Back
to top
Charities Act and Public Benefit. I need an expert!
Watch this threadPage 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
legalbeagle1990
Badges:
7
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Hi all
I need to write an essay on how the Charities Act 2011 and has affected the law, and especially the notion of 'public benefit'. I do not know where to start and I could really use some guidance here.
Thank you.
I need to write an essay on how the Charities Act 2011 and has affected the law, and especially the notion of 'public benefit'. I do not know where to start and I could really use some guidance here.
Thank you.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges:
22
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report
#2
Start by reading the 2011 Act. This is key.
Follow up by reading some articles. My lecturer wrote a very good article on this. This area of law is case heavy (per CAs4(3)), and you should consider the trade-off as your key focus: tax benefits which the charity earns by being for the public good.
Courts get quite "judgey" in doing this, e.g. Denning and Scientology and Hopkins and Francis Bacon as Shakespeare and the mediums in Hummeltenberg (if you met a medium subscribing judge, mightn't they be inclined to say a medium school is beneficial?). Note SC in Hodkin pushing back against being too "judgey" about religious beliefs. Virgo being a snobby shite about darts. So maybe it is best to just see if the purpose is on the list and leave it at that (e.g. Chitty in Fauveaux (versus HL in Anti-Vivi); and Greene MR). Problem highlighted in the McGovern case vs the Bowman case; courts unwilling to get into a political role.
But be wary. The charity lot are known for being rather ponderous in their articles.
Follow up by reading some articles. My lecturer wrote a very good article on this. This area of law is case heavy (per CAs4(3)), and you should consider the trade-off as your key focus: tax benefits which the charity earns by being for the public good.
Courts get quite "judgey" in doing this, e.g. Denning and Scientology and Hopkins and Francis Bacon as Shakespeare and the mediums in Hummeltenberg (if you met a medium subscribing judge, mightn't they be inclined to say a medium school is beneficial?). Note SC in Hodkin pushing back against being too "judgey" about religious beliefs. Virgo being a snobby shite about darts. So maybe it is best to just see if the purpose is on the list and leave it at that (e.g. Chitty in Fauveaux (versus HL in Anti-Vivi); and Greene MR). Problem highlighted in the McGovern case vs the Bowman case; courts unwilling to get into a political role.
But be wary. The charity lot are known for being rather ponderous in their articles.
1
reply
legalbeagle1990
Badges:
7
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
(Original post by Notoriety)
Start by reading the 2011 Act. This is key.
Follow up by reading some articles. My lecturer wrote a very good article on this. This area of law is case heavy (per CAs4(3)), and you should consider the trade-off as your key focus: tax benefits which the charity earns by being for the public good.
Courts get quite "judgey" in doing this, e.g. Denning and Scientology and Hopkins and Francis Bacon as Shakespeare and the mediums in Hummeltenberg (if you met a medium subscribing judge, mightn't they be inclined to say a medium school is beneficial?). Note SC in Hodkin pushing back against being too "judgey" about religious beliefs. Virgo being a snobby shite about darts. So maybe it is best to just see if the purpose is on the list and leave it at that (e.g. Chitty in Fauveaux (versus HL in Anti-Vivi); and Greene MR). Problem highlighted in the McGovern case vs the Bowman case; courts unwilling to get into a political role.
But be wary. The charity lot are known for being rather ponderous in their articles.
Start by reading the 2011 Act. This is key.
Follow up by reading some articles. My lecturer wrote a very good article on this. This area of law is case heavy (per CAs4(3)), and you should consider the trade-off as your key focus: tax benefits which the charity earns by being for the public good.
Courts get quite "judgey" in doing this, e.g. Denning and Scientology and Hopkins and Francis Bacon as Shakespeare and the mediums in Hummeltenberg (if you met a medium subscribing judge, mightn't they be inclined to say a medium school is beneficial?). Note SC in Hodkin pushing back against being too "judgey" about religious beliefs. Virgo being a snobby shite about darts. So maybe it is best to just see if the purpose is on the list and leave it at that (e.g. Chitty in Fauveaux (versus HL in Anti-Vivi); and Greene MR). Problem highlighted in the McGovern case vs the Bowman case; courts unwilling to get into a political role.
But be wary. The charity lot are known for being rather ponderous in their articles.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges:
22
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report
#4
(Original post by legalbeagle1990)
This gives me a good start. Thank you taking the time.
This gives me a good start. Thank you taking the time.
Tudor on Charities is the most authoritative text out there in this area of law, so I would check that out.
0
reply
legalbeagle1990
Badges:
7
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
(Original post by Notoriety)
No worries.
Tudor on Charities is the most authoritative text out there in this area of law, so I would check that out.
No worries.
Tudor on Charities is the most authoritative text out there in this area of law, so I would check that out.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
