Claiming GiftAid on behalf of someone else

[yorkshirelad1]

It's been suggested that someone (person A, non taxpayer) can gift funds to person B, and person B (a taxpayer) can make a GiftAid donation and claim tax relief.

I don't think Gift Aid can be claimed in this instance, but I can't find any clear reference that I can quote, ideally HMRC information. The only information I can find is e.g. Macmillan website
https://www.macmillan.org.uk/donate/about-gift-aid ("Is your donation eligible for Gift Aid?")
(which mentions "HMRC rules")

Could anyone point me in the direction of HMRC information on claiming Gift Aid on behalf of someone else (taxpayer or non-taxpayer), or such a method not being eligible for Gift Aid.

TIA

[Lootman]

I did something like this a few years ago. I did not consider it applying for Gift-Aid on behalf of someone else, which I would be fairly sure is not allowed.

Rather it is just that A makes a gift to B, at which point it is B's money. So B can then make a charitable donation that qualifies for Gift-Aid. Where B got the money from is moot.

[genou]

I did something like this a few years ago. I did not consider it applying for Gift-Aid on behalf of someone else, which I would be fairly sure is not allowed.

Rather it is just that A makes a gift to B, at which point it is B's money. So B can then make a charitable donation that qualifies for Gift-Aid. Where B got the money from is moot.

But is it a gift from A to B, if it is only made on the understanding that B is going to then transfer it on the charity? It smells off to me. Certainly if you collect money from donors to a cause, you can't then purport that is your money and claim Gift Aid. It looks remarkable similar.

[Lootman]

I did something like this a few years ago. I did not consider it applying for Gift-Aid on behalf of someone else, which I would be fairly sure is not allowed.

Rather it is just that A makes a gift to B, at which point it is B's money. So B can then make a charitable donation that qualifies for Gift-Aid. Where B got the money from is moot.

But is it a gift from A to B, if it is only made on the understanding that B is going to then transfer it on the charity? It smells off to me. Certainly if you collect money from donors to a cause, you can't then purport that is your money and claim Gift Aid. It looks remarkable similar.

I suppose that comes down to whether you see the gift from A to B as a contract. The thing with a gift is that there is no consideration, and therefore there is no contract. That also means that there is nothing compelling B to make the charitable donation. B could instead just keep the money, although might then lose his friendship with A.

So it is really just a casual and contingent thing that B makes the donation to A's designated charity. The two transactions are not contractually related.

The real point of Gift-Aid is to ensure that the charity gets an extra donation. If you are a basic-rate taxpayer there is no tax benefit to the donor. So in practice I did not see a problem doing this, although the situation in my case was a little different from as it is described here in the OP.

[genou]

So it is really just a casual and contingent thing that B makes the donation to A's designated charity. The two transactions are not contractually related.

But that's completely false. Nobody needs a contractual relationship to see that A would not have given the money to B absent the understanding that B was going to pass the money to the charity.

The real point of Gift-Aid is to ensure that the charity gets an extra donation. If you are a basic-rate taxpayer there is no tax benefit to the donor. So in practice I did not see a problem doing this, although the situation in my case was a little different from as it is described here in the OP.

Except that it is a fraud on the fisc.

[Lootman]

So it is really just a casual and contingent thing that B makes the donation to A's designated charity. The two transactions are not contractually related.

But that's completely false. Nobody needs a contractual relationship to see that A would not have given the money to B absent the understanding that B was going to pass the money to the charity.

Actually I made the assumption of the sequence of events there. It could instead happen like this:

1) B makes a charitable donation, and tells A about it.

2) A then offers to cover the net cost of it because A likes B's charity as well, and does not want B to be hard up as a result.

In that case there is no prior agreement or intent, hence no "fraud".

When I did something like that it was actually between my wife and I, and one of us was in a higher tax bracket than the other.

[genou]

So it is really just a casual and contingent thing that B makes the donation to A's designated charity. The two transactions are not contractually related.

But that's completely false. Nobody needs a contractual relationship to see that A would not have given the money to B absent the understanding that B was going to pass the money to the charity.

Actually I made the assumption of the sequence of events there. It could instead happen like this:

1) B makes a charitable donation, and tells A about it.

2) A then offers to cover the net cost of it because A likes B's charity as well, and does not want B to be hard up as a result.

In that case there is no prior agreement or intent, hence no "fraud".

When I did something like that it was actually between my wife and I, and one of us was in a higher tax bracket than the other.

Why did you make that timeline up? It is not what the OP asked. Apologies to the OP, this is descending into farce.

[Lootman]

But that's completely false. Nobody needs a contractual relationship to see that A would not have given the money to B absent the understanding that B was going to pass the money to the charity.

Actually I made the assumption of the sequence of events there. It could instead happen like this:

1) B makes a charitable donation, and tells A about it.

2) A then offers to cover the net cost of it because A likes B's charity as well, and does not want B to be hard up as a result.

In that case there is no prior agreement or intent, hence no "fraud".

When I did something like that it was actually between my wife and I, and one of us was in a higher tax bracket than the other.

Why did you make that timeline up? It is not what the OP asked. Apologies to the OP, this is descending into farce.

You were the one who suggested that planning to do this might be considered some kind of fraud. I dispute that but, in any event, was trying to demonstrate that if that perception risk concerned you then it could simply be removed by changing the sequence of events.

[genou]

You were the one who suggested that planning to do this might be considered some kind of fraud. I dispute that but, in any event, was trying to demonstrate that if that perception risk concerned you then it could simply be removed by changing the sequence of events.
.

It has already been planned/ suggested. You cannot change the past, so you cannot change the sequence of events. This is not a hypothetical, it is real.

[Lootman]

You were the one who suggested that planning to do this might be considered some kind of fraud. I dispute that but, in any event, was trying to demonstrate that if that perception risk concerned you then it could simply be removed by changing the sequence of events.

It has already been planned/ suggested. You cannot change the past, so you cannot change the sequence of events. This is not a hypothetical, it is real.

I don't agree but I think we have both laid out our arguments well, and so the OP can read them for himself and make his own decision. I do not think we will add much more by continuing to disagree with each other.