysis of all options including several perfectly sensible options that did not include building owning and running a new stadium is a commentary in itself.
As said replacement has now been completed for over three years, does not belong to the Trust and as the Trust has absolutely no role in running it, the Trust’s continued existence is puzzling.
The CSCT’s latest return, shown in the Charities Register, covering the period from mid 2012-13 is even more disconcerting:
1) They started the period with about $100,000 in the bank – Retained for exactly what purpose? This could have been chucked into the foobar black hole years ago, along with all the rest of our money.
2) They had four unpaid volunteers working half time for the entire period – Who were they, and exactly what were they doing?
3) They were given $260,000 during the period – By who and for exactly what purpose?
4) They record c. $330,000 as ‘trading costs’ – Trading exactly what, used motor cars? With whom were they trading, and to what end did this trading take place? Why was this trading so expensive? With the apparent exception of the DCC most people, including Presbyterian Support and the Salvation Army, are in trade to make money, not lose it.
5) A further c. $30,000 is recorded as service costs -Services for who and by whom and for exactly what?
At the end of this period of ‘donations’, ‘service’ and ‘trading’, the CSCT was pretty much cleaned out of its quarter million dollar plus donation and its $100,000 cash in the bank. Exactly who has this money now is anybody’s guess.
I heard Farry has told people he did it all voluntarily.
Malcolm Farry doing something for FREE?
“In an article to be released by the Trust” is an interesting phrase. Doesn’t sound as though this would be material that would form part of the investigation. Sounds more to me like some form of rebuff that will be being written by some spin doctors, with an outlet already primed like the very friendly and protective ODT. Looking at the members of the Trust, can anyone recall anything that has been written by any of them? All of the stuff I recall coming out of the Trust has been generated by people like The Marketing Bureau. And as for Farry doing anything voluntarily? He may have done some stuff over the years in this way, but this project was all about big money, really big money with many people getting paid the sort of money for a few hours work that would sustain others for years. How many people recall John Farry’s comment about his income from the sale of the milk treatment station site on Anzac Avenue as being a “piss in the bucket”. $1.8m as I recall. Some piss. And can you imagine Malcolm not wanting some of that for himself?
Do you think John Farry might have been suffering from ‘prostatic hyperplasia’? That could be why he was pissing in a bucket. Just a thought.
Rob, one would assume that these staggering financial details of just one year of a non functioning trust the CSCT, would be taken into account by Sue Bidrose in the course of her full analysis of the whole Stadium project. This of course would be due to the only income the CSCT has ever had, to the public’s knowledge, come from the DCC. I wonder?
Russell,
In this article “to be released by the Trust”, it will be interesting to see if they finally declare the full amount paid to Malcolm Farry and other Trustees. Given the CST attempted to withhold information from the Charities Commission and given they made no declaration or note in their financial statements I won’t be holding my breath for a full disclosure.
On a totally unrelated note, I was asked a day or so ago whether it was possible for a totally uncharitable individual to make money by giving to charity.
The answer is yes, itâs possible – but the rules in the jurisdiction concerned have to be set up a certain way, and you have to have, at a minimum, massive influence over the charity and preferably total control/ownership (and secrecy – beyond a sufficiently uninformative charity financial reporting minimum requirement ).
Given this level of influence/ownership/control/secrecy, the additional requirements are that charitable donations are tax deductible against income; that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income and that charities are allowed to engage in trade. It would also be helpful if the charity in question had specific clauses in their constitution that allowed trade transactions with related parties (which could include major donors among others).
If all thatâs a âgoâ, then hereâs how one might proceed. Let us assume that, within this particular jurisdiction, the top marginal rate of income tax is 50% and that capital gains tax is zero:
1) Gain influence or control over said charity â Letâs say itâs a âgrow your
own veg.â charity.
2) Donate $100,000 to this charity
3) Buy an old flower pot for $1 (If you already have one, then you can
save the buck)
4) Get the same charity to engage in trade to buy this âheritage, prisoner
of warâ flower pot for $100,000.
5) Record the $99,999 profit as a one off, ânot in tradeâ (on your side),
capital gain on your tax return. This is therefore not taxable.
6) On the same tax return, claim tax relief at the top marginal rate (50%)
on your earlier $100,000 donation to the same charity.
7) Pocket the refund. If you do your sums, you will find that you end up
$50,000 ahead for the year.
8) If you do your sums further, you will discover that the annual fiscal
outcome for the charity is neutral (trading losses = donations).
One may therefore repeat this exercise at any scale and for as long
as nobody asks any awkward questions. Thatâs unlikely if there are
gazillions of other small and quiet charities around, and your charity
does nothing to draw attention to itself.while this is going on.
9) If you continue to do this on a large enough scale and for long
enough you may, as an additional sardonic bonus, be able to
arrange (via your mates) the award of a gong as a reward for your
âgenerosityâ to the community that you are actually fleecing.
Iâm not saying that this actually happens anywhere. Dear me â no, and most especially not in our own incorruptible and charitable Godzone! Iâm just saying that itâs possible – if the conditions are exactly right in a particularly unfortunate jurisdiction – and if there are enough amoral, unscrupulous opportunists and blind regulators around and about.
Rob,
Wouldn’t the IRD be interested in this ‘grow your own vegies’ charity?
If we are considering a hypothetically typical IRD service within this equally hypothetical jurisdiction, then I would suspect that the answer would be ‘No’ at the investigating officer level – Not if they know what’s good for them!
Remember Newton’s Fourth Law of Gravity – You cannot s**t on people from below, but they can most assuredly s***t on you (or get their appropriately positioned mates to do so on their behalf)!
Site Admin.
I’m so glad everyone is being hypothetical here.
Another way to do this is:
– purchase art for $100,000
– sit on it for a while
– get it revalued at $1,000,000
– donate it to a museum
– pocket tax on the donation at your high marginal rate
This isn’t just hypothetical, it has been a common practice in the US (by those who can afford expensive art).
I’m very happy with veracity of the hypothetical – just watching my risk. Writers are safe when they use creative description and allusion, staying carefully off the bone.
The rule of thumb is that any entity in New Zealand that contains the word “Trust” or words “Charitable Trust” in its name, is more than likely to engender quite the opposite meaning.
My COD defines ‘Trust’ as 1. firm belief in the honesty, veracity, justice, strength etc.of a person or thing. In all, there are 14 definitions ranging from reliance on truth, responsibility arising from confidence reposed in one, obligations, brains?, rely on the character or behaviour of, place reliance on. Much more detail of course, but nowhere can I fit the CST into meeting any of those criteria. Seems something of an anachronism to me. Could it be intentional? Surely not.
Calvin. You are looking in the wrong dictionary for the meaning of ‘trust’. Look up the ‘Concise Farry Dictionary’ for the word. That should help you.
Anon, I can’t read ‘Yiddish’.
Lebanon has a mighty mix of religions, mostly Christian, Greek Orthodox >>> Jews v much a minority. The Lebanese who settled in Otago-Southland were Christians, though pretty much marginalised in the early days as was the custom with Johnny Foreigner. F’goodness sake, the blighters didn’t even speak English and their food was definitely foreign, what-what! Foreigner from middle east = = Jews, further proof being that they went into trading and did very well at it overall. Jews, skypoos, near enough eh, different from therefore axiomatically inferior to Scots and English and other pale decent people who would never use olive oil as a foodstuff, it was for cleaning out ears, everyone knew that.
Yiddish is the splendidly colourful language that’s as much of a linguistic mongrel as English, and is the “common” language of Jews, as Hebrew is the formal language. In Lebanon Arabic is the main language but French is big and English is gaining ground rapidly. The Yiddish dictionary won’t be much help for understanding “Farry reasoning” such as how the Fubar Stadium was supposed to be an asset to all the rest of us, and the meaning of trust.
Hype: um I think that Islam might be practised there too (perhaps by most people) – however a more recent Lebanese Immigrant tells me that historically “religion” in Lebanon has been a rather fungible quantity with people taking on whichever made sense at a particular time, and families might consist of people who identify as Muslim (of various stripes), Christian (of various stripes) or even Jewish – people have been living there for a very long time.
There aren’t a lot of native Yiddish speakers any more, most are getting old – lots of great words live on in English
Of course when the Lebanese families arrived in Dunedin they arrived to a city with a prosperous respectable Jewish community – the Hallensteins, Ethel Benjamin (having a house named after her at OGHS today), the Theomins (of Olveston fame). John Key is NZ’s 3rd Jewish prime minister – Otago’s Julius Vogel, founder of the ODT, being of course the first – like the Farrys and other immigrant groups they have intermarried and become part of all of us.
In general I think that putting people down because of their background is borderline racism, by all means point out Malcolm’s actual failures and not cast about tarring everyone with the same ancestry with his sins.
Yes, the Lebanese “religion” story is splendidly complicated. The older Lebanese people I knew – now mostly dead – were from Christian “stock”. It appears to be a country that changes and adapts, and has done so for centuries. I hope it does not get stuck in long hard-line compulsory adherence to any religious or politican ideology, though that’s a nastiness that seems to be spreading.
My fondness and respect for the Lebanese people I knew makes me uneasy when Malcolm Farry’s background is brought into discussion of his own actions.
My God, but you can learn some stuff on this site! Clean my ears out with olive oil. Now I didn’t know that. An absolute gem.
Olive oil, how to clean out dead bugs from the ear? However, the site appears to have some live ones that could be poached. Monitoring.