SPIEGEL: What do you think of the Minister of Finance's plan to grant clubs only the tax benefits of charitable status by including men and women as members?
Fine: Neither is it clear what he exactly wants, nor whether it is necessary. First it was said that it was about clubs, "basically no women" record. This is tricky, because it only targets pure men's and not women's clubs. Then there were voices that charitable status should not be eliminated if there was a "factual reason" for the exclusion of men or women. That is already valid right now.
SPIEGEL: Since when is this?
Fine: The Federal Finance Court has decided in 2017. Either Olaf Scholz just wants to write something in the law, which is already regulated. Then it is superfluous. Or he wants to go beyond that. In my opinion, that would be out of place - and possibly unconstitutional.
SPIEGEL: As an example of a valid factual reason for being restricted to one gender, Scholz's ministry names associations that "campaign for the elimination of existing gender-related disadvantages".
Fine: If that was the only legitimate reason, that would be tricky. Even a men's singing club can rely on a factual reason. Basically a sports club that only accepts men or only women - sports are held in separate sex competitions.
SPIEGEL: A feminist club could appeal to such a factual reason, an association that represents men's interests, but not?
Fine: Decisive here is actually the external effect - if there is such an external effect that benefits the general public, it already results in the public interest, even if an association only men or women. This is the case with an association that promotes equal rights for women.
SPIEGEL: Could it not be a factual reason, if an association wants to deal specifically with questions of the male self-image? For example, if an association aims to prepare male refugees for what they need to change in their traditional role understanding in order not to offend them, especially women?
Fine: Yes. Such an association could argue that its purpose requires that these men make that up among themselves. Just as it may be a concern of a women's association to eliminate existing disadvantages, it may be the concern of a men's association to deal - possibly critically - with the male gender role. At any rate, it can not be that only women-specific interests are legitimate. However, the confrontation with the male role model would have to be the purpose of the club. A pure male circle, which is born simply out of tradition, I would rather see skeptical so far.
SPIEGEL: What about shooting clubs, some of which apparently only men today?
Fein: They would not have it easy, according to current law, to be considered a charitable organization. Maybe it depends on the concrete realization of the purpose of the association. But how many such clubs are there?
SPIEGEL: In your view, there is no need for legal reforms?
Fine: Oh yes, for example in the international cooperation of non-profit organizations - there are so far no uniform rules. Many relief organizations are left with the question alone, to whom one may pass like means and which proof obligations to the tax office are to be fulfilled. And then there's the Attac question ...
SPIEGEL: ... ... the politically committed association whose non-profit status was judicially revoked.
Fine: The Federal Finance Minister has indeed said that he wants to expand the catalog of charitable purposes, so that Attac also falls. But I think that's wrong. There should be a third form between non-profit associations and parties, for organizations that are not parties but still have a political agenda. Then you could delineate the clean from each other.