Game Conservancy Trust

Look for the full story, before making a judgment, recommends JOHN PRICE FCA, as he examines the tribunal's decision in The Game Conservancy Trust.

'IF A BODY qualifies as a philanthropic organisation, its subscriptions from its members are exempt under item 1(e) of Group 9 of Schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994', I said. 'Would you say that The Game Conservancy Trust (17394) has objects of a philanthropic nature? It promotes the conservation of such wildlife as partridge and pheasants.'

'You mean so that people can then shoot them?', asked the Busy Practitioner. 'How can that be philanthropic? The main activity must be advising how to rear more game, and thereby increase the sport for those taking part and/or the profit for those involved commercially.'

'Indeed, that was Customs' argument. They said the trust's activities benefited its members, not the well being of mankind. The benefits to wildlife in general were an indirect gain for the public at large; they were incidental to serving the interests of those wishing to exploit the game birds on their land.'

'That sounds right. Surely, for something to be philanthropic, it must be done to benefit the population in general, not just a small section of it. Furthermore, does not the money come from those same people so that, in effect, they are getting something in return for their money? How can the trust be philanthropic on that account either?'

'Those are sound points, but consider the trust's objects:

'(a) To promote for the public benefit the conservation and study of game species, their habitats and other species associated with those habitats.

'(b) To conduct research into the ecology and biology of game species and their environmental requirements and to publish the useful results of such research.

'(c) To advance the education of the public in game biology and in the conservation of game (especially, but not exclusively, in the conservation of game as a sustainable resource).'

'Yes, but the members of the public in question are those who own the land or shoot. You cannot claim a general benefit on that basis.'

'Ah, listen to the full story. When the trust was established in 1969, the population of the English grey partridge had declined by 84 per cent over 40 years. The trust's research produced a better understanding of the ecology of arable land. Its publication, A Question of Balance, made various recommendations. For instance, the trust invented beetle banks, which are strips of grassy cover about two metres wide sown across large arable fields. They replace the cover destroyed when farming intensified and fields were enlarged. They become home for beetles and spiders which move out into the field in spring and summer eating pests as they go. This reintroduces predators; it encourages insects on which feed farmland bird chicks, and provides nest sites for skylarks and corn buntings and the rare harvest mouse.

'The trust collaborates with the British Trust for Ornithology, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, agrochemical manufacturers and distributors, supermarkets, 15 universities and government research bodies. It claims that, in most Member States of the European Union and throughout the United States, the research it undertakes is the responsibility of government or government agencies and paid for out of public funding. Indeed, it receives Government grants itself.

'Of the 60 or so scientists it employs, less than half work directly on game. Most work on habitats of non game species and much of their research translates directly into government policy. Guidelines for the agri-environmental measures now part of the common agricultural policy, under which farmers are paid to manage their land in environmentally sensitive ways, were all devised by the trust, not by the Government or its agencies. 90 per cent of the prescriptions under the arable stewardship scheme, which the trust persuaded the Government to introduce, were based on its research. The trust has advanced the discipline of taxonomy. When it started to study sawflies, it found that the published identification keys were incorrect or missing, and it set about putting that right.

'The tribunal saw "philanthropic" as an aim or object of promoting the well-being of mankind by serving one's fellow men. That had to be the stated aim as well as the real one. If evidence showed a body had an underlying aim more substantial than that, it would not qualify, but the nature of its objects was not affected by the motives of its members.

'The trust's three objects satisfied that criteria. The conservation of wildlife species of all types protected and enhanced the countryside at large, which was a benefit to the general community. The tribunal found the real function to conserve game and associated species through research and education. To achieve this, it deployed its expertise in these areas of applied science, and a pragmatic approach in persuading government departments and landowners to adopt its advice and ideas.

'The tribunal also dismissed Customs' argument that the public benefits were a knock-on effect. Yes, it had started with work on game, but it had developed an expertise in biodiversity generally. The well being and survival of game was directly related to that of the other species of flora and fauna found in the same habitats and vice versa. Research into one species was inseparably linked to others and none of the trust's achievements could be regarded as incidental.

'Whatever readers may think about shooting, this case illustrates the need to understand the full story before reaching a conclusion, both in VAT and in life generally.'

A St J Price FCA is a VAT consultant in Gloucestershire and author of VAT in the Tolley's Tax Essentials series. He may be contacted on 01285 851888; fax: 01285 851889; e-mail: asjprice@aol.com.

Categories: