Bashing the Charity Commission won't prevent other Cup Trusts
If you thought blood sports had been outlawed in this country, think again. Recent days have seen the revival of that time-honoured British pastime: bashing the scapegoat. The Charity Commission cowers defenceless as blows rain down from all sides — the press, the Public Accounts Committee and the grandees of the charity sector. Finally, in an attempt to appease its tormentors, the commission has announced a statutory inquiry into the Cup Trust and has appointed an interim manager to run the trust.
But are the fingers of blame pointing in the right direction? Significantly the commission’s press release confirmed that the inquiry had been opened ‘immediately following the receipt of new information from HMRC’. Lest we be concerned about taxpayer confidentiality, we are reassured that ‘the information was supplied in the course of our regular contact with HMRC about charities giving us cause for concern and under specific legal provision which permits the sharing of information in such circumstances’. The Cup Trust was, after all, a tax avoidance vehicle, and tax is the province of HMRC, not the Charity Commission. So far the commission has taken the rap, but isn’t HMRC as much to blame…?
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mills & Reeve briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Mills & Reeve
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Mills & Reeve
Animal welfare: recent EU conference — mid-term review of the strategy for the welfare of animals 2012–15
The conference on the achievements of the EU strategy for the welfare of animals 2012–15: mid-term review took place on 12 February 2014.
In a decision in January, the Information Commissioner’s Office found that the Financial Conduct Authority had breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The trend for unbundling legal work is advancing through the law firm ranks but there is still resistance in some quarters - namely in-house. We asked why