Charlie Gard Case 4

[LovelyBath77]

A new thread to follow on from the others about this case

The reason given why people have been asked to pay directly into Connie's account is to maximise the donations as just giving etc take a percentage.

There is no reason to assume there is anything underhand going on here

It's really easy to set up a charity bank account, I've done it! and then you don't have to pay a fundraising site anything. Paying into someone's personal account is not the logical way to avoid fundraising site fees, a charity account is!

I wonder if Facebook will now start to delete some of the more provocative posts on the CA page
as this chap is facing a custodial sentence ......
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40574754

Logical If it is a registered charity, with trustees, accounts, approved by the charity commission etc yes. But I don't believe there is an actual registered charity for Charlie

People who donate direct to bank accounts can't ask for it back. They are effectively giving the parents a gift. You don't pay tax on gifts received as long as they are small amounts. Doesn't matter how many small gifts you receive.
Money given through giving sites is clearly not a gift, it's a donation for a purpose.

Logical, even legitimate registered charities are not without some whiff of cordite either.

I don't know the answer. But maybe if the money donated was within a trust or something, and we were told about who that trust was, maybe we could ask.

I think it's all forgotten about a few weeks later, and people move on.

I don't. I find it very distasteful, when I think of all the families in similar circumstances who have few resources, but just get on with it, with the help of family and friends.

Some people have a modicum of self respect. Sorry that's my feeling on the matter.

Tx @TinselTwins for that info.

Hence my use of "reason given". I'm not saying it's the most appropriate option.

PS
Charity law and gift aid ..... ( accountant speaking BTW )
Gift aid can only be claimed on donations to a registered charity
for which a gift aid declaration
(including the full name and home address of the donor is known)

Money that goes through gofundme or paypal or straight into a person's bank account is not "charitable giving"

Tinsel
Most charities list their major receipts so you could look at the charity accounts online to see if they do get the money
but charities are allowed to state "anonymous"

If Charlies parents keep the money they are very likely to have HMRC on their case later on.
If they subsequently donate the money they have received to a charity
then full gift aid and tax exemption kicks in at that stage.

One local to me,
the family gave most of the money they had been given to a charity they set up and now run - totally legit.
They were allowed to keep the essential costs they had incurred during the death of their child.

Yes well mumsnet will close this thread down too if you don't stop, and then all the good discussion will be lost

Well if they do, they are stifling perfectly reasonable discussion and I hope that lessons were learnt from the Dax fiasco.

The money situation worries me too. Afaik no one has confirmed just how much has gone into Connie's account. That's not accusatory btw, just an observation. The parents could well find themselves in hot water because, again, they are likely not being correctly advised or supported.

She must have had very bad advice to accept funds directly into her bank account. There will be questions about that for years when she is at her most vulnerable.

I would please ask people to refrain from posting anything about the funds that have been raised and continue to be raised.

It's distasteful in the extreme and not in keeping with the ethos of mumsnet.

really i find crass merchandise etc distasteful,so no if i feel the need to post about the financial angle i will

i think all this fundraising,pledges should be very closely monitored,now and in the future regarding how its spent etc

darby
HMRC and the like will do nothing for several months.
In law they have seven years.
So once Charlie is dead and buried and the parent's have had time to clear their heads then it can sort out.

But yes, the advice they have taken (as against that which has been offered) has been atrocious.

NorthernLurker

People who donate direct to bank accounts can't ask for it back. They are effectively giving the parents a gift. You don't pay tax on gifts received as long as they are small amounts. Doesn't matter how many small gifts you receive.

So, one might presume this is why Charlie's parents have now said they'd prefer any donations to be paid directly into Connie's bank now (hence her putting her bank details on the merchandise page), as opposed to the JustGiving site which take a percentage of it?

I don't know why they've done that with the donations but it's a bad plan both for the security of the donor and the probity of the recipient.

Talkin

On what grounds would HMRC be interested? In my previous life I was qualified in tax but it's been several years so maybe things have changed?

No tax on gifts surely? Unless you mean inheritance tax but that would mean tracking each donor to see if they died within seven years or something?

I've just seen the screenshot of the webpage detailing all the Charlie Goodies for sale and I'm just astounded. The world has gone mad.

Donations to a personal bank account are a red flag to me.

I am not saying the recipient is deceptive or anything, but still.....

That was a major issue for me, sorry about that. Give me money into my personal bank account. WTF.

How is this legal. But I am sure it is. Someone will correct my delusional state here.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2012/jan/11/financial-gift-liable-income-tax

This is what I mean

I know that originally the donation money was going to be given to a mito charity/research project.

I think there was then some talk of setting up a charitable foundation in Charlie's name. Not sure if that's still the case though.

I think that they did check that it was legal, and found it to be because they were concerned about it affecting benefits etc.

It is undeniably expensive living in hospital with a sick child.

There are a couple more funds going for their living expenses and a holiday.
To be fair, if people know that's what it's for, I think it's okay to do that.

The chant the army was using yesterday included release Charlie Gard.

That's the chant some of the Barmy denied chanting about half an hour ago when someone challenged some of their behaviour having previously been a supporter. Those postings have since disappeared

Maybe CA got it right - but not the way they think.

I'd agree Charlie needs to be "released" from his present situation

I think if people know what it is for then it's their choice to donate. And I also can't see how there would be any income tax implications on the money donated. IHT implications maybe but that would be on the donor, and assumes gifts are above £250. Which I know some were but probably most aren't.