CRS and Charities: January 2017 update

Donations boxHMRC hosted another Charities CRS working group on 16 January. The following issues were on the agenda for discussion:

Anti-Avoidance Rules

HMRC would like to refine its currently broad regulation regarding anti-avoidance. It is scheduled to discuss it with the compliance team shortly. It will also be reviewing the anti-avoidance issues surrounding donations channelled through other charites and some more detailed guidance is expected to be issued shortly thereafter.

Trust Guidance

HMRC is in the process of preparing some guidance with the OECD focusing on some of the grey areas surrounding trusts. STEP has produced a memorandum on the issues of concern on how the CRS is intended to apply to trusts, persons connected with trusts and trust assets. The memorandum sets out our understanding of the application of the CRS in certain circumstances and highlights points of uncertainty in the reporting framework. We have submitted the paper to HMRC and the OECD and hope that it will form part of the additional new OECD guidance.

Human Rights

HMRC has issued new guidance, Charities: Protection on Human Rights Grounds, which will assist charities concerned about the human rights implications associated with information they are required to report under the automatic exchange of information (AEOI) agreements. HMRC recognises that there may be cases where the threat to an individual’s human rights as a result of his or her information being exchanged may justify information being redacted from that transmitted. The guidance covers the redaction of information on human rights grounds; threats to human rights, and safeguards already in place; and how to apply for redaction of information, including the HMRC process and the documentation required.

STEP will continue to attend the periodic working group to discuss ongoing technical issues with HMRC.

 

Emily Deane TEP is STEP Technical Counsel

CRS and Charities October update

Emily Deane TEPHMRC hosted another Charities CRS working group on 12 October. The following issues were on the agenda for discussion:

Human Rights Guidance

  • HMRC has been collecting examples from the working group to increase transparency and address concerns where the exchange of information could put individuals at risk. Its new guidance has addressed some of these concerns.
  • It was pointed out that HMRC has highlighted the absolute rights within the Human Rights Act, but it does not refer to the qualified rights of individuals, and these should also be considered.

Discretionary Management

  • Some discretionary management scenarios were discussed by the group and it was suggested that HMRC provide examples of these in its guidance.

    HMRC noted that it was difficult to provide examples to cover every scenario, because the facts of each individual case will determine whether or not it falls within the scope of CRS. However, it agreed to continue to refine its guidance where possible.

  • HMRC confirmed that simply setting parameters for an investment manager (for example that he/she may only invest in ethical investments) does not mean that discretion is retained by charity trustees.

Communications

  • HMRC will be producing a webinar for charities setting out a basic introduction to CRS, which should be available before December.
  • HMRC was asked to produce a proforma for charities to use when completing the self-certification process. It advised that while this was not possible, some examples on the OECD automatic exchange portal might be useful instead.
  • HMRC has been hosting some CRS Charity events in conjunction with STEP. If you would like more information please contact Emily.Deane@step.org

STEP will continue to attend the periodic working group to discuss ongoing technical issues with HMRC. The next meeting is in January.

 

Emily Deane TEP, STEP Technical Counsel

Legacy giving: the role of the practitioner

charity jarOn 18 October, my colleague Beatriz Brockhurst (STEP News Editor) and I attended the launch of Legacy Giving and Behavioural Insights – a research report which examined how will writers discussed charitable giving with their clients.

Bridging the gap

The research illustrates the gap between clients expressing an interest in leaving charitable gifts (35 per cent) and those who actually do so (6 per cent). The event considered the ways in which practitioners can encourage greater giving by testators, drawing on evidence gathered from eight law firms and 31 solicitors, as well as 2,600 wills that were analysed during the two-year study.

Having the conversation

As a starting point, professionals should be talking about charitable legacy with their clients as part of the will preparation process.

But are clients comfortable with having this conversation? The study found that 69 per cent of clients generally deemed it acceptable for such a topic to be raised – and 46 per cent regarded it as the duty of the professional to mention it.

Different approaches

The research trialled three different ways of talking to clients about charitable legacies:

  1. Social norm framing – informing the client that charitable bequests was something many people did, and to ask if they would like to do the same. Legacy giving increased by 40 per cent for people making their first will.
  2. Emotional framing – asking the client to think about charities they or their families were passionate about, and/or had benefited from. This type of messaging was found to increase donations from clients both with and without children.
  3. Posthumous benefit framing – highlighting the good work that would result from a charitable bequest. This was regarded as the least acceptable and least effective form of messaging.

Tax incentives

The study also found that, in most cases, the tax advantage of legacy giving due to inheritance tax thresholds was not a motivating factor.

A TEP’s perspective

Jo Summers TEP, a member of STEP’s UK Practice Committee, offered a practitioner’s point of view. She emphasised the need to broach the subject of charitable legacy carefully and sensitively, not least to protect against being regarded as having exercised undue influence. Jo cited the initial client questionnaire as a good way to introduce the topic, with scope for a further conversation, if the client indicated this would be appropriate.

Practitioners also need to be aware that the charity the client would like to leave a donation to could change over time. As a practical solution, Jo suggested the will could contain a clause stating a percentage legacy, or a fixed sum to be split between charities chosen by the executors, with a letter of wishes to indicate where the money should be donated, depending on the client’s family circumstances at the time of their death.

Conclusion

The study concludes that will clients are generally open to having a conversation about charitable legacy. Practitioners can therefore play an important role in raising the level of charitable donations as legacy gifts.

The report offers interesting behavioural insights around legacy giving – I encourage you to read it:

 

Sean Smith, STEP Policy Manager

CRS and charities continued…

Emily DeaneOn 18 August, I attended the latest Charities CRS Working Group meeting, hosted by HMRC. The main issues discussed were as follows:

  • HMRC confirmed that CIOs (charitable incorporated organisations) will be treated in the same way under CRS as other corporate bodies and this will be incorporated into the new guidance.
  • HMRC confirmed that collection of Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) and date of birth information is on a best-efforts basis if the charity does not already hold the information. A charity should also make best efforts to get a self-certification prior to issuing a grant, however they are not compelled to refuse to give a grant without a self-certification.
  • Charities have an obligation to tell their beneficiaries that their data may be shared, as per Regulation 6. There is no requirement under Data Protection to seek consent from the beneficiaries, since the data is being shared under a legal requirement.
  • HMRC are still reviewing the anti-avoidance measures and they will provide an update when compliance colleagues have been consulted further.
  • HMRC will add further examples to the guidance regarding the definition of ‘indirect beneficiaries’ to help illustrate cases around identifying who is the beneficiary of a grant.

Potential human rights abuses are still a major concern among the charity sector. HMRC are taking into consideration some instances where the exchange of data may not be warranted and could be tantamount to a breach of human rights. HMRC have been collecting examples from the working group in order to increase transparency around this issue and to take on board potential activities of jurisdictions where there are existing concerns around human rights.

The new guidance manual has been published on HMRC’s website and can be viewed via this link:
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/international-exchange-of-information/ieim400000

HMRC also published this Guidance Note for charities in relation to automatic exchange of information.

HMRC intend to host some CRS charity-specific seminars around the country and STEP will flag these events as they arise.

On a broader CRS basis, the HMRC AEOI team is running an educational event aimed at businesses and agents in the small and medium sectors who are affected by AEOI and would like more information. The event will include speakers from agents, industry and HMRC as well as the opportunity for 1‐2‐1 ‘surgeries’ plus small group discussions on due diligence best practice. The event will take place on 7 October 2016 in London. To register an interest in the event please email crs.consultation@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk

STEP will continue to attend the periodic working group to discuss ongoing technical issues with HMRC in this connection.

Emily Deane TEP, STEP Technical Counsel

What’s happening to dormant assets?

Post Office Savings Book

The UK government has recently formed the Independent Commission on Dormant Assets which is investigating a revised scheme in order to identify new pools of dormant or unclaimed assets.

The existing scheme was formed in 2008, after the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 was passed, which deems bank and building society accounts to be dormant after a lack of customer-initiated contact for 15 years. The intention of HMRC is to locate these abandoned assets and use them to benefit good causes.

The commission is pooling its resources from various finance and industry experts and intends to report its final analysis to the prime minster and the cabinet office by the end of 2016. It will analyse the following:

  1. Which dormant assets can be brought into an expanded dormant asset scheme, and how they can be identified by industry
  2. The projected size of the funding pot this could produce for good causes
  3. Whether with the potential increase of dormant assets being released by industry the current system is able to manage the burden; and
  4. Whether any new legislation should include a requirement for improved transparency from industry on disclosing the level of assets within their sector.

The government estimates indicate there could be more than GBP1 billion of untapped sources of dormant assets which may include stocks, shares, bonds and pensions. Since the Dormant Assets Scheme was initiated in 2008, approximately GBP750 million has been released from banks and building societies and most of the recipients have been charities across the UK.

The new scheme is intended to provide further momentum to pass the dormant funds onto those who really need them in the charity sector. Rob Wilson, the Minister for Civil Society states, ‘More than a billion pounds of assets, that might otherwise sit gathering dust, will go into funding for charities that make a real difference to people’s lives across the country. To build an even more caring and compassionate country we need to transform dormant resources and give the funds to those who need it.’

It is easy to understand how these assets are overlooked in the first instance, considering how common it is for people to manage their assets digitally (see below). Family members may be completely unaware of the existence of bank accounts or stocks or shares, let alone having access to the data and passwords.

Other possible scenarios might be moving home and not redirecting the post, changing names after marriage, mergers between banks and building societies or a general lack of paperwork. These accounts may be unintentionally abandoned for 15 years and later released to an obliging local charity, to the detriment of the unknowing beneficiaries.

However, there are common scenarios which do not give rise to dormant assets such as intestate estates. The rules of intestacy are activated when someone dies without making a will and they determine which surviving relatives will inherit the estate. In the event that there are no surviving relatives, after investigation, then the estate automatically passes to the Crown and will not be subject to the dormant asset rules.

In the event of a testate estate, and a missing beneficiary, the process becomes more arduous due to the fact that personal representatives and trustees (in the case of trusts) have clear fiduciary responsibilities to carry out the deceased’s wishes for their estate or trust. They are under a duty to protect the interest of the beneficiaries. Therefore, if adequate measures have been taken to locate a beneficiary unsuccessfully, it is deemed reasonable to assume they have died, and distribute the funds to other beneficiaries in accordance with the will.

The personal representative or trustee may seek an indemnity from the other beneficiaries to cover the funds, should the missing beneficiaries reappear. Alternatively they may seek a similar indemnity from an insurance company. Where significant funds are involved they may instead seek a ‘Benjamin Order’ from the court, allowing the trustees to assume that the missing beneficiary is dead. In any event, the funds will be distributed, rather than being held awaiting any contact from the missing person. Therefore, the assets will not linger, or be overlooked, and the estate can be promptly wound up, unless they have passed completely under the radar in the first instance.

  • STEP has recently set up a Digital Assets Working Group to address the emerging issues for practitioners in this field. Its purpose is to educate members and providing guidance and resources; and to campaign for greater clarity and uniformity in international laws and the T&Cs of internet service providers.

 

Emily Deane TEP is Technical Counsel at STEP

CRS and Charities continued…

donating to charity - giving money - piggybankHMRC has posted its international automatic exchange guidance on the government website, following another meeting held with STEP and charity advisors: International Exchange of Information Manual. The charity guidance will be posted within a week, the HMRC working group promises.

Attendees at the meeting discussed the mechanics of the due diligence process of charities in more detail; in particular, self-certification and tax residency. All beneficiaries and the gifts that they have received must be reported by a charity that is a Financial Institution (FI). Their name, payment and residency must also be reported, and there will be a tick box for UK residency.

In some scenarios, where charities are donating to the homeless and/or destitute, HMRC confirms that it will be difficult to obtain a self-certification of the beneficiary. In these circumstances, if the gift is being made in a reportable jurisdiction, the self-certification can be verified on a verbal basis. It can also be assumed that an apparently homeless person is tax resident in the country that they are present in at the time of the gift. No supporting documentation is required by HMRC if the question of residency appears acceptable, and adheres to a common sense ‘reasonableness’ test. Generally, no follow up of the beneficiary is necessary on this basis.

It is only necessary to acquire the beneficiary’s Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) when they are resident in a country that provides them (Reportable Information: Tax Identification Number), and when it is reasonable to be able to acquire it. The tick box on the form for the TIN will be optional.

Gifts under approximately £100 (to be confirmed) are not reportable in non-reportable jurisdictions. Food and supplies that are donated are not reportable, and vouchers, whether cash or otherwise, are currently being considered.

HMRC confirmed that there will be a £300 fine for not submitting a report on time and a higher fine for delayed failure for a reporting entity. However, the £300 figure is currently under review and may be increased. There will be a £3,000 fine for an inaccurate report as a result of ‘deliberate behaviour’.

STEP’s meetings with HMRC are conducted on a monthly basis, however HMRC is to run more events with financial entities that will be affected by CRS (the OECD Common Reporting Standard) in order to provide further training.

In the meantime, we welcome any specific queries or input from practitioners which we will pass on to the working group for clarification. Please contact us at policy@step.org.

 

Emily Deane TEP is Technical Counsel at STEP

CRS and charities: watch out for reporting obligations

George HodgsonThe OECD Common Reporting Standard (CRS) is probably going to impact directly every STEP member outside of the US – the only major international financial centre not so far committed to joining the CRS. Even STEP members in the US, however, are likely to have to consider CRS’ implications for any clients they have with widely spread financial interests.

Fortunately, CRS is very closely based on FATCA, so most of the work practitioners have done on FATCA implementation over the past couple of years should serve them well when it comes to CRS implementation over the next year or two. There are, even so, a couple of wrinkles in CRS which might trap the unwary.

One difference is that some of the reporting options available to trusts which are considered Financial Institutions (FIs) under FATCA, specifically ‘owner documented’ status and ‘sponsored investment entity’ status, are not available under CRS. Basically, under CRS, trusts that are FIs can either be trustee-documented trusts or must report directly, although they can come to third party service agreements with others to complete their reporting for them if they wish.

Another potential trap is that while all regulated charities were essentially exempt from FATCA reporting, some charitable trusts will need to file reports under CRS.

Charitable trusts that are Non-Financial Entities (NFEs) are regarded as Active NFEs under both FATCA and CRS and are therefore not reportable. Under FATCA, charities that are FIs were also carved out as ‘Deemed Compliant Financial Institutions’ and thus did not need to register or report. Under CRS, however, such charitable trusts do not have ‘Deemed Compliant’ status. Thus, under CRS, charitable trusts that are FIs – typically because they have a discretionary fund manager – will need to perform due diligence, establishing the tax residence of all Controlling Persons (including beneficiaries) and report any reportable accounts.

STEP recently arranged a meeting between some charity advisors and HMRC on this issue and HMRC are now looking to draft some additional guidance for the charity sector in the issues raised by CRS. In drafting this guidance HMRC would welcome further input from practitioners. Therefore, if you have encountered any specific difficulties or have any particular questions, please contact STEP and we will undertake to pass them on to HMRC as they are drafting their guidance.

George Hodgson, Deputy Chief Executive, STEP