Charitable Trusts Flashcards
(21 cards)
Intro
charities act 2009 - now provides a definition of charity fr the purpose of trusts. it puts the common law classification of charity into statutory footing.
S2(1) - for a gift to be charitable it must be for a charitable purpose
S3(1) - lists out what can be charitable ( also set out my lord Machnaghten in Commissioner of income tax v Pemsel)
S3(2) - In order for any of the four categories to be charitable they must satisfy the public benefit requirement
Re Worth library - the court favours charities
they don’t have to satisfy the certainty of objects requirement like private trusts - Re Brown
They are perpetual in nature as the rule against inalienability does not apply.
Exempt from income tax and capital gains tax
what categories must a trust fall into for it to be a charitable purpose along with being for public benefit
- relief of poverty (now prevention or relief of poverty or economic hardship)
- advancement of Education
- Advancement of Religion
- Other purposes benficial to the community
what does s.3 (2) require
that it must fall into a category and be for public benefit
public benefit requirement
S.3 (2)
S.3(3) benefit the public or section of it
s3(7) - must consider of there are any limitations as to who might benefit and if so determine whether it is justifiable and reasonable having regard to the gift.
S3(8) - these limitations will not be justifiable if there is a personal connection to the donor. (s2(2)(a) - siblings, spouse grandparents, parents etc.) Tobin - effectively impossible for poor relations cases to survive now)
S.3 (11) - sets out the list of charitable purposes beneficial to the community
RELEIF/ PREVENTION OF POVERTY
Re Coulhurst - poverty does not mean destitution rather it means persons who have ‘to go short’
IRC V Badderly - there may be good charity for the relief of persons who are not in grinding need’
CONTRAST
Re Cullimores Trust - mere kindness, benovelonce on the testators part is not enough to constitute a charitable trust - there must be an element of poverty or need
Re Sanders Will Trust - gift to provide houseing for working class families was not valid
BUT
Re Niyazis Wills trust - trust towarss the the construction of a working mens hostel was upheld
Re Gwyon - foundation for shorts of boys was not charitable as there was restrictions which excluded poorer families
Relief of poverty - Public benefit requirement.
BIEHLER - prior to 2009 act ROP was easy to satisfy
HANBURY AND MARTIN - say the PB requirement has become almost non-existent
‘poor relations cases’
- these cases demonstrate a relaxation of pb requirement as they are exceptions to the personal nexus rule. (personal nexus - Re COMPTON - WHAT MAKES THEM A COMMUNITY CANT BE THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO AN INDIVIDUAL)
Exceptions to Compton
- Re Scarisbrick - ‘poor relations’ justified - relief of poverty is so altruistic that that the public benefit can be inferred from it’
Re Segelman Deceased - members of class of relatives
Dingle v Turner - this is a ‘poor employees’ case- to pay for pensions of poor employees - to distinguish between different sort of poverty would be illogical. - upheld as a CT - natural progression of poor relations cases
2009 Act influence on poor relations cases
Keane - ‘NO DOUBT’ THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER APART OF IRISH HISTORY
Tobin - impossible given S3(8) and 3. (7) for them to attain charitable status in this jurisdiction given the personal connection.
Validity of poor relations cases is yet ti be seen since 2009 act
english approach is different as there is no 3(8) equivalent
ADV OF EDUCATION
Originally only for promotion of orthodox teaching - RE SHAW
S3(1)(b) - Keane - no longer for conventional education purposes
Re Hopkins Will Trust - promotion of research
Re Shaws Will Trust - not only teaching but promotion and encouragement of those arts and graces of life’
PB for ADV of EDUCATION
Stricter view in this category in relation to PB
Verge v Sommerville -
must benefit public generally or an ‘appreciably important class’ of public
Public - OPPENHEIMER V TOBACCO SECURITIES
- must not be numerically negligible quality that distinguishges the section cant be dependent on relationship - re compton
RE WORTH LIBRARY - failed - only for use of 3 office holders
Artistic Education
Re Delius - uphelf - promote work of composer
Re Pinion - Trust for museum of art - art was ‘atrosiously bad’ - No CT - wanted to simply perpetuate his name
Re Worth Library - approved - now enshrined in s.3(11)
Physical Edcu and Sport
IRC V MULLEN - set up to promote furtherance of education and also promote football in schools and university - valid
Magee v AG - trust for community hall, hosting self help and other groups - uphled
RE NOTTAGE - purely sport no education, just for trophy for yacht , just for sport sake no pb
Re Duprees Deed Trust - chess tournament - upheld on basis it has educational value - court cautioned of slippery slope
Independent Schools Council V Charity Commission - Private schools are charitable as long as they provide de minimis measures to admit non-fee payers
ADV OF RELGION
S.3(4) rebuttable presumption that that such gifts are for the public benefit
- charitable unless contrary is proven
S. 3 (10) - for organisation or cult is not charitable
Gifts to secluded orders
England - non charitable
- established in COCKS V MANNERS and GILMOUR V COATES applied this to a trust for nuns, no pb as no public interation.
religious definition
no distinction drawn between different variaties of religion - BIEHLER
Quinns Supermarket v AG - does not prefer one to the other
thornton v Howe- there was a belief in a god - thus uphelf
BUT
Re Hummeltenberg - no god, spirtual readings - not a ct
CELEBRATION OF MASSES
O’Hanlon v Logue
trust for masses of herself and family - CCA resolved that a gift for celebration of masses whether public or private = CT
GIFT TO OFFICE HOLDERS
Gibson v Rep of church body - gift/trust to office holders and his successors = CT
Donnellan v O’Neill = just for one person in personal capacity is not CT
OTHER PURPOSES BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY
non-exhaustive list set out in S.3 (11)
PB FOR CAT 4
Bath & northeastern Sommerset Council v AG
- in order to satisfy this requirement must be beneficial as one of public utility and pb must be available to a sufficient section of community.
In IRELAND the benefit to the community - is subjective - must give ‘due weight to the donors view of the charitable bequest provided it is not imoral or illegal
- seen in Re Cranston - vegetarian society
- Shillington v Portadown - applying Re Cranston - testator was allowed to gift residents of his native town.
Re Library upheld - Biehler doesnt see how something which benefits 3 people could be a valid CT
Re Hummmeltenberg - ENGLISH - takes an objective approach
Keane - ‘unchartered hinterland’ of cases due to ‘non-exhaustive list’
Trust for Animals
Re Wedgewood - for finding ways of ethical ways pf slaughtering - held as CT - promotes and encourages kindness
Re Grove-Grady - trust for animal refuge is not valid - no benefit to mankind
National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC
- trust to change law in vivisection was not a CT, as vivisection benefits the public. Also promotes changing the law, trusts that promote political objectives will never gain charitable status. Although prevention of cruelty to animals is included in the non-exhaustive list the prevention of human suffering will always overshadow the former
Environment
National Tourism Development Authority
- the law on CT is disinterested in commercial return for investors …. must if genuine public benefit to the community at large and whatever benefit it dispenses must be widely available to the community’
Touches on Re Nottage - purely for sport = no CT - was expressed that this ma change
golf club cant be subject to a CT - not available to public at large, pay a high fee , not accessible to everyone
Political purposes
Biehler - ‘well established’ that these aren’t a CT
McGovern v AG - yes amnesty has a pb in promoting peace and avoiding war butttt it was argued as being too political as it engages with foreign states regarding conflict.
Re Koeppler - to arrange to bring world leaders together - dangerously close to being political but upheld
ENGLAND -Re Hopkinson - trust for conservative party is not charitable -
IRELAND - Goff v Curhy - for fianna fail - was not CT
Changing of the law not allowed why?
Bowman v Secular Society - ‘not for the courts to decide whether a change in the law will/will not be for the public benefit
