GIFTS TO SPORTING BODIES NOT EXEMPT FROM STAMP DUTIES

Evening Star, Issue 26087, 29 April 1947, Page 4

GIFTS TO SPORTING BODIES NOT EXEMPT FROM STAMP DUTIES

Mr Justice Kennedy delivered reserved judgment this morning in the matter of a case stated by the Commissioner of Stamp Duties on the question whether gifts by a testator to the Otago Rowing Association, to the Otago Swimming Association, and to the Otago Amateur Athletic Association were gifts of property which were he'd upon charitable trusts. If they were, then they'will be exempted from succession duty, but if they were not, they were subject to that duty. It was submitted that each of these associations was a charity in law. The appellant in .the case was Arthur Charles Laing (Mr J. S. Sinclair) and the respondent the Commissioner of Stamp Duties, for whom Mr F. B. Adams had appeared. There was no requirement that the funds passing over to each association should be used for any special purpose, said His Honour in his judgment; they were unconditional gifts. In the case particularly of the Swimming Association there were objects which might indicate charitable purposes; had they stood alone might well have constituted a charity, but there were other objects which might be described, in brief, as including the promotion and regulation of the sport. “It follows accordingly.” His Honour proceeds, “ that the funds are not dedicated to some charitable purpose and the association or . associated individuals are free, always witliin the limits of their constitution as now existing or as altered, to deal with the gifts in any manner they please, and they are bound by no charitable trust as to their disposition. I think it is clear in each case that it would be impossible for a court to intervene and direct the destination of the moneys towards charitable purposes and to interdict their disposal towards the other non-chari table purposes which appear as objects of the society or associated individuals. The mere gift, then, to such a body or associated individuals, does not impose a trust. It was, however, submitted that while before 1914 the submission coujd not with force be made’, it now appeared that sporting activities resulted in greater physical fitness which, in view of the interests of nationar security and the general adoption of some form of conscription, must he held a purpose of public utility, and associations, although devoted to the encouragement and regulation of sport, should he regarded as charities. But while the indirect benefits to the public-may now be more highly valued, the societies are still not within the analogy of the Statute, using those words in the wide sense in which they are used in this connection, and tfyat is the difficulty with this submission.” After referring to the various authorities quoted during the hearing of the case, His Honour said that it had not been shown that any gift was of property acquired and held upon a charitable trust in New Zealand, and the appeal was dismissed', the appellant to pay the respondent £l s l.~s casts and disbursements.