Charities – Charging and Taxation/Trading

?
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 07-04-17 23:12
CA 2011, s 1(1)
a ‘charity’ = est’d for charitable purposes only
1 of 53
CA 2011, s 2(1)
charitable purpose = (a) falls within s 3(1); (b) is for public benefit
2 of 53
CA 2011, s 3(1)(a)
Prevention or relief of poverty
3 of 53
CA 2011, s 3(1)(b)
Advancement of education
4 of 53
CA 2011, s 3(1)(c)
Advancement of religion
5 of 53
CA 2011, s 3(1)(d)
Advancement of health or the saving of lives; including prevention of or relief of sickness, disease or human suffering
6 of 53
CA 2011, s 3(1)(e)
Advancement of citizenship or community development; including rural or urban regeneration and the promotion of civic responsibility, volunteering, the voluntary sector or the effectiveness or efficiency of charities
7 of 53
CA 2011, s 3(1)(f)
Advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science
8 of 53
CA 2011, s 3(1)(g)
Advancement of amateur sport
9 of 53
CA 2011, s 3(2)(d)
sport=sport or games which promote health by involving physical or mental skill or exertion
10 of 53
CA 2011, s 3(1)(h)
Advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity
11 of 53
CA 2011, s 3(1)(i)
Advancement of environmental protection or improvement
12 of 53
CA 2011, s 3(1)(j)
Relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadv
13 of 53
CA 2011, s 3(2)(e)
including relief given by the provision of accommodation or care to such persons
14 of 53
Helena Partnerships Ltd v HMRC (2012)
mere provision of housing accommodation, otherwise than for those in some relevant charitable need is not a charitable purpose
15 of 53
CA 2011, s 3(1)(k)
Advancement of animal welfare
16 of 53
CA 2011, s 3(1)(l)
Promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown or the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services
17 of 53
CA 2011, s 3(1)(m)
Other purposes currently recognised as charitable and any new charitable purpose which is reasonably analogous to another charitable purpose
18 of 53
Human Dignity Trust v Charity Commission (2014)
including, e.g. promoting sound administration of the law
19 of 53
CA 2011, s 4(1)
To be charitable, the s 3(1) purpose must be for public benefit
20 of 53
Re John Duffy (2013)
Here, a legacy to help fund an old people’s home for general benefit of its residents and staff held not charitable under head (j); held: a gift for benefit of no more than 33 residents at a particular care home could not be regarded as a gift to a s
21 of 53
CA 2011, s 4(2)
In determining whether there is a public benefit, it is not to be presumed that a purpose of a particular description is automatically for the public benefit
22 of 53
CA 2011, s 17
Charity Commission is obliged to publish guidance from time to time providing its interpretation of what will satisfy the public benefit requirement
23 of 53
Preston Down Trust (2014)
Here, PB issue re advertising: Commission satisfied with notice boards being erected to publicise services and some attempts at making entrances more visible; visitors still excluded from Communion services
24 of 53
Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust (1951)
‘blood and contract’ rule/’personal nexus test’ – there must be no nexus between charity and those reciving an education
25 of 53
Re Koettgen’s Will Trust (1954)
Here, trust est’d to further education of British-born persons, with a direction that preference be given to employees of a particular company re 75% of the fund; held: trust was primarily for the public, a mere pref being given to employee’s familie
26 of 53
IRC v Educational Grants Association Ltd (1967)
However, a trust to advance education was set up by the Metal Box Company; evidence showed that over 80% of payments went towards education of children connected to the company; re those payments, trust was held not to be charitable
27 of 53
ISC v Charity Commission [2011]
If the education provided by private schools was free, it would be charitable. The question then was whether charging fees precluded charitable status. Provided a school’s constitution did not exclude the poor there are a number of ways in which it
28 of 53
Re Scarisbrick (1951)
Here, relief of poverty was considered to be of such an altruistic nature that it must be for the public benefit
29 of 53
A-G v Charity Commission (The Charity Commission Poverty Reference) (2012)
Supported recently here; held: there is no need for a charity established for the relief of poverty to meet the needs of a sufficiently large sector of the population. It is sufficient that it is for the relief of poverty
30 of 53
Dingle v Turner [1972]
a bequest to pay ‘poor employees’ pensions from a fund left by the testator was held to be charitable
31 of 53
Re Segelman [1996]
It is sufficient that the relief of poverty is of general benefit to the community, and there is no requirement that those who benefit directly should necessarily be a large group, and there are some decisions which benefit only a very small group of
32 of 53
Gilmour v Coates (1949)
The religion must benefit a sufficient section of the community; here, property was left on trust for a Carmelite convent; Carmelites are a contemplative order who do not venture outside convent walls; held: prayer and spiritual belief alone were of
33 of 53
Society of the Precious Blood (1995)
However, here, Anglican nuns held to be charitable; these nuns were not cut off from the outside world; they worked in the community and provided classes and talks
34 of 53
Preston Down Trust (2014)
Charity Commission: would allow Brethren church to register for charitable status; there was a clear statement of doctrine and evidence of faith in practice; on balance, benefit to public outweighed any detriment and harm from the doctrine and practi
35 of 53
CA 2011, s 1(1)(a)
The property must be capable of dedication to charitable purposes only
36 of 53
Morice v Bishop of Durham (1805)
Where a gift is given for a no of specific purposes it will not be a valid charitable trust unless all the purposes are charitable; here, a gift for “benevolent purposes” held not exclusively charitable as some benevolent purposes are not charitable
37 of 53
Re Ward (1941)
The word “or” imports an alternative and is said to be disjunctive
38 of 53
Farley v Westminster Bank (1939)
Here, a gift made to a vicar for “parish work”; charitable nature of gift challenged as not exclusively charitable; held: not exclusively charitable; phrase “parish work” = too wide and not directly linked to the religious office; possibility was tha
39 of 53
Re Simson (1946)
Here, gift to named vicar for “his work in the parish” challenged as not exclusively charitable; held: gift was suff’y limited to his religious function and was exclusively charitable
40 of 53
Re Best (1904)
Held: “charitable and benevolent” = exclusively charitable; although “benevolent” is open to a non-charitable meaning, the words were linked to an overt charitable purpose by the use of the word “and”
41 of 53
Re Eades (1920)
Presence or absence of punctuation may be important; here, references made to “religious, charitable and philanthropic” purposes; use of comma after “religious” indicated that each class was separate and disjunctive and, thus, it was not exclusively
42 of 53
Salusbury v Denton (1857)
In default of apportionment, the court will divide the fund equally and the trust will be valid as to the charitable half
43 of 53
Re Coxen (1948)
Here, fact that testator directed that £100 of a charitable fund of £200,000 could be used for a dinner for the trustees did not stop the trust from being exclusively charitable; the non-charitable aspect was merely ancillary to the main charitable p
44 of 53
Bowman v Secular Society (1917)
Traditional reasoning: court has no means of judging whether a proposed change in the law will or will not be for the public benefit
45 of 53
McGovern v Attorney General (1982)
If there is an aim to change the law, to promote a particular political party or theory or to seek to change govt’l policy either here or abroad it is not charitable
46 of 53
National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC (1948)
Here, money given to further cause of anti-vivisection; held: moral benefit resulting to mankind was outweighed by the detriment that would be suffered by medical research if experiments were not allowed on live animals; case failed also because it h
47 of 53
Re Hopkinson (1949)
Here, a trust to educate public in aims of a political party (Labour) could not be charitable as it amounted to political propaganda and was not exclusively educational
48 of 53
Human Dignity Trust v Charity Commission (2014)
held: a company, which had been est’d to support inds whose human rights had been violated by helping them to litigate, interpret and enforce those rights, did not have a political purpose preventing it from being reg’d as a charitable organisation
49 of 53
LAA 1976, s 3
‘small lotteries’ – total value of prizes must not exceed £250; no cash prizes; the sale and issue of tickets and the announcement of results must be carried out during the entertainment and on the premises where it is held
50 of 53
LAA 1976, s 5
 ‘society’s lottery;: more tightly regulated; gen public can be invited to participate; can only be conducted by a body registered with the Gambling Commission, or with a local authority, depending on the size of the lottery business. Charities and
51 of 53
Charity Commission: Trustees, trading and tax: how charities may lawfully trade (CC35, 2017)
Taxation/Funding and TSs
52 of 53
CA 2006, s 9
The names of trading subsidiaries ought to be distinct from those of their parent charities to avoid confusion of identity. Company law also contains other restrictions on the choice of names
53 of 53

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

charitable purpose = (a) falls within s 3(1); (b) is for public benefit

Back

CA 2011, s 2(1)

Card 3

Front

Prevention or relief of poverty

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Advancement of education

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Advancement of religion

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Equity & Trusts resources »