Why the charities tax scandal might lead to more transparency

The new legislation just might work.

We have all seen the stories in which celebrities have been named and shamed for participation in tax avoidance schemes. While some individuals have not always been blameless, the press can evoke similar righteous indignation with lurid tales of tax evasion involving innocent charities in the offshore world.

Tax evasion is not strictly the raison d’être of these enterprises, but there is rarely an innocent motive and is often used as a means of concealing identities. The charity is named as the beneficiary of an offshore trust although the charity itself never receives money from the trust and often, does not even know of the trust’s existence. Instead, the trustees exercise their power to add beneficiaries to benefit an individual who is not named in the trust deed although the charity gets nothing.

As the recent tax evasion stories demonstrate, these unregulated pseudo-charitable structures can be hijacked for shady purposes, and the surrounding press coverage saps one’s confidence in genuine charitable trusts. But could the new legal entity created specifically for charities cast a ray of light to dispel the gloom?

The Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO) was introduced in the Charities Act 2006 and, after a frustratingly long gestation period, was finally brought into being in the Charities Act 2011. The first CIOs were registered in December 2012 and since then, the Charity Commission has seen a steady rise in applications.  

The CIO is a corporate entity with a separate legal personality which, like its stablemate, the charitable company (usually limited by guarantee rather than shares), can contract and hold property in its own name and is regulated by the Charity Commission.

One advantage of a CIO as compared with the standard charitable companies is that the latter is subject to dual burden of regulation by the Charity Commission and Companies House. A CIO’s charity trustees and members have limited liability, which protects the trustee or members from incurring personal liability for any debts incurred by the charity, whereas charity trustees are lumbered with personal and (subject to the terms of the trust) unlimited liability. 

Although the delay has elicited caution in many charities considering conversion to CIO status and there is a sense that the CIO is, as yet, untested, the negative headlines linking charitable trusts (albeit incorrectly) to tax evasion may well encourage charities to move to a more transparent structure. Could the CIO yet blossom in May?

Emily O'Donnell is at private client law firm Maurice Turnor Gardner LLPRead more: Charitable giving fell by 20% in 2011-12

This story first appeared in Spear's magazine.

Photograph: Getty Images

This is a story from the team at Spears magazine.

Getty
Show Hide image

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.