Trusts For Charitable Purposes

Front 1

What 2 privileges are enjoyed by charitable trusts?

Back 1

1) tax privileges
2) privileges as to validity- EXEMPT FROM BENEFICIARY PRINCIPLE AS THEY ARE VALID PURPOSE TRUSTS.
-also more relaxed regarding certainty of object.
-exempt from the rule of perpetuities.

Front 2

What were the 3 main sources governing charitable trusts before the charities act 2006?

Back 2

1) premable to charitable uses act 1601;
2) the 'four heads of charity' set out in Pemsel;
3) case law and decisions of charity commissioners.

Front 3

Which case set out the original 4 heads of charity and what were they?

Back 3

Income Tax Special Purpose Commissioners v Pemsel [1891]
1)relief of poverty
2)advancement of education
3)advancement of religion
4) other purposes beneficial to the community not falling under any of the preceding heads.

Front 4

What does section 1(a) charities act 2006 state?

Back 4

'the trust must be exclusively charitable- established for charitable purposes only.

Front 5

Which section defines charitable purposes?

Back 5

section 2(1)- a purpose which-
(a) falls within subsection (2), and
(b) is for the public benefit (s. 3)

Front 6

Which subsection lists charitable purposes?

Back 6

section 2(2) CA 2006

Front 7

Which case states that poverty is a relative concept, and does not necessarily mean destitution?

Back 7

Re Coulthurst [1951]

Front 8

What does the charity commission guidance state about poverty?

Back 8

-lack of something which the majority of the population would regard as a necessity for a modest standard of living.
-even if not poor, relieving temporary financial hardship may be charitable.
-do not need to be eligible for benefits to qualify for charitable assistance.

Front 9

Which case states that the advancement of education is not limited to teaching in schools and colleges?

Back 9

AV v Margaret and Regius Professors in Cambridge- founding of professional chairs was valid.

Front 10

trusts endowing fee-paying schools will only be charitable if the school is non-profit making?

Back 10

Customs and Excise Commissioners v Bell Concord Educational Trust [1990]

Front 11

What 3 conditions are set out in McGovern v AG [1982] for a charitable (educational) trust under 'research?'

Back 11

1) the proposed research must be a 'useful subject of study.'
2) the knowledge acquired must be disseminated to others.
3) the trust must be for the benefit of the public, or sufficiently important section of the public.

Front 12

What is the charity commission guidance on the meaning of 'religion?'

Back 12

-belief in god/supreme being/ divine entity.
-worship of/ reverence for supreme being or entity
-identifiable positive, beneficial, moral or ethical framework.

Front 13

Which case states that for (d) advancement of health/saving lives, trusts for provision of healthcare by hospital are clearly charitable as long as the hospital is not commercially run to generate profit for individuals?

Back 13

Re Resch's Will Trust [1969]

Front 14

Which case displays the advancement of arts, culture, heritage and science?

Back 14

Royal Choral Society v IRC [1943]

Front 15

what was the traditional position regarding advancement of amateur sport?

Back 15

Re Nottage [1895]- there had to be some other factor (over and above sport itself and such health benefits) in order for the sport to be charitable.

Front 16

What is the current position on amateur sports?

Back 16

law commission has issued guidance stating that amateur sports are now charitable- as a result of the mere connection between sport and health.

Front 17

What does McGovern v AG [1982] state regarding the advancement of human rights?

Back 17

certain objects of amnesty international were not charitable because achieving them would require a change in the law.

Front 18

Which case states that the under advancement of human rights, the promotion of equality between men and women is charitable?

Back 18

Halpin v Steear (1976)

Front 19

Which case states that regarding advancement of animal welfare, the performing and captive animals defence league was NOT charitable because the organisation's aims could only be achieved by a change in the law.

Back 19

Hanchett-Stamford v AG [2009]

Front 20

What is the effect of provision (m) 'any other purposes..?'

Back 20

it allows the law to evolve in light of changing social and economic circumstances.

Front 21

Which cases state that political purposes cannot be charitable?

Back 21

Re Ogen [1933]- an organisation will not be charitable if its objects are to achieve a change in the law.

National Anti-vivisection society v IRC [1948]- was not charitable because achievement of objective would require a change in the law.

Front 22

What is stated under section 3(2) CA 2006?

Back 22

public benefit will no longer be presumed in relation to any purpose.

Front 23

What are the 2 elements of public benefit?

Back 23

1) there must be an identifiable benefit/benefits;
2) the public, or a section of the public must benefit.

Front 24

What are the 3 separate elements which make up and 'identifiable benefit?'

Back 24

a) must be clear what the benefits are;
b) the benefits must be related to the aims;
c) the benefits must be balanced against any detriment or harm.

Front 25

What are the 4 elements which make up 'the public or section of the public?'

Back 25

a) the beneficiaries must be appropriate to the aims;
b) where the benefit is restricted to a section of the public it must not be unreasonably restricted;
c) people in poverty must not be excluded from the opportunity to benefit;
d) any private benefits must be incidental.

Front 26

1a) clear benefits- which case states that a political purpose is incapable of meeting this requirement?

Back 26

National Anti-vivisection society v IRC

Front 27

1b) related to aims- which case states that where there are incidental activities not related to the charitable aims, any public benefit which arises from this incidental activity will not count?

Back 27

IRC v Oldham Training & Enterprise Council

Front 28

1c) which case states that benefit must be balanced against detriment/harm?

Back 28

National anti-vivisection society v IRC- the detriment to medical research would outweigh the moral benefits.

Front 29

2a) beneficiaries appropriate to aims- what is the rule regarding the number of people who can benefit?

Back 29

the number of people who can potentially benefit must not be negligible.

Front 30

2b) restricted section of the public- which case states that a bridge for the benefit of methodists in particular area was unreasonable because there was no justification for it?

Back 30

IRC v Baddeley [1955]

Front 31

What 3 types of restrictions are possible?

Back 31

1) geographical restrictions- as long as they are not too small.
2)based on charitable need.
3) based on personal characteristics- depending on the aims that are being carried out.

Front 32

What was the dicta in Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities [1951]?

Back 32

beneficiaries must NOT be defined by a personal connection, such as family relationship or common employer.
-a trust established for the education of children of employees and former of employees of a company was NOT CHARITABLE because it was a private class- too restricted.

-established the 'personal nexus test'- the quality distinguishing them from other members of the community must be a quality which does not depend on their relationship to a particular individual.

Front 33

Which case states that the 'personal nexus test' as displayed in Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust has NO application to trusts for the relief of poverty?

Back 33

Dingle v Turner [1972]- a trust to pay pension to 'poor employees' of the company dingle & co was valid.

Front 34

Which case states that a restriction must not be based on the ability to pay any fees charged?

Back 34

Re Resch's Will Trusts [1969]- however, a service which is provided mainly for those who can afford to pay does not necessarily mean it will not satisfy the public benefit requirement.

Front 35

2c) people in poverty must not be excluded from opportunity to benefit- what is the key point in deciding the scope of this rule?

Back 35

the context and aims of the charity are important in deciding who 'people in poverty' are.

Front 36

2d) which case states that private benefits must be incidental?

Back 36

London Hospital Medical College v IRC [1976]- private benefits will be incidental when:
1) they directly contribute to achieving the charity's aims;
2) they are a necessary result of carrying out the charity's aims.

Front 37

What was the presumption of public benefit under the old law, and how has that position been changed now?

Back 37

there was a presumption of public benefit regarding relief of poverty, advancement of education and advancement of religion.

under section 3(2) CA 2006- 'in determining whether the public benefit requirement has been satisfied, it is not to be presumed that a purpose of a particular description is for the public benefit.'

NO LONGER ANY PRESUMPTION OF PUBLIC BENEFIT.