Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 203

Philanthropy is growing, but what’s the best way to give?

With 30 June approaching, charities are ramping up their fundraising campaigns, reminding people that they can make tax deductible donations before the end of the financial year. The challenge for donors is finding the most effective way to give.

Private and public ancillary funds are rapidly increasing in popularity, and enable an individual or family to put aside a chunk of money in a trust to support charities over the long term. It’s good news for charities. The most recent ATO tax statistics (for the 2014-15 year) show total deductible giving by Australian taxpayers increased by 18% in 2014-15 to just over $3 billion. About 75% of this increase came from the most wealthy Australians (those with total incomes over $500,000). Those with incomes over $1 million donated the equivalent of 3.4% of their taxable income in 2015, up from 2% the previous year. An increase in donations to ancillary funds was a significant part of the uplift.

How ancillary funds work

Private ancillary funds (PAFs) were introduced in Australia in 2002. A PAF is a type of charitable trust that allows an individual or family to put aside a chunk of money for charitable purposes in perpetuity. The individual donates capital into it and gets an immediate tax deduction for the donation. The capital is then invested long-term, and a minimum of 5% of the value of the PAF assets must be distributed as grants to charities each year. To be eligible, a charity must have Deductible Gift Recipient Item 1 status, and there are over 20,000 charities to choose from.

By their nature, PAFs are a vehicle for the wealthy – most people donate upwards of $500,000 to kick one off. However, there is an alternative, usually for smaller amounts.

A public ancillary fund (PuAF) has the same tax advantages as a PAF but is a communal structure. Unlike a PAF, there is no requirement to establish a new trust or trustee company, so a named sub-fund can be established immediately. It can be set up in a few days before 30 June, and there’s no set-up cost to do this. For example, a sub-fund in the Australian Philanthropic Services Foundation can be established with $50,000. A minimum of 4% of the PuAF assets must be given away each year, slightly lower than with a PAF, and the same range of charities can be supported.

A sub-fund in a PuAF can be a great way to grow your philanthropic pot. Portability is allowed which means, for example, that someone could set up a sub-fund in a public ancillary fund, grow the balance over a few years, and then transfer the funds to their own PAF later.

Leading to more structured giving

This proliferation of charities can make deciding where to give an overwhelming task. It takes time to think through the projects worth supporting and the desired impact, especially if you’re involving others, such as family members, in the decision. In my role, I often hear people say that before they set up a sub-fund or PAF, they gave reactively, responding to fundraising appeals, phone calls and events. Over time, as they gave away more, they felt they were being increasingly ineffective.

Establishing a philanthropic structure provides a solution. Rather than having to make a quick decision, a PAF or sub-fund allows an immediate tax deduction while the choice of charity can be made at a later stage when there is more time for research. The founder can spend time articulating what they are passionate about and the types of causes they want to support. Some people like to fund those areas that are overlooked by government, or to support slightly riskier, pilot projects that seek to find new ways to respond to some of society’s most entrenched and difficult issues. Others like to support those long-standing charities that they know and trust. There is no right or wrong answer, but taking the time to consider where you want to donate leads to greater satisfaction that your charitable dollar is making a difference.

A philanthropic structure can also be an important investment in the future. Multi-year funding commitments are easier as the PAF or sub-fund founder knows the money is already set aside, and the charity has the benefit of knowing they have a revenue stream for the next few years. Involving younger family members can help to increase childrens’ social awareness, inspire future generations, and ensure the founder’s philanthropic legacy continues.

In the next 10 to 20 years, baby boomers will be retiring, selling family businesses or passing away, setting in motion an enormous transfer of wealth to the next generation. People often think of donating after they’ve had a particularly good year, retirement payment or inheritance. Ancillary funds are likely to continue to grow as people ponder what to do with philanthropic plans and charities will reap the benefits over the long-term.

 

Antonia Ruffell is CEO of Australian Philanthropic Services (APS), a not-for-profit organisation that sets up and administers private ancillary funds, offers a public ancillary fund, and provides grant-making advice. Chris Cuffe is the pro bono Founder and Chairman of APS.

RELATED ARTICLES

Charitable giving and tax deductions

Maximising the impact of charitable giving

The $1 billion quiet achiever in Australian philanthropy

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.