Guild v IRC was an English trusts law case dealing with charitable trusts which confirmed that recreational facilities open to the public could be valid charities.
Guild was the executor of the estate of James Russell, who left his estate "for the use in connection with the sports centre in New Berwick or some similar purpose in connection with sport".[2] The Inland Revenue held that the trust created did not constitute a charitable trust, and as such was subject to the Finance Act 1975.[3] Since the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 interpretation of "charity" was to be used, English trusts law was applied.[4]
After an initial hearing in the Court of Session, the case was appealed to the House of Lords.
Judgmentedit
The House of Lords held that recreational facilities counted as charitable trusts. Lord Keith, giving the sole opinion, applied the Recreational Charities Act 1958, which provides that recreational facilities providing "social welfare" to people from social disadvantages or the general members of the public were appropriate charitable trusts. The question was whether the "social welfare" element also applied to recreational facilities open to the general public. Lord Keith rejected this, saying the following.
I would therefore reject the argument that the facilities are not provided in the interests of social welfare unless they are provided with the object of improving the conditions of life for persons who suffer from some form of social disadvantage. It suffices if they are provided with the object of improving the conditions of life for members of the community generally...if it suffices that the facilities are to be available to the members of the public at large...it must necessarily be inferred that the persons for whom the facilities are primarily intended are not to be confined to those who have need of them by reason of...social deprivation.[5][6] The impact of this case was to confirm that the courts accepted the validity of recreational charitable trusts open to the public.[7]
Hopkins, John (1992). "Trusts for the Advancement of Sport. Recreational Charities Act 1958". Cambridge Law Journal. 51 (3). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/S0008197300084786. ISSN 0008-1973.
Norman, Helen (1992). "Sporting charities - social welfare defined". Conveyancer and Property Lawyer. 1992 (September). Sweet & Maxwell. ISSN 0010-8200.
May 11, 2024
guild, english, trusts, case, dealing, with, charitable, trusts, which, confirmed, that, recreational, facilities, open, public, could, valid, charities, courthouse, lordsfull, case, nameguild, commissioners, inland, revenuedecided27, february, 1992transcript,. Guild v IRC was an English trusts law case dealing with charitable trusts which confirmed that recreational facilities open to the public could be valid charities Guild v IRCCourtHouse of LordsFull case nameGuild v Commissioners of Inland RevenueDecided27 February 1992Transcript s Bailii transcript 1 Case historyPrior action s Court of SessionCourt membershipJudge s sittingLord Keith of Kinkel Lord Roskill Lord Griffiths Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord LowryCase opinionsLord Keith of KinkelKeywordscharitable trusts public benefit recreational charities Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 3 See also 4 References 5 BibliographyFacts editGuild was the executor of the estate of James Russell who left his estate for the use in connection with the sports centre in New Berwick or some similar purpose in connection with sport 2 The Inland Revenue held that the trust created did not constitute a charitable trust and as such was subject to the Finance Act 1975 3 Since the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 interpretation of charity was to be used English trusts law was applied 4 After an initial hearing in the Court of Session the case was appealed to the House of Lords Judgment editThe House of Lords held that recreational facilities counted as charitable trusts Lord Keith giving the sole opinion applied the Recreational Charities Act 1958 which provides that recreational facilities providing social welfare to people from social disadvantages or the general members of the public were appropriate charitable trusts The question was whether the social welfare element also applied to recreational facilities open to the general public Lord Keith rejected this saying the following I would therefore reject the argument that the facilities are not provided in the interests of social welfare unless they are provided with the object of improving the conditions of life for persons who suffer from some form of social disadvantage It suffices if they are provided with the object of improving the conditions of life for members of the community generally if it suffices that the facilities are to be available to the members of the public at large it must necessarily be inferred that the persons for whom the facilities are primarily intended are not to be confined to those who have need of them by reason of social deprivation 5 6 The impact of this case was to confirm that the courts accepted the validity of recreational charitable trusts open to the public 7 See also editCharitable trusts in English lawReferences edit Guild v Inland Revenue Commissioners 1990 UKHL 10 1992 2 AC 310 27 February 1992 House of Lords Collins 1994 p Hopkins 1992 p 429 Norman 1992 p 361 Norman 1992 p 362 Hopkins 1992 p 431 2 Edwards 2007 p 224Bibliography editCollins Valerie 1994 Recreation and the law 2nd ed Taylor amp Francis ISBN 0 419 18240 3 Edwards Richard Nigel Stockwell 2007 Trusts and Equity 8th ed Pearson Longman ISBN 978 1 4058 4684 4 Hopkins John 1992 Trusts for the Advancement of Sport Recreational Charities Act 1958 Cambridge Law Journal 51 3 Cambridge University Press doi 10 1017 S0008197300084786 ISSN 0008 1973 Norman Helen 1992 Sporting charities social welfare defined Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 1992 September Sweet amp Maxwell ISSN 0010 8200 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Guild v IRC amp oldid 1148932689, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
