|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
- At least in the US, 501(c)3 charities are taxed entirely differently and are a bit of a different animal from foundations. - Taxman 15:49, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Charitable trusts that aren't "charities"
This article focuses on the entity of a charity and fails to mention the use of trusts by private individuals for charitable purposes. In the United States, examples include CRUT's and CRAT's (Charitable remainder trusts), GRUT's and GRAT's (Grantor retained trusts), and various others. I'm not sure how to split the two or include that use of the same term. In the US a charity can be either a corporation or a trust or similar entity that meets IRS definitions for a charitable organization . So come to think of it Charity is wrong too. - Taxman 15:49, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anything similar in New Zealand or other Commonwealth countries. If it doesn't have a public purpose and provide a public benefit then it is not a charitable trust. On another note I've corrected teh error as to UK trusts income (somehow I think a 'million' got left out somewhere trusts int he Uk recieve more that US$61.70 a year!) Lisiate 04:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- OK, so then I've added it under the US section. Someone can have fun trying to make that more readable without being innaccurate, which I currently have no idea how to do. - Taxman 15:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Dubious 'fact' removed
There is no source for this figure and it seems way too low - for instance the one charity Comic Relief alone raised more than GBP 60 million in 2003 - more than USD 100 million.
- That "fact" made it back into the article, without any explanation, in the edit by 18.104.22.168 two days later (16 Mar 2005), and it's still in the article. Meanwhile, I'm wondering why income for U.K. charities is being given in USD. — Nowhither 07:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
History of Charitable Organizations
It would be interesting to go into the history of charities. For example, what were charities doing during the great depression?
Charitable_trust&action=edit§ion=1 is tagged as needing references/citations.
For this wp content as example: "charitable remainder trusts" section 664, a web search site:irs.gov 5227 html found detailed irs.gov instructions, but not the actual legal code:
G. Unrelated Business Taxable Income (Section 664 trusts only)
Form 5227 "split-interest trust"2z2z (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
New Zealand law
This will likely be relevant for more than just NZ law, but I thought I would throw it out there as a suggestion anyhow. This is in talk as I don't have time right now to make it nice, tidy and properly referenced.
1. The legal concept of charity is different from the meaning assigned to it in common parlance - to be a legal charity by NZ law it must fall within one of the heads of charity
2. A charitable trust can be made to last perpetually, so long as it vests within the perpetuity period
3. In New Zealand charitable trusts have no human beneficiary - they are enforced by the Attorney-General
4. Uncertainty as to objects will not invalidate a charitable trust (Moggridge v Thackwell (1803) 7 Ves 36, 32 ER 15, [1803-13] All ER Rep 754.)
The starting point in ascertaining precisely what is a charity for legal purposes is to be found in a statute of Elizabeth I (43 Eliz I, c 4 1601), which is commonly referred to as the Charitable Uses Act 1601, or the statute of Charitable Uses 1601. The preamble to that Act provides the modern basis for the modern law of charities.
In Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804) 9 Ves 399, at 405 Sir WIlliam Grant MR said "those purposes are charitable which that statute enumerates or which by analogies are deemed within its spirit and intendment." Towards the end of nineteenth century, in Commissioner for Special Purposes of the Income Tax v Pemsel  AC 531, Lord MacNaughten endorsed the comments in Morice and summarised charitable trusts into four categories
- trusts for the relief of poverty;
- trusts for the advancement of education;
- trusts for the advancement of religion; and
- trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling under any of the preceding heads.
However, even if a trust can be found to fit within one of the four heads espoused in Pemsel there are still additional requirements which must be met, namely:
- that the trust be for a public purpose;
- that the trust be for the public benefit; and
- that the trust be capable of being controlled by the court, if necessary.
The New Zealand Court of Appeal has stated, in CIR v Medical Council of New Zealand  2 NZLR 297, that in applying the preamble to the statute of Charitable Uses 1601 the court should be guided by principle rather than a detailed analysis of the decisions in particular cases.
Re Compton  Ch 123.  1 All ER 198 (CA)
Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd  AC 297,  1 All ER 31 (HL)
Dingle v Turner  AC 601,  1 All ER 878 (HL)
Educational Fees Protection Society Inc v Commissioner of Inland Revenue  2 NZLR 115
Re Pinion  Ch 85,  1 All ER 890 (CA)
Re Collier  1 NZLR 81 (HC)
New Zealand Society of Accountants v Commissioner of Inland Revenue  1 NZLR 147 (CA)
National Anti-Vivisection Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners  AC 31
Re Howey  2 NZLR 16 (CA)
Cenrepoint Community Growth Trust v Commissioner of Inland Revenue  1 NZLR 673
Re Centrepoint Community Growth Trust  2 NZLR 325 (HC)
Control by the court
Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804) 9 Ves 399
The Relief of Poverty
The Advancement of Education
The Relief of Religion
Other purposes beneficial to the community
- Political trusts
Mixed charitable and non-charitable gifts
s 61B of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957
Variation of Charitable trusts