Advantages of being a charity in law

Unless an organisation is a charity in law, it will not benefit from the tax, VAT, business rates and other advantages that attach to charities. Therefore, when planning to launch a new organisation as a charity based in England & Wales, its founders will need to ensure that it will have charitable status in law. 

An organisation does not need to be registered as a charity with the Charity Commission if it is neither set up as a CIO (Charitable Incorporated Organisation) nor has an annual income of less than £5,000 per year, but its founders may choose to register it in either case. However, an organisation may only be registered as a charity if it is a charity in law. 

Whether an organisation is capable of being registered or is or is not registered with the Charity Commission is not relevant to the question of whether it is a charity in law. 

What ensures that an organisation will be a charity in law?

Firstly, it must have “charitable purposes”, which means that it must have at least one of the purposes defined by law as “charitable”, and it also means that its purposes must be exclusively charitable. 

Secondly, it must be for the “public benefit”. This means that there must be “benefit” and that benefit must be for the public or a section of the public. 

For further information and an explanation of what will constitute “charitable purposes” and “public benefit”, see Can Your Purpose Be Achieved by Setting Up a Charity, and Guidance Note: What Makes an Organisation a Charity in Law.

A Recent Charity Tribunal Ruling Involving “Charitable Purposes” and “Public Benefit”

A recent case, heard by the First Tier Tribunal (Charity) was The International Foundation for Therapeutic and Counselling Choice (“IFTCC”) – v- The Charity Commission for England & Wales which was decided on 30 April 2025. It was an appeal by the IFTCC against the Commission’s refusal on 25 July 2024 to register the IFTCC as a charity. The IFTCC’s appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. The decision is a good example of how the rules on charitable purposes and public benefit are applied to decide whether an organisation qualifies as a charity in law. 

The Tribunal had to decide what the purposes of the IFTCC were, whether they were exclusively charitable, and whether they were for the public benefit. The IFTCC’s purposes, as set out in its constitution, were examined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal said that previous case law made it clear that the “particular purpose(s)’ of the ….. IFTCC ……in the context of … its.. constitution must be identified, that is, what it is that … it … was set up to do, not how it would achieve its objects or whether its subsequent activities are in accordance with what it was set up to do, while construing … its … declared purposes in accordance with the accepted rules of construction.”

The Tribunal noted that IFTCC’s mission statement included the statement that it “exists to support dedicated providers of services to individuals seeking change of their unwanted relational and sexual behaviours, attractions and patterns”. 

The Tribunal also referred to the IFTCC’s purposes, as set out in its constitution. These were to : 

• advance education in the field of human sexuality and Christian ethics
• promote health and the saving of lives
• promote equality and diversity
• advance Christianity… and to equip the church in the discharge of its ministry
• advance such charitable purposes as the trustees see fit from time to time.

A Charity Must Not Have A Political Purpose

The Tribunal confirmed that where the purpose of an organisation is advancement of education, such a purpose is presumed to be for the public benefit. 

However, it also said that a distinction must be drawn between the advancement of education on the one hand and promoting a particular point of view on the other hand. The Tribunal made clear that if the purpose of an organisation is to provide information to persuade people to form specific conclusions, that is not ‘education’ in charity law. Raising people’s awareness of an issue to build support for a campaign is not educating them about the issue in question as the aim is to garner their support and to promote a particular point of view. 

The Tribunal explained that, as was already clear from existing charity law principles, this would be a political purpose and that a political purpose would not be for the “public benefit”. (See the Commission’s Guidance on Political Activity and Campaigning by Charities). 

Tribunal’s Judgment

The Tribunal found that whilst the IFTCC’s key stated purpose was “advancement of education”, this purpose was undermined by the fact that the IFTCC tried to impose its views and secure a particular doctrinal alignment rather than “educating” about the issues. (The IFTCC had been described in a number of articles as a “pro-conversion therapy group”.) 

It concluded that in this case the IFTCC had a political purpose and so it could not be said to have exclusively charitable purposes. It was therefore not permitted to be registered as a charity.

The IFTCC also claimed that there were two further issues to be decided, namely whether the Commission had complied with Articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), and whether disparity of treatment by the Commission as between the institution “Stonewall” and the IFTCC was a ground for quashing the Commission’s decision about the IFTCC. 

However, the Tribunal said that since the tests of “charitable purposes” and “public benefit” had not been passed by the IFTCC, the IFTCC was in any event not a charity in law so that the Tribunal would not need to go on to address the issues arising from the ECHR or disparity of treatment.

In the course of its judgment, the Tribunal also clarified that:

• the burden of proof was on the IFTCC to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the IFTCC’s purposes were exclusively charitable (a principle laid down in the case of Hipkiss - v – Charity Commission).
• its role was not to review the Commission’s decision-making process but instead to consider the IFTCC’s application to be registered, i.e. to stand in the shoes of the Commission and consider the matter of registration afresh.

Conclusion

It is clear from the IFTCC case that if founders of an organisation are relying on it amounting to a charity in law, it is essential that at an early stage in their planning process, they satisfy themselves that the organisation will have exclusively charitable purposes and that those purposes will be for the public benefit. Where there is any doubt, it will be prudent to take professional legal advice about those factors.