Additionality concept still intact but practice is under review, says BIG
24 May 2013
The Big Lottery Fund has denied that its recent grants to Citizens Advice Bureaux and Home-start charities...
Sorry for interrupting, but there is something we need to tell you...
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.
If you wish to restrict or block web browser cookies which are set on your device then you can do this through your browser settings, the Help function within your browser will tell you how.
The controversial cap on tax relief for charitable giving is part of a fair scheme to help ease the UK’s national debt, Economic Secretary to the Treasury Chloe Smith told an audience of charity representatives and tax specialists yesterday.
Speaking at the Charity Tax Group’s Tax Conference 2012 in London, Smith outlined the government’s justification for the move, and fielded questions from a keen audience.
“Tax reliefs exist for a good reason,” the minister began. “Around £3bn a year is donated through them per year. But a balance must be struck.
“The new cap means that large donations can make a contribution to public finances as well as the charitable cause. We are still facing a huge deficit in this country, and in this tough economic climate it is unfair that low wage earners pay tax whilst the richest get reliefs.
“Those who have the most should give the most.”
Smith added that the new legislation was not a policy designed to paint philanthropists as “tax dodgers”, and that any unlawful activity regarding tax is diligently dealt with by HRMC.
She also reminded delegates of other changes the coalition government have made or are planning that have, in general, been more warmly received by the sector. These include lowering the rate of inheritance tax from 40 to 30 per cent when over 10 per cent of assets are left to charity; introducing gift aid for small donations of up to £20 from 2013; a commitment to standardising payroll giving; exploring social impact bonds, and reducing charities' administration burdens, such as by planning online gift aid for 2013 and working with HMRC to create a gift aid database.
The minister concluded her speech by emphasising that the government and UK citizens should work together to make the new legislation work, and that ongoing discussion on the matter was welcome.
Such discussion came immediately in the form of questions from the floor.
Sara Osborne, head of policy development at Cancer Research UK, told Smith that her charity is relying on large donations for 60 per cent of its contribution to The Francis Crick Institute. “How will the government be supporting charities like us who will now be facing a loss in revenue?” she asked.
“We are seeking to work with the sector to see how we can best support charities in light of the tax relief cap,” Smith replied. “We urge you to engage with the government so we can work towards an understanding of how we can help.”
The chairman of the Wellcome Trust, Sir William Castell, told the minister that he saw a conflict between what she had just said and other government statements concerning ‘avoidance’.
“I have heard major donors express doubts that they will be able to contribute as much,” Sir William said. “This puts more money into the state sector, instead of the voluntary sector, which is where there are people who can use their expertise to actually tackle the root of society’s ills.
“In fact, there has already been disruption. With this cap we are just transferring wealth into the public sector – but isn’t the voluntary sector what this government’s Big Society initiative is supposed to be all about?”
This rhetorical question was greeted with applause, after which Sir William echoed Osborne’s enquiry about how the government is going to make up the loss that its new tax legislation will create in the voluntary sector.
“Taxation pays for services that we all use, and that people specifically want to see funded,” answered the minister. “My own personal philosophy – and the Prime Minister agrees with this – is that there is such a thing as society that is not the state. We need society to contribute, but we also still need the state to do its job, too. As I have said, it is all about working together to find a balance.”
Mike Wade
Director of Fundraising and Communications
NDCS
26 Apr 2012
Hmm. So last Saturday George Osborne told Radio 4’s Today programme that he wanted to "sit down with the charities, get it right and make sure they get protected". Chloe Smith does not seem to agree, and instead wants charities to foot the goverment's bills.
And we will all pay in the end. The frightened child who can't get through to Childline. The cancer sufferer who fails to benefit from a cure. The african village that goes without safe water. This is the reality of including charitable giving in the cap.
If she is so concerned that "it is unfair that low wage earners pay tax whilst the richest get reliefs" then maybe Chloe Smith would agree with me that we should treat Higher Rate Taxpayers in exactly the same way as their less well-off counterparts, and simply allow the charity to recalim the full tax paid against their donations. No tax relief for the donor - no tax avoidance problem. And a lot more good acheived in the world.
Rob Billson
26 Apr 2012
The Minister might just as well have stuck her fingers in her ears and said "la la la I'm not listening". The empty meaningless statement "My own personal philosophy – and the Prime Minister agrees with this – is that there is such a thing as society that is not the state" will win many prizes for its vacuity.
Budget 2012: Tax relief cap could strangle major gifts, charities warn
Tax expert says campaign against tax relief cap is 'a storm in a teacup'
HMRC publishes costs to Exchequer of gift aid relief
Institute backs Red Cross tax relief cap proposal
Christian charity opposes Red Cross tax relief cap idea
Treasury: tax relief cap not driven by cost or deficit
Giving Summit critical date for tax relief cap, says Philanthropy Review chair
Treasury: We listened, and we're listening still
CITR will be included in cap on tax relief, confirms Treasury
Let donors escape tax relief cap by giving the relief to charity, says Red Cross
24 May 2013
The Big Lottery Fund has denied that its recent grants to Citizens Advice Bureaux and Home-start charities...
24 May 2013
The brutal murder of soldier Lee Rigby this week has led to a sharp rise in donations to Help for Heroes...
22 May 2013
Shadow minister for civil society Gareth Thomas has tabled a series of Parliamentary questions to minister...
24 May 2013
The Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations has criticised the Scottish regulator, OSCR, for stepping...
24 May 2013
Acevo chief executive Sir Stephen Bubb has said the Charity Commission will have to get better at regulating...
24 May 2013
The chief executive of Barnardo’s Anne Marie Carrie will leave the children’s charity next month after...
24 May 2013
The Charity Commission launched its new website today, and hopes that the improvements will make it easier...
22 May 2013
Google has shortlisted ten UK charities which stand the chance of winning £500,000 as part of its Global...
20 May 2013
Your CivilSociety rounds-up the most read stories from the previous week.
29 Oct 2013
29 Oct 2013
29 Oct 2013
27 Nov 2013
Kevin Russell
Technical Director
Stewardship
27 Apr 2012
Mike, we need to get away from this notion that the donor is getting the higher rate tax relief and that it should go to the charity. In effect, it already does.
An example (next year's top rate of 45%):
An individual earns £1,000,000 and decides to give £800,000 (net) to charity. Let's assume that this all qualifies for gift aid relief and that all other reliefs, allowances etc. have been applied elsewhere.
Donor is liable to tax at 45% and therefore has cash after tax of £550,000. They give £800,000 to the charity which then reclaims basic rate tax from HMRC. The donor is now £250,000 out of pocket, to be funded from elsewhere ... unless, that is, that they can reclaim the higher (or more correctly, additional) rate of tax less the basic rate element from HMRC. Result:
Charity gets £1m (net £800K plus £200K basic rate relief)
Donor is left with nil: £1m earnings less £800K gift, less £450K income tax, plus additional rate relief of £250K (£450K less £200K basic rate)
HMRC is left with nil.
Net effect: donor has given all £1m to the charity - and tax does not feature. This is exactly how the system is meant to work and has done since the very beginnings of the income tax system - that if one deprives themselves of their income, for public good, they are treated for tax purposes, as if it was never their income ... because it is not under their control but the control of public benefit organisations.
I recognise that the rules to achieve this are opaque, but please, please, can we get away from this notion that the donor is tax dodging, or even receiving a personal benefit from the higher rate tax. They are not. The money ALL ends up in the hands of the charity.
If this cap is introduced, it will be the CHARITIES that are penalised - a straight tax on charity.
[Reply]