high court rolls howard again, page-24

At the risk of repeating myself it was the ATO that wanted their charitable status changed, not Howard, and it was run as a test case.

The judges voted 5/2.

Interesting to note a dissenting comment:

In a dissenting decision, Justice Dyson Heydon said Aid/Watch, which describes itself as an activist group, did not have the goal of relieving poverty, providing no funds, goods or services to the poor and neither did it raise funds to be distributed to the poor by others.

"The purpose of providing aid to improve infrastructure might relieve poverty, but the appellant opposed infrastructure which damaged the environment," he said.

"One of its goals was to 'demand' a complete phase-out of support for extractive industries.

"These industries often damage the environment, but they also often bring wealth to many who would otherwise be poor"