EUREKA! Gift Duty Applies to Donations!

Unlike the naked Archimedes’s joyful exclamation, the recent exposé of the Eureka Trust comes as a more serious warning for those working in the charitable sector. Charities never need to bother with tax issues do they? Actually, yes…

In the past weeks the papers have been filled with articles on Eureka for all the wrong reasons.  It is alleged that Eureka Trust, a charitable trust, has been giving donations to sporting organisations in the mistaken belief that these were valid gifts to charity when they were possibly not.  Eureka has suspended all grants to sporting bodies while the matter is cleared up, and it may mean that a good source of funding for sport will now be directed to other charities.

The story has broken as the full effect of the changes to the regulation of charities starts to bite.  The Charities Commission was set up in 2008, and this body is charged with the regulation of charities in New Zealand.  Previously charities were able to carry on virtually unmonitored, and the aim of the Charities Commission is to cast light in dark places.  Hopefully no monsters are found in these dark places, but as the charity reporting season heats up, public scrutiny may prove to be all that is needed to shake up this part of our society. That has certainly been the experience of the UK after their charities sector reform.

Things can go badly wrong for charities if they make errors.  All the facts are not available in Eureka’s case, so it is not possible to say whether it has in fact made any mistake.  In principle however, donations for non-charitable purposes will be exposed to gift duty on those donations.

If a charity gives the money to a non-charitable entity, there will be tax consequences.  The charity has to consider whether gift duty is payable, whether the income tax exemptions still apply, and importantly, whether there are any GST considerations that need to be taken into account.  If non charity gifts are significant there is also a risk that the Charities Commission revokes charitable status, and if that happens the charity will lose all the tax benefits that applies.

Gift duty is an archaic tax, and usually is very easy to minimize.  The Government collects about $1million per year from this tax.  However, if structuring is not done correctly gift duty may apply to the value of the gift at 25% in some cases.  Gifts to charity are exempt from gift duty.  However, if gifts are made to non-charitable entities, and the gifts are not excluded for other reasons, then gift duty will apply.

Where charities do err the one thing they (or the trustees) and Archimedes might have in common is that both will be remembered for losing their shirts.  Givers punish charities that waste funds on too much admin- it is likely however that the IRD will punish charities that do not do enough.

For other articles relating to New Zealand law refer to our firm’s New Zealand Lawyers blog.

7 Responses

Gideon Shalwick on September 9, 2009 at 9:50 am

Very well written.

You should write a book about this kind of stuff :)

Gideon Shalwick

Pete Wyllie on September 9, 2009 at 11:00 am

Well written Sybrand, and some good points about giving to non-charitable objects.

The problem with Eureka was that they suspended ALL payments, including those to sports clubs deemed charitable by the commission. As a result, those clubs have suffered financial hardship and the community suffers as a result.

Another illustration of very poor legal advice at the wrong time….

Sybrand van Schalkwyk on September 9, 2009 at 11:39 am

Thanks Pete, I agree, it is a pity that some worthy causes have missed out on funding. However, the problem with Charities is that the line must be drawn somewhere, and I don’t know that that is a very clear line at present. Your worthy cause might not be the same as my worthy cause, and although we might think they should both be charities, neither probably are. I think the days are now gone where charities can be run in a slapdash way without making reference to professional advisors. I also think there is a lot more publicity to come for this sector, so watch this space over the next month or two.

Carla on September 10, 2009 at 9:10 am

Nice to see something written on an often forgotten tax, interlaced with currently topical charities. I agree that this area will more than likely recieve IRD attention in the future. And when they venture into the area of gift duty there are likely to be many taxpayers who could potentially have fallen foul of the rules!

Terry Baucher on September 30, 2009 at 2:11 pm

A good point well made, thanks. I certainly agree that the stone having been kicked over we may be surprised/disappointed at what has been lurking in the dark.

Steve Taylor on February 1, 2010 at 5:10 pm

My question is whether IRD is the right body to be deciding on the legality of the actions of Charitable Trusts. As pointed out by Pete above, I think because of the potential of the power that has been given to IRD to actually inflict a lot of damage on the community with a heavy handed letter of the law approach that there should at least be another government appointed body with a heart to temper their decisions. A case in hand – one of our clients who is a volunteer worker on a re-imbursement contract for a Trust that has contracts with hospitals to care for children with severe disabilities has recently been audited on the premise that his re-imbursements are overpaid and should be taxable. The Trust has been doing this for over 20 years and has been audited for the same thing on other occasions and has won the previous cases. Not content with previous decisions IRD is having another go presumably because of its wider powers. Luckily, the re-imbursements which are allocated on a fixed basis rather than an every instance actual basis appear to have been decided on by CYFS and so IRD is forced to sort it out with CYFS. The audit is not completed so I don’t know the outcome yet. Our client and his family are provided with a home by the Trust which may send children at any time of the day 7 days a week for short term stays. Very few members of our community would be prepared to do this. For the health of the children and their exhausted parents and the health of the community this is a most important role in our community. Is it sensible or wise for us to let the IRD loose to decide on such issues on a letter of the law basis? Whoever instigated the audit may never have even met a family with a disabled child let alone had the responsibility of looking after one for even five minutes. The responsibility here is for 24 hour days on end. Our client and his wife are often looking after two or three children at once, all with different disabilities and all on different medications to be administered at different times of the day.

Sybrand van Schalkwyk on February 4, 2010 at 11:32 am

Hi Steve

Thanks for the comments, especially the examples of how people are personally impacted by their interaction with the tax system. Although it is the IRD’s job to be “fair”, from what you say, one would think that they had better things to do than go after your clients, especially considering the circumstances. I am sure your clients appreciate your help with the issues.

Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

Recent comments

  • Simon G: Both of my parents are in residential care which is being paid for by their residential care loan. In the...
  • Carla Cross: I agree with you entirely. Transparency and certainty are crucial for a self-assessment tax system....
  • Daniel Hunt: It depends on the reason for the shareholding change. What is your reason for changing the shareholding...
  • Viny: Just wondering if we can change shareholding if we are moving to LTC from LAQC or whether this will seen as...
  • Robynne Sutton: My Father is currently being assessed (since May!) Stephen I think you mean “are not limited...
  • Paul: We find the write up, comments, questions and answers very useful. Based on below we have some queries: LAQC...
  • Elizabeth Mitchell: On 4th September, 2011, Daniel Hunt published an article in the Herald on Sunday titled...
  • Sandra: Very nice info. Was looking forward to the reply you had for Anne, but it is sent to her by email. Any...
  • Lynda: My husband and I own a LAQC since 2004 which we are looking at putting on the market in the next few months....
  • Daniel: The Supreme Court has been busy – two Avoidance Judgments in a week (Penny & Hooper & JG...

Poll

In the past 12 months, do you think the amount of IRD investigations being undertaken has?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...