Public Benefit Test Charities

Created by: Emilio Graham
Created on: 11-05-13 10:30

Where is the public benefit requirement set out?

s.4 Charities Act 2011

1 of 9

What does it set out?

It must be demonstrated for charitable purpose to be valid, No presumed public benefit, Must be benefit to whole or section of the public

2 of 9

There is no public benefit for a 'class within a class' in which case was this set out?

IRC v Baddeley (1955)

3 of 9

In IRC v Oldham TEC (1996) it was held that...?

Any non-charitable benefits conferred must be merely incidental. In this case they were not and Oldham TEC was held not charitable.

4 of 9

However which case before this decreed that dinner and payment of expenses were incidental?

Re Coxon (1948) held to be incidental and promoted better admin of charity!

5 of 9

Where was the 'personal nexus' rule established?

Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust (1951) case involving education of employees children.

6 of 9

What is that rule?

In order for the trust to succeed, the beneficiaries must not be numerically negligible and must not be defined by personal nexus (proximity) to the settlor.

7 of 9

What was the main exception to this rule?

Dingle v Turner 1972, It was held that personal nexus does not apply to relief of poverty as it was usually an area where donations were genuine and not based on tax avoidance. Case involved providing pensions to poor employees of a company he owned.

8 of 9

What was the case involving poor relations 'in needy circumstances'?

Re Scarisbrick [1951], Testatrix left residuary estate on trust for her poor relations. In spite of personal nexus it was upheld as charitable.

9 of 9

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What does it set out?

Back

It must be demonstrated for charitable purpose to be valid, No presumed public benefit, Must be benefit to whole or section of the public

Card 3

Front

There is no public benefit for a 'class within a class' in which case was this set out?

Back

Card 4

Front

In IRC v Oldham TEC (1996) it was held that...?

Back

Card 5

Front

However which case before this decreed that dinner and payment of expenses were incidental?

Back

View more cards

Get Revising

Public Benefit Test Charities