PUBLIC BENEFIT (Charities)

In order to be considered a charity trust its primary mission and main purpose
should be that it provides assistance to the members of the general public and
serves them. When compared to other types of trusts these charitable trusts
are not required to pay taxes which is only one of the numerous ways in which
this particular sort of trust benefits its beneficiaries. This is only one of the
many advantages that come along with creating a charitable trust. There are
two sub-criteria that make up the criterion of public benefit, and both of them
need to be satisfied in order for the requirement to be satisfied. The availability
of information on the benefit that is being sought is the primary criteria. This
suggests that the goals of the benefit should be articulated in language that are
as straightforward and understandable as is feasible. The requirements for a
public benefit stipulate that the benefits in issue must be for the whole public
or for a sufficiently substantial segment of the general public. It is necessary
for there to be some kind of benefit to the general population, and this is the
second component of the criteria.
The Charity Commission makes recommendations on how the public benefit
principle should be applied in order for individuals to have a better
understanding of the public benefit criterion as a whole.
Firstly the outcome which is wanted must be beneficial and secondly the costs
which are associated with achieving that particular outcome must be
reasonable in relation to the benefits. We'll begin with the benefits, which may
be further subdivided into two categories based on the law first the desired
outcome must be beneficial and second the benefits must be reasonable in
relation to the disadvantages.
It is essential that the usefulness of a goal be shown to be provable and in
many cases the usefulness of a goal is readily apparent and easily identifiable.
One example of this is assisting individuals who are homeless and locating
them permanent housing and in such a case the benefits can be easily seen
and measured. Another illustration of this would be to provide financial
assistance to people who are already having difficulty making ends meet.
Despite this, there are situations in which it is vital to demonstrate that you
have an advantage over others. For example, in the case of Re pinon it was
unknown whether or not the artworks that were collected would be of any
service. As was shown in the case of IRC vs Oldham Training and
entrepreneurship council, it is not required for the benefit to be quantified, and
the benefit may either be direct or indirect. In regards to the case, discussions
have been held about both of these concerns. The realities of the situation
make this very clear.
Even if the purpose obviously helps the community as a whole, it will not be
considered as selfless if it has even the slightest link to politics, regardless of
how distant that relationship may be. Citing the case of Bowman vs Secular
Society as an illustration, Lord Parker held that things having actual political
roots are not accepted by equity. This famous saying is commonly attributed to
him. It was found in the case of re Ogden that a trust did not fulfill the
requirements for a charitable organization because it advocated for liberal
stances on political problems. This was because the trust took sides in political
issues. A-G, in which Slade J found that certain political conduct was
permitted so long as the trust's principal purpose was not political,
establishing the exception for political purpose. A-G was the case in which
Slade J ruled that certain political activity was lawful. A precedent similar to
this one was established in the case McGovern vs A-G. At this precise instant,
the legal loophole, which was previously unavailable for political reasons,
became available. In today's world, it is impossible to evaluate an individual's
or group's political advantage without taking into consideration the relevant
context. The reason for this is that while these organizations help people in
other countries, they don't seem to be helping people in United Kingdom in any
clear way.
In order for the objective to be seen as being in the public interest it is
imperative that the prospective disadvantages do not end up being of a greater
magnitude than the advantages. Throughout the process of determining
whether or not the case NAS vs IRS concerned a charity trust, the court took
into account the advantages to medical research and came to the conclusion
that these benefits exceeded the ethical benefits of prohibiting vivisection. This
was the case due to the fact that the useful benefit surpassed the ethical
argument for outlawing vivisection. This was owing to the fact that any ethical
issues in this situation were overwhelmed by the potential cash payoff.
Now that we've got that out of the way and understood it, I can go on to talking
about the broader consequences on society. Before year 2005 it was believed
that the public benefit standards for reducing poverty enhancing educational
opportunities and spreading religious awareness had all been satisfied. The
Charity Act namely Section 4(2) makes it quite evident that the aforementioned
presumption is not effective now. So in today's world in order for a goal to be
considered charity it must help either the general public as a whole or a
sizeable portion of the population as a whole. In the important case of
Oppenheim vs. Tobacco Securities Trust Co, Lord Simonds stated that the
number of beneficiaries could not be less than total number of beneficiaries
and also the quality which provides a difference between the beneficiaries from
the rest of society cannot depend on their relation to that person who is in
question. In particular he emphasized that the number of persons getting
benefits must not be fewer than the total number of people who are entitled to
receive benefits and this is a requirement which must be met. In spite of this
the implementation of this strategy did not place a priority on either the
propagation of religious teachings or the relief of social suffering. This is due
the ruling that Lord Jenkins issued in the case of Re Scarisbrick, which said
that gifts made for the aim of reducing poverty will be considered benevolent
even if only a small number of poor individuals will benefit from these
donations and it is because of this we find ourselves in such a difficult
situation right now.
In order for a charitable trust to even come into being, it is necessary to first
pass the personal connection requirement and this means that the
beneficiaries of the trust are barred from participating in any form of
communication with one another including commercial dealings and any other
kind of communication. If this were not the case, the trust would be without
any legitimacy in the eyes of the law. In the case of Oppenheim, Lord Simmons
argued that it did not matter how many people benefited from a charitable
trust as long as they were linked to one another. The reality that Existed was
the topic of discussion in this statement. Nonetheless the Scarisbrick case
illustrates that there has been inconsistency in the implementation of the trust
and in this case it was decided that a trust that had been set up for members
of the family was charitable. A charitable trust decided to make contributions
to a number of individuals working for a separate company Dingle v Turner.
In yet another made-up scenario involving religion, the criterion of personal
connection was not taken into consideration throughout the decision-making
process. In spite of the fact that all of the trust's beneficiaries were devoted
Christians who belonged to the same family, the judge found in favor of the
legitimacy of the trust (RE Watson).
If a non-profit organization / charitable organization charges for its services, it
can no longer be referred to as a charity. It has been suggested that private
hospitals and schools are able to provide treatment that the state could
previously only afford by decreasing spending from general taxes in order to
pay for it. That is to say, the government would have been compelled to lower
financing for those programs if they had been allowed to continue.
After deliberating on this matter in the case of Independent Schools Council vs
Charity Commission, the highest tribunal of the Charities Commission came to
the conclusion that assisting the poor and the needy alone is not enough and
the court decision came out in favor of the Independent Schools Council.
Nevertheless, due to the exceptionally expensive cost of attendance, it was
discovered that the institution would only admit students who came from
wealthy families. According to the recommendations issued by the Charity
Commission in 2012, organizations are required to demonstrate concrete
benefits to the less fortunate. A fee waiver or a significant discount will do as
sufficient proof for persons who are unable to pay the full sum. This entire
debate can be summed up in just a single line. There is a possibility that the
reasoning underlying this decision might be traced back to a remark that
Lindsay LJ made in case of Re Macduff. He maintained that in a situation like
this genuine gestures of kindness should include those who have less than
others.
All in all, even though there has been some assistance provided for the less
fortunate, for a charity to be regarded as beneficial, it must be in the public
interest, as stated in Section (2)(1)(b) of the Charities Act. The Charities Act of
2011 states that in order for a charity to comply with the requirements, it must
provide assistance to the community as a whole.

“IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT QUESTIONS COULD COME FROM A

VARIETY OF ANGLES IN THE EXAM SO THESE ESSAYS DO NOT GURRANTEE
YOUR MARKS. IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN THE PAPER AND
RESPOND TO NEW ANGLES, PLEASE STUDY THE ENTIRE CHAPTER AND
UNDERTAKE PREPARATORY RESEARCH.”