| Guild v IRC | |
| Court: | House of Lords |
| Date Decided: | 27 February 1992 |
| Full Name: | Guild v Commissioners of Inland Revenue |
| Judges: | Lord Keith of Kinkel Lord Roskill Lord Griffiths Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Lowry |
| Prior Actions: | Court of Session |
| Opinions: | Lord Keith of Kinkel |
| Transcripts: | Bailii transcript[1] |
| Keywords: | charitable trusts public benefit recreational charities |
Guild v IRC was an English trusts law case dealing with charitable trusts which confirmed that recreational facilities open to the public could be valid charities.
Guild was the executor of the estate of James Russell, who left his estate "for the use in connection with the sports centre in New Berwick or some similar purpose in connection with sport".[2] The Inland Revenue held that the trust created did not constitute a charitable trust, and as such was subject to the Finance Act 1975.[3] Since the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 interpretation of "charity" was to be used, English trusts law was applied.[4]
After an initial hearing in the Court of Session, the case was appealed to the House of Lords.
The House of Lords held that recreational facilities counted as charitable trusts. Lord Keith, giving the sole opinion, applied the Recreational Charities Act 1958, which provides that recreational facilities providing "social welfare" to people from social disadvantages or the general members of the public were appropriate charitable trusts. The question was whether the "social welfare" element also applied to recreational facilities open to the general public. Lord Keith rejected this, saying the following.