Karteikarten
Public benefit
Karten in diesem Stapel (28)
- 1Public benefitDistinguishes charitable trusts from private express trusts and is now established under section 4 of the CA 2006.
- 2Section 4 Charities ActSection 4 holds that a charitable trust must satisfy the public benefit requirement. This includes 2 elements:
1. There must be an identifiable benefit
2. It must benefit the public or a section of the public. - 3There must be an identifiable benefitThis has 3 recognised sub-principles:
1. The benefit must be clear
2. The benefits must relate to the aims of the charity
3. The benefit must balance any detriment or harm - 41. Benefit must be clearThe benefit to the public or a section of it must be clear. Sometimes, this can cause debates - especially if the benefit is somewhat intangible.
- 5Re HetheringtonBenefit must be identifiable but does not need to be quantifiable.
- 62. Benefit must relate to aims.The benefit must relate to the charitable purpose. Where a charity has more than one aim, all of these must be charitable.
- 7Re CoxenAs not all of the aims of charity were charitable, the public benefit element was not satisfied.
- 8Oppenheim v Tobacco SecuritiesIncidental or accidental benefits will not be considered when assessing if the benefits relate to the aims of the charity.
- 93. Benefits must be balanced with detrimentsAny detriments caused by the benefits must be balanced alongside the benefit.
- 10National Anti-Vivi Section Society v IRCThe detriment caused clearly outweighed the benefits. The public requirement was not satisfied.
- 11The benefit must be for the public or a section of the publicThis has 4 recognised sub-principles:
1. Beneficiaries must relate to the aims
2. Where a benefit is restricted to a section of the public, it must not be unreasonably restricted.
3. Those in poverty should not be excluded.
4. Private benefits should be incidental. - 121. Beneficiaries must relate to the aimThe key factor is who could benefit as well as who does benefit.
- 13Oppenheim v Tobacco SecuritiesAnyone who is eligible should be able to apply for the charity's benevolence and not be excluded - hence the fact and degree test.
- 14IRC v BaddeleyThere is a difference between purposes which have been open to the public but taken advantage by only a small number and those purposes that are open to the public but are made available to a select few only.
- 152. Where benefit is restricted to a section of society, it cannot be unreasonably restricted.Benefits to a section of society cannot be restricted by geographical location or by the fact that a fee is charged. These restrictions must be reasonable.
- 16Geographical locationThe smaller the resources and the greater the need of the beneficiaries, the more reasonable a restriction will be held.
- 17Re ScarisbrickA trust to benefit the poor in a particular street is not likely to be valid. The beneficiaries has been restricted heavily for no reasonable justification.
- 18Charitable needThis will often be for the disabled, children or the very young. Such restrictions will be held as valid as it is reasonable where a charitable need is being addressed.
- 19Personal characteristicsA section of the public may be restricted to a group depending on their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. These might be reasonable as long as they comply with the Equality Act 2010.
However, restrictions based on skin colour will NOT BE VALID. - 20Personal connection or nexusThe Charity Commissions' Guidance on Public Benefit held that where there is a restriction due to a personal connection, the fact and degree test established in Dingle v Turner should be used. The nexus test held in Oppenheim will still apply where there is human beneficiaries.
- 21Personal connection / nexus - ClarificationArgument that fact and degree test would not allow for poor employee or poor relative cases. However, Upper Tribunal in 2012 held that these types of cases have survived introduction of CA 2006.
- 223. Those in poverty must not be excludedThose who are poor should not be excluded from benefiting.
Where entrance fee is charged, should be a concession for those in need. - 23Independent Schools Council v Charity CommissionThe charity must go beyond the minimal benefits where the poor are concerned. Provisions would need to be made where fees are charged so those in poverty could attend.
- 24Those in poverty - CriticismCharities need only consider what further provisions should be made for the poor and this is a matter for the trustees to consider.
- 254. Private benefits should be incidentalPrivate benefits should be incidental if they are a necessary result or ancillary to carrying out the charity's aim.
- 26Re Koettgen's Will TrustDonor provided a trust for the commercial education of the public but with preference for employees of a company, for up to 75% of the fund. The court held trust as valid - primary trust was charitable.
- 27Caffor v Commissioners for Income TaxThe decision in Koettgen was criticised as being a 'private employee trust' and being inconsistent with Oppenheim.
- 28IRC v Educational Grants AssociationCourt of Appeal failed to uphold Koettgen.
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Equity and Trusts (Block 2 - Charitable trust) Karteikarten am Public benefit , erstellt von Chantal Briancon am 23/04/2018.
- Erstellt von
- Chantal Briancon
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung