99 support, and education of the children of ministers and missionaries of that church, "special regard being had to the children of such ministers as are least able to support the expense of their children's education;" and the remaining fourth to the maintenance of establishments for the residence and support of single women who had been engaged in the educational department of the Church and who had become incapacitated, widows of ministers or missionaries, and of poor members and single men whose chief employment was to look after the young and assist in education. It was held that these were charitable purposes within the meaning of sect. 61, rule No. VI. of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35 (≈), and that the rents and profits of the lands in question were exempt from income tax. Lord Esher and Lopes, L. J., held that the phrase "charitable purposes" must be construed according to the popular meaning of the words, and neither in the wide sense placed upon them by the Court of Chancery, nor in the narrow sense of merely relief of physical want (a). And Lord Esher said (b), "I cannot help thinking that in the minds of all ordinary persons charity implies the relief of poverty, and I think there must be in the mind of the donor an intention to relieve poverty. It is not the mere fact that the person who receives what is given is poor constitutes a charity. A gift to a son or a poor relation is not a gift by way of charity, but by reason of the relationship. The paraphrase, therefore, which I adopt is this. Allowances are to be made in respect of the duties on the rents and profits of lands, tenements, hereditaments, or heritages vested in trustees where the rents and profits are given in trust to be expended in assisting people to something considered by the donor to be for their benefit, and which assistance the donor intends shall be given to people who, in his opinion, cannot without such assistance, by reason of poverty, obtain that benefit, and where the intention of the donor is to assist such poverty as the substantial cause of his gift." Applying the above definition, his lordship added, that a purpose which was charitable by reason of an intention to relieve poverty was none the less so because it was also religious or educational; and in the case before the Court, although the purposes were religious and educational, they were nevertheless designed for the relief of poverty, and were consequently charitable within the meaning of the Act. Fry, L. J., arrived at the same ultimate result. He, however, considered that "charitable purposes "" were to be construed in Application of case. Charitable purposes only. Duty on property of bodies. accordance with the interpretation placed by the Court of Chancery on 43 Eliz. c. 4(). It is understood that this case is under appeal to the House of Lords. But in the meantime it is to be observed, that if the views of Lord Esher, and Lopes, L. J., as to the construction of the Act are supported, it will no longer be possible to lay down a broad distinction between charitable purposes on the one hand, and religious, educational, and parochial purposes on the other. In every case the only question will be whether the creator of the trust aimed in any way at relieving poverty. Still more will this be the result if it should turn out that the view of the construction of the Act adopted by Fry, L. J., is the correct one. Where the managing committee of a hospital for insane persons, founded by voluntary contributions, made profits by receiving wealthy patients, a portion of which was applied for the benefit of the poorer patients, and the rest in executing necessary repairs of the hospital, it was held that such profits were not "applied to charitable purposes only" within the meaning of the section, and that income tax was therefore payable upon them (d). Duties on Property of Corporate and Unincorporate Bodies. There is an exemption from the duty, in lieu of probate and corporate and succession duties granted by the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, unincorporate 1885 (e), on the property of corporate and unincorporate bodies, in the case of property which, or the income or profits whereof, are legally appropriated and applied for any purpose connected with any religious persuasion, or for any charitable purpose, or for the promotion of education, literature, science, or the fine arts (ƒ), the property of a friendly society, or savings bank (g), and property acquired by or with funds voluntarily contributed to any body corporate or unincorporate within the preceding thirty years (1). The property of the Institution of Civil Engineers has been held entitled to the benefit of this exemption, as being applied for the promotion of science (¿). Institution of Civil Engineers. (c) Cf. Att.-Gen. v. Bagot, 13 Ir. C. L. Rep. 48, ante, p. 359. Under the Stat. of Eliz., poverty in the recipients is not a necessary condition to the validity of a charitable gift. Where the gift is for a general educational, religious, or public purpose, it is charitable, independently of any intention on the part of the donor to relieve poverty. Where, however, the gift is not charitable on any of these grounds, then an intention to relieve poverty or distress is necessary to constitute it charitable. See ante, pp. 3, 11. (d) St. Andrew's Hospital, Northampton v. Shearsmith, 19 Q. B. D. 624. See also Needham v. Bowers, 21 Q. B. D. 436, ante, p. 262. (e) 48 & 49 Vict. c. 51. (i) Re Duty on Estate of Institution of Civil Engineers, 20 Q. B. D. 621. An institution founded by the leading members of various trades Mutual beneto make provision for sick and infirm members of those trades, the fit society. property of which consisted of subscriptions from the members and donations, was not established for a charitable purpose within the meaning of the exemption, but was in the nature of a mutual benefit society (k). Rates. in Old decisions that charity property not rateable to relief of poor. It was formerly considered that there was a distinction, as regards rateability to the relief of the poor, where property was not occupied by beneficial owners. It was accordingly held, many cases, that property occupied for public or charitable purposes was not rateable (7); but the decisions were conflicting (m). This is not now the law. The law, as it now stands, rests on Present law. the decision of the House of Lords in Mersey Docks v. Cameron (n). It may be stated thus: Property in the occupation of the Crown, or of persons using it Crown proexclusively in and for the service of the Crown, is not rateable. perty. The reason of this is, that the Crown is not mentioned in the Poor Law Acts, and, in the absence of express provision, statutes do not apply to the Crown (o). charitable But this principle does not apply in the case of property dedi- Public or cated to public or charitable purposes. In the case of such pro- purposes. perty, therefore, there is no exemption from rateability to the relief of the poor (p). It has accordingly been held that property of the University of Edinburgh (9), and property held upon trust for charitable purposes, such as hospitals and lunatic asylums (r), is rateable. (k) Re Linen and Woollen Drapers' &c. Institution, 58 L. T. N. S. 949. See also Re Duty on Estate of New University Club, 18 Q. B. D. 720, where the property in question belonged to a members' club. (1) Thus almshouses, Rex v. Waldo, Cald. 358; hospitals, Rex v. St. Luke's Hospital, 2 Burr. 1053; Rex v. St. Bartholomew's Hospital, 4 Burr. 2435; Reg. v. St. George the Martyr, Southwark, 16 L. J. M. C. 129; Rex v. Waldo, Cald. 358. See Commissioners of the Leith Harbour and Docks v. Inspector of the Poor, L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 17. (m) See Anon., 2 Salk. 527; Rex v. St. Giles, York, 3 B. & Ad. 573; Reg. v. Sterry, 12 A. & E. 84; Rex v. Wilson, ibid. 94; Reg. v. Ellis, 12 L. J. M. C. 20; Reg. v. Baptist Missionary Society, 18 ibid. 194; Reg. v. Temple, 22 ibid. 129; Reg. v. Parish of Stapleton, 33 ibid. (n) 11 H. L. C. 443. (o) Mersey Docks v. Cameron, supra; Greig v. University of Edinburgh, L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. at p. 350. (p) Ibid.; and see Clyde Navigation Trustees v. Adamson, 4 Macq. 931; Commissioners of the Leith Harbour and Docks v. Inspector of the Poor, L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 17; Governors of St. Thomas' Hospital v. Stratton, L. R. 7 H. L. 477; Reg. v. Metropolitan Board of Works, L. R. 4 Q. B. 15. (q) Greig v. University of Edinburgh, L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 348. (r) Mersey Docks v. Cameron, 11 H. L. C. at p. 502; Governors of St. Thomas' Recipients of charity. Schoolmaster. Property of no value. Exemption in private Act. No difference between Scotch and English laws. General rates. Scientific, literary, and fine arts societies. Inhabited house duty. Local Act exempting charities from rates. So, also, it has been held with regard to property held by the London Missionary Society (s), and by the Society of Friends (t); and it makes no difference that the whole income is applied to charity (u). Similarly, the recipients of a charity, as almspeople, who are in occupation of the charity estate, are in strictness rateable (x). A schoolmaster in occupation of a part of the charity property is rateable in respect of it (y); but not a person employed by a philanthropic society, and having no apartments provided for her except a bedroom (z). And there is no rateability where the property is of no value (a). An exemption in a private Act of lands given for charitable purposes "from all public taxes, charges, and assessments whatsoever, civil or military," has been held to include poor-rate (b). There is no difference between the law of Scotland and that of England with regard to the rateability of charity property (c). Charity property is also liable to general rates (d). Societies established exclusively for purposes of science, literature, or the fine arts, are exempted from county, borough, parochial, and other local rates (e). Hospitals, charity schools, and houses provided for the reception or relief of poor persons, are exempted from inhabited house duty (ƒ). This exemption must be construed in the same manner as the similar exemption in 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, sect. 61 (g). Therefore, an institution which is self-supporting, and receives nothing from charity, even though it may have been originally founded by charitable donations, is not within the exemption (h). Where a Local Improvement Act exempted from rates made thereunder any houses or buildings used and occupied exclusively for the purposes of public charity, it was held that an orphanage for children of deceased railway servants, supported partly by Hospital v. Stratton, L. R. 7 H. L. 477; (s) Reg. v. Wilson, 12 A. & E. 94. (x) Rex v. Munday, 1 East, 584; Rex (y) Rex v. Catt, 6 T. R. 332; Reg. v. Parish of Stapleton, 4 B. & S. 629. (z) Rex v. Field, 5 T. R. 587. See also Reg. v. Wilson, 12 A. & E. 94 (a) Mayor of Lincoln v. Holmes Common, L. R. 2 Q. B. 482. (b) Rex v. Scot, 3 T. R. 602. (c) Clyde Navigation Trustees v. Adamson, 4 Macq. 931. (d) Rex v. Licensed Victuallers' Society, 1 B. & S. 71. (e) 6 & 7 Vict. c. 36. See Reg. v. Institution of Civil Engineers, 5 Q. B. D. 48. (f) 48 Geo. III. c. 55, Sched. B. Exemptions, Case IV. ; 14 & 15 Vict. c. 36. (g) Ante, p. 361. (h) Needham v. Bowers, 21 Q. B. D. 436. See ante, p. 362. subscriptions from railway servants, but mainly by donations, was exempt from rateability (i). Land Tax. Colleges and halls of Oxford and Cambridge, the colleges of Exemption of colleges, &c. Windsor, Eton, Winchester, Westminster, and Bromley, the corporation of the governors of the charity for the relief of the poor widows and children of clergymen, and hospitals in England and Wales, are exempted from land tax in respect of their sites (). Nor is land tax chargeable upon any of the houses or lands which on or before the 25th of March, 1693, belonged to the sites of any college or hall in England or Wales, or to Christ's Hospital, St. Bartholomew, Bridewell, St. Thomas, and Bethlehem Hospitals, or the said corporations for the relief of poor widows and children of clergymen, or the college of Bromley, or any other hospitals or almshouses in England or Wales, in respect of rents or revenues payable to them before the 25th March, 1693, and disbursed for the immediate use of the poor of such hospitals and almshouses (7). Tenants holding lands or houses by lease or other grant from the said corporations, or any of the said hospitals or almshouses are not entitled to the benefit of the exemption (m). And sect. 29 enacts that all such lands, revenues, or rents, belonging to any hospital or almshouse or settled to any charitable or pious use, as were assessed in the fourth year of the reign of William and Mary, should be liable to be charged to land tax, and that no other lands, tenements, or hereditaments, revenues, or rents whatsoever, then belonging to any hospital or almshouse, or settled to any charitable or pious uses as aforesaid, should be charged, taxed, or assessed by virtue of the Act. The above exemption applies only to institutions and sites Exemption existing at the time when the Act was made perpetual (n). Land which in the beginning enjoyed the benefit of this exemption retains the exemption, although it has ceased to be held upon charitable uses (0). (i) Hall v. Derby Sanitary Authority, 16 Q. B. D. 163. (k) 38 Geo. III. c. 5, s. 25. Sect. 25 of the original Land Tax Act (4 Will. & M. c. 1) contained similar exemptions. (1) Ibid. (m) Ibid. s. 26. (n) Lord Colchester v. Kewney, L. R. 2 Ex. 253; Cox v. Rabbits, 3 App. Cas. 473. The Act was made perpetual by 38 Geo. III. c. 60, passed the 21st of June, 1798. (0) Cox v. Rabbits, supra. only extends to institutions then existing. Land once exempted continues so. T. BB |