charties Flashcards
what are charities
help people for a chartiable purpose
most charities are trust but can also be companies and unicorportated associations
what are the benefits of becoming a chartiable status
into different catergories:
1) legal
beneficary principle doesnt not apply
perpetual existence - it can last forever
cy pres
2) adminstrative
state support - charties are govern by the chartiy commision - looking at charities funds for a better return
3) Financial
tax exemptions and benefits - income tax, copration tax, captial tax and incorpartion tax are not used in charties
donating to a charity = lower income tax
what does the charity commission do
1) regulator of charties
2) objectives and funcitions
3) decide if an organisation if chartiable
4) investigate charity mismanagement
what are the requirements for a chartibale status
three criteria
charitable purpose
for the public benefit
exclusively chartiable
what are the legislative basis of charties
charties act 2011
s1 (1) An institution established for chartiable purpose only
s2 (1) chartiable purpose
falls within any of the descriptions in s.3 (1)
be for the public benefit
what does it mean by charitable purpose
Charities under s3 (1) CA 2011 gives a list of purpose that a charity can fulfill
prior the original purposes were poverty, education and religion but this list has updated
which act falls into the prevention of poverty
s3 (1) (a) CA 2011 prevention or relief of poverty
this was added in 2006
CA - Re Coulthurst
Re Scarisbrick
Re Sanders
Re Niyazi
Re Gwyon
what act falls into the advancement of education
s.3 (1) (b) CA 2011
goes beyond formal education such as school and uni
board interpretation including anything that develops skills and competences
before 2006 - act and culture and sport used to be considered part of the educational purpose - but they have their own category
which act falls into the advancement of education research
s.3(1) (b) CA 2011
Re shaw - was not for advancement for education
whereas Re Hopkin was
CA - McGovern V AG
useful subject to study
public benefit
knowledge to pass on
under s3.1 (b) can politics be classed under the advancement of education
political purposes are not charitable
CA - bowman v secular society - main case - not always for the public benefit
CA - this cases sets out why political purposes cannot be charitable: McGovern - by pushing a political agenda, the views of a political party or influence political or change legislation = not charitable
CA - Re Hopkinson - was promoting policy objectives of the labor party = not charitable
CA - Re Koeppler - this case was teaching politics can be charitable
which act falls into the advancement of religion
s.3 (1) (c) CA 2011
s.3 (2) (a) CA 2011 in para (c) “religion” includes
1) a religion which involves belief in more than one god
2) a Religion which does not involve belief in a god
cases for advancement of religion
CA - thornton v howe - claimed that she was giving birth to the messiah = not charitable
CA - hodkin v registrar general of births, deaths and marriages (2013) - scientology case - failed by promoting morality and ethics is not charitable as advancement of religion
advancement of health or saving lives
s3(2)(b) CA 2011 states that the advancement of health includes “the prevention of relief of sickness, disease or human suffering”
advancement of citezenship or community development
s3(2)(c) CA 2011 - states that this includes rural and urban regeneration and the promotion of civic responsibility, volunteering etc.
advancement of the arts, culture heritage or science
art = abstract - charities concerned with the advancement of art need to satisfy a criterion merit
CA - re British school of archaeology - museums
CA - royal choral society - concerts
advancement of amateur sports
s3(2)(d) CA 2011 states that sport means sports/games which promote health by involving physical skill/ metal skill
public benefit
there is no exact definition but s4 CA 2011 - makes it clear that it remains governed by the law
what are the elements of public Benefit
CA- independent school council v charity commission for England and Wales [2011] and the attorney general v charity commission for England and Wales [2012]
1) the nature of the purpose must benefit the community
2) those who benefit must constitute a section of the public rather than a private class of individuals
explain what is meant by the nature of the purpose must benefit the community
1) there must be a benefit - can be direct/ indirect or tangible/intangible
2) something that demonstrates impact
CA - Gilmour v coats - needed proof
explain what is meant by the section of the public
every charity must provide a benefit which is available to either the public as a whole or sufficient section of the public
CA - Gilmour v coats - lord Simonds stated that the court may not use the same criteria for different types of charitable statuses
CA - IRC V Baddeley - lord Somervell - what constitutes a sufficient of the community depends on the nature of the purpose
what does it mean by the section of the public in terms of poverty
when a charity wants to alleviate poverty = stricter guidelines
the selection process for identifying beneficiaries could be more focused on a particular group/ set of conditions relating to poverty = making the eligibility criteria more hard
CA - re Scarisbrick’s - testator poor relations = the motive behind this was simply just for a gift
Dingle v turner - approved/ extended the poor relations cases to poor employees
personal nexus
this comes from the case of Oppenheim v tobacco securities trust
there are 2 characteristics of a section of the public
1) the number of possible beneficiaries should not be numerically negligible
2) the thing which the beneficiaries have in common is the way in which they are described they must not have a relationship to an individual - which is known to be a personal nexus
private perference
CA re koettgens - states that there is a clause that a preference should be given to employees of a particular company up to a max of 75% of the trust income
CA - IRC v educational grants association - had a personal nexus of 76% - 85% - this was not charitable
class within a class
CA - IRC v Baddeley - this was the case where there was a fund to benefit people of the Methodist religion living in west ham and Layton = this is an example of class within class - the first limitation was the people from the Methodist religion. the second limitation was that people living in west ham and Layton = not charitable
CA - Williams v IRC - the benefit the Welsh people living in London - first limitation was that they are benefiting the Welsh people
what is not chartiable
if they are not under the chartiable purposes under the charties act s3 (1)
benevolent public or desvering purposes
purposes which are chariable and non charitable
saving a charity
construction
severing the non charitable purpose
incidental non chariable purpose
cy-pres
