tax relief on charity donations

[eFestivals]

No, it's a matter of law. A charity has to be for the public benefit A benefit fior a single person or a family does not meet that test and therefore cannot, in law, be a charity

A family member is a member of the public.

Family trusts, from the little I know of them from how things are reported about them don't make sense - and I presume it's that part which is used to make them (or perhaps just some of them?) charities or the equivalent of charities for tax purposes. The bit which doesn't make sense is that they're family trusts, but the family has (supposedly) no influence over how the money is dished out even tho it somehow invariably ends up being paid to the family who put the money in.

So I'm guessing it's the exploitation of loopholes that manages to make them charities, in much the same way that loopholes are used to ensure that the rich don't pay tax at the headline figure that people at large believe them to be paying tax.

There is very definitely something beneficial towards tax from family trusts (otherwise, what's the point of them? They'd put the money in the bank, or invest it elsewhere, etc), that much I'm absolutely certain about from things I've read over 30-ish years. It's not impossible that this week's Private Eye has made an error by including them as 'charities' that the rich are using for tax avoidance but until I see something which proves PE have got it wrong I'm going to keep my trust in them over this.

[eFestivals]

There's ways to do the scams, but there was a crackdown on trusts and foundations related to families a few years ago.

Llloyd Webber's Art Foundation is still buying art to hang on L-W's wall.

[kaosmark2]

Llloyd Webber's Art Foundation is still buying art to hang on L-W's wall.

[eFestivals]

But it's not directly giving money to him, and supposedly it does other crap related to art, supposedly.

I think the crackdown only affected ones which just supply money directly.

It might as well give money straight to L-W, because that's it's ultimate effect.

He gets to hang the art he wants on his wall, and the money which is used to buy that art is free of tax. It is a tax subsidy which is subsidising him buying art (£44M's worth) for his own pleasure.

[kaosmark2]

It might as well give money straight to L-W, because that's it's ultimate effect.

He gets to hang the art he wants on his wall, and the money which is used to buy that art is free of tax. It is a tax subsidy which is subsidising him buying art (£44M's worth) for his own pleasure.

[abdoujaparov]

A family member is a member of the public.

Family trusts, from the little I know of them from how things are reported about them don't make sense - and I presume it's that part which is used to make them (or perhaps just some of them?) charities or the equivalent of charities for tax purposes. The bit which doesn't make sense is that they're family trusts, but the family has (supposedly) no influence over how the money is dished out even tho it somehow invariably ends up being paid to the family who put the money in.

So I'm guessing it's the exploitation of loopholes that manages to make them charities, in much the same way that loopholes are used to ensure that the rich don't pay tax at the headline figure that people at large believe them to be paying tax.

There is very definitely something beneficial towards tax from family trusts (otherwise, what's the point of them? They'd put the money in the bank, or invest it elsewhere, etc), that much I'm absolutely certain about from things I've read over 30-ish years. It's not impossible that this week's Private Eye has made an error by including them as 'charities' that the rich are using for tax avoidance but until I see something which proves PE have got it wrong I'm going to keep my trust in them over this.

[eFestivals]

a family trust cannot be charitable, ever...that's the straightforward legal position. For a trust to be charitable it has to pass a public benefit test, that means it has to exist for a purpose which benefits the public, or a significant proportion of the public. It can never be for the benefit of a named person or a family. There may well be tax benefits from non-charitable trusts, I dont know I'm not a tax expert, but if they are it's entirely separate from any tax benefits to do with charity

But are you a charity expert, that's specifically aware of what gets thru and what doesn't?

I recognise what you're saying is the standard schpiel for how charities are meant to be justified, but I'm also aware of just how easy it is to get charity status for something which isn't about what you lay out there while pretending that it is.

For example, the festival I mentioned earlier in this thread that is run by a charity (read back if you didn't see it):- The official purposes of the charity are not what I stated (of buying the people who run the festival a farm for them to live on and enjoy), but that's what it'll end up being from what the people involved have told me about the wonders of their charity work. I'm guessing they'll cover the public benefit part by saying that (perhaps only occasionally?) the public are welcome onto the farm to see the wonderful ecological things they plan on doing.

[abdoujaparov]

But are you a charity expert, that's specifically aware of what gets thru and what doesn't?

[eFestivals]

But are you a charity expert, that's specifically aware of what gets thru and what doesn't?

I work for a charity and I'm trustee of another, so I have a good working knowledge of charity law.

And in a previous job (in government) I wrote the 1992 Charities Act....

That's not quite what I asked. Knowing how it's designed to work and how it works in reality for not-abusing-the-system charities doesn't necessarily mean you'd know how people might be stretching the rules. There's plenty of examples in press that show it happens a fair bit (if not in the direction I've been saying).

Anyway, having re-read the sentence in Private Eye, it could be that I've misunderstood what it was getting at, and that family trusts are not charities but do get the same (or similar?) tax breaks.

[abdoujaparov]

That's not quite what I asked. Knowing how it's designed to work and how it works in reality for not-abusing-the-system charities doesn't necessarily mean you'd know how people might be stretching the rules. There's plenty of examples in press that show it happens a fair bit (if not in the direction I've been saying).