The company was a foreign corporation constituted according to the laws of the state of New York for objects which were exclusively charitable according to the law of the United Kingdom.
Held: The term ‘charity’ does not include an institution established under the laws of another legal system.
Lord Morton said: ‘It is at once apparent that the phrase in section 37(1)(b) ‘any body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only’ is not expressly limited to bodies of persons or trusts established in the United Kingdom, but the Court of Appeal held that it should be construed as being so limited. This conclusion was based entirely upon a consideration of the true construction of the Act of 1918 . . I agree with the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal, and as no question of principle arises in this case, and my reasons are in substance the same as those appearing in the judgments of that court, I shall not detain your Lordships by setting them out in my own words.’
Lord Norman said: ‘it is clearly the English system that he has in mind, [referring to the judgment of Lord Evershed] for it goes without saying that the Attorney-General has no right to invoke the powers of the courts beyond the boundary of England.’
The phrase ‘trust established for charitable purposes only’, in section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1918, must be interpreted as being implicitly limited to trusts which were governed by the law of some part of the United Kingdom and were subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom.
Judges:
Lord Morton of Henryton, Lord Normand
Citations:
[1956] AC 39, [1955] 3 All ER 97, 36 TC 126, [1955] UKHL TC – 36 – 126
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation Inc v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1954
The Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to make an order with respect to a company registered in New York for objects which were charitable according to the laws of England.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal against a finding that the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Gaudiya Mission and others v Brahmachary CA 30-Jul-1997
The High Court had found the plaintiff to be a charity, and ordered the Attorney-General to be joined in. The A-G appealed that order saying that the plaintiff was not a charity within the 1993 Act. The charity sought to spread the Vaishnava . .
Cited – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs ChD 18-Sep-2014
Executors appealed against rejection of their claim that a gift in the will qualified for relief against Inheritance Tax as being a charitable gift. The Trusts concerned assets in Jersey.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The expression ‘held on trust . .
Cited – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs CA 16-Sep-2016
Executors appealed against a decision that a residual gift in a will was not charitable and that it was therefore subject to Inheritance Tax arguing that the section if construed in this way was an unlawful restriction on the free movement of . .
Cited – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 16-Oct-2019
A Jersey Charity created under a will of a Jersey resident was transfer to the UK, and reregistered with the UK Charity Commission. The Revenue sought to apply Inheritance Tax.
Held: Jersey was to be considered a third country for the purpose . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Charity
Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.200676
