Charities/NFP - Parry Field Lawyers

In part one, we looked at the reporting obligations of charities. In this article we will look at the obligations a registered charity has when certain changes are being made.

Notifying Charities Services

A charity must notify Charities Services of the following changes:

– Charity name
– Address for service
– Change in the officers (including when an officer is disqualified)
– Balance date
– Rules (ie under the trust deed, constitution or charter)
– Purpose of the charity
– The legal entity type of the charity

To notify Charities Services of such changes, you can complete this form, or log into your account and notify them online.

A charity must notify Charities Services of such changes no later than three months after:
– the changes take place; or
– the charity becomes aware of the change (whichever is later).

Notifying the Companies Office

Your charity also has an obligation to notify the Companies Office of certain changes. Changes that incur this obligation can be categorised as either ‘administrative’ or ‘substantial’.

Administrative changes include changes concerning officers, changes in procedures relating to appointments, resignations, meetings, and changes to the powers of a board. You can make such changes by completing this form, or logging into your account and notifying them online. You will be required to attach a copy of the requisite alteration(s) or resolution.

Substantial changes are more significant changes that involve trust property, also known as a ‘variation’ of the trust. Such changes have the same notification requirements as an administrative change (above) but must also be accompanied by a statutory declaration. Additionally, the variation must be certified as a correct copy by one of the trustees, or a member of the committee or governing body of the society.

A charity must notify the Companies Office of any administrative or substantial changes within one month of adoption of the alteration. Of note is that a charity does not have an obligation to notify the Companies Office of the addition or resignation of trustees.

These key obligations are just a few of the ongoing obligations charities should comply with. Charities should also ensure they operate in accordance with their own rules, the Charities Act 2005, and other relevant legislation.

We have helped many charities over the years and would be more than happy to discuss your situation with you. For more information, feel free to contact Steven Moe at stevenmoe@parryfield.com

We have published guidance about the requirements of registered charitable trusts and how to set up a charitable trust in New Zealand (here), as well as provided a practical checklist of next steps (here). However, charities also incur ongoing obligations. This article outlines the key ongoing obligations you should be aware of.

1. Reporting to Charities Services

All registered charities must submit an annual return to Charities Services within 6 months of their financial year end. The annual return requires you to check and update the following information:

– General Information: Your charity’s name, place(s), and contact details.
– Officer Details: Each officer’s name, date of birth, position and address.
– Purpose and Structure: What your mission is, your main activity or beneficiary, and how your charity is structured.
– Charity Relationships: The names of any entities that control or are controlled by your charity.
– Your People: The number of employees and volunteers you have, as well as how many hours they work.

As well as the above details, charities must also report a level of financial information. These reporting requirements differ depending on the tier of charity:

– Tier 1: Over $30 million annual expenditure;
– Tier 2: Under $30 million annual expenditure;
– Tier 3: Under $2 million annual expenditure; or
– Tier 4: Under $125,000 annual operating expenditure.

Of note is that these thresholds must be viewed in the context of the previous two financial years. This means that if you have a one-off fluctuation in the current financial year that would otherwise put you into a different tier, you would still have to report under the tier of the previous two financial years. This is to ensure that any one-off yearly fluctuations don’t change the tier the charity must report under.

Once you have worked out what tier your charity falls in, the reporting requirements are as follows:

– Tier 1: Full Reporting Standards
– Tier 2: Reduced Disclosure Regime
– Tier 3: Simple Format Report – Accrual based accounting
– Tier 4: Simple Format Report – Cash based accounting

Around 95% of charities fall under tiers 3 and 4. Charities under these tiers can report under simplified reporting standards, using either cash-based accounting (tier 3) or accrual-based accounting (tier 4).

What is the difference between cash-based accounting and accrual-based accounting?

Cash-based accounting requires transactions to be recorded at the time cash is received or paid. Cash-based accounting is typical in organisations where transactions are small in number and size.

Accrual-based accounting requires revenue and expenses to be recorded when they are earned or incurred, rather than when cash is received or paid. Accrual-based accounting is typical in organisations with more frequent and larger transactions.

Do I need to have my accounts audited?

If your charity’s total operating expenditure for each of the two previous financial years was:

– Over $500,000: financial statements must be either audited or reviewed by a qualified auditor.
– Over $1 million: financial statements must be audited by a qualified auditor.

You can find more about financial reporting standards here.

Charities Services have also provided this helpful guidance here as well.

Summary

These key obligations are just a few of the ongoing obligations charities should comply with. Charities should also ensure they operate in accordance with their own rules, the Charities Act 2005, and other relevant legislation.

Read Part 2 on Changes to Charities: What do you need to update?

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should contact your lawyer about your specific situation. We have helped many charities over the years and would be more than happy to discuss with you. For more information, feel free to contact Steven Moe at stevenmoe@parryfield.com

“Simply by sailing in a new direction, you could enlarge the world…” Allen Curnow

Steven Moe has just collaborated with Craig Fisher to produce this paper, which can be downloaded here. The paper looks at challenges faced by the crisis, poses 7 hard questions we need to be asking and examines where the opportunities are.

From the Introduction: “Covid-19 is forcing us to ask some hard questions. Our focus in this paper is on charities, NGOs, NFPs and community sector organisations as it has accelerated conversations for them about sustainability. However, many of these concepts will apply to other organisations as well in this unique moment in time.

Early explorers like those described in the quote who sailed to new placed relied on charts, maps, stars. We also are headed towards new locations as a result of the crisis and we need to be asking the right questions to get there. In this paper we want to dive deep into some key issues that we see organisations are facing in order to provide a constructive framework for considering the future.

We don’t have all the answers. But there are lots of fantastic minds, skills and experience within our sector. Hence, we hope that some of the questions and provocations that we pose within this paper will further assist firing up some lively neurons to help organisations change and thrive.”

About the authors:

Steven Moe is a Partner at Parry Field Lawyers with 20 years experience and a focus on empowering impact. He has worked as a lawyer in Wellington (3 years), London (3 years), Tokyo (4 years), Sydney (4 years) and since 2016 based in Christchurch. He hosts the podcast seeds with 180+ interviews and wrote the book “Social Enterprises in NZ: A Legal Handbook“. He is Chair of Community Finance (impact investing with a social housing focus) and shared some of his journey here. His profile has more: https://www.linkedin.com/in/steven-moe-0b3b008a/

Steven can be contacted on:
E stevenmoe@parryfield.com
T +64 21 761 292

Craig Fisher FCA: Craig is a Consultant with RSM and a professional director with a strong interest in governance, audit and assurance, and sustainability of impactful organisations. He is a Fellow Chartered Accountant with nearly 30 years of public accountancy experience, a former Audit Partner, and the former Chairman of the RSM New Zealand group. Passionate about a strong and healthy Aotearoa he holds a range of interesting governance roles. More details of his experience can be found here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/craigfishernz/

Craig can be contacted on:
E craig.fisher@rsmnz.co.nz
T +64 21 899 848

Our Partner Steven Moe has collaborated with Arts and Not for Profit leader Anne Rodda to co-write the White Paper, “Tomorrow’s Board Diversity: The Role of Creatives” which can be

downloaded here.

This is part of our ongoing initiative to support thought leadership regarding Governance and the Arts, NFP and ‘For Purposes’ initiatives in Aotearoa New Zealand. Other examples include the just released “Charting the Future: A Framework for thinking about Change” here. To find out more about us have a browse of this website and the free resources in the tab above. If you have comments on the paper we’d love to hear them, email stevenmoe@parryfield.com.

Advance readers of the White Paper have commented:

“This White Paper brings to light a topic which is often neglected: the role that creatives can play on boards. In our experience, directors who have a range of diverse and creative talent, capabilities and knowledge bring different perspectives to decision-making, planning and board culture – that will likely enhance an organisation’s performance, as well as better represent the stakeholders.”
Kirsten Patterson (KP), Chief Executive, New Zealand Institute of Directors.

“I have been fortunate to always have had a strong musical and artistic background that has become the pillar stone to my creative success in business.” Sir Michael Hill

Charitable trusts have a long history of supporting those in need. Yet those in charge of decisions about how to use funds should be cautious to ensure that any giving does not create a private gain or financial benefit to an individual. Failure to give in accordance with the permitted charitable purposes can mean a charity may lose its registered status.

To illustrate this it is good to look at a practical example. In 2014, the Charities Registration Board determined that the New Zealand Affordable Art Trust no longer qualified for registration as a charitable entity. The Board found that the Trust’s primary purpose was to promote the private interests of artists. This was outside the scope of charity as it conferred private benefits on artists which were more than incidental to any charitable purpose.

The Trust submitted that its support of artists fell under the ‘relief of poverty’ charitable purpose. This argument was rejected as the Trust chose to assist artists based on criteria such as originality, technique and development, rather than the relative wealth or poverty of the artist. The Board did acknowledge that the Trust helped to advance education in the arts for the general public, however this was not the main focus of the Trust.

A similar approach has been found in the courts. In Commissioners of Inland Revenue v White, Fox J held:

The promotion or advancement of industry (including a particular industry such as agriculture) or of commerce is a charitable object provided that the purpose is the advancement of the benefit of the public at large and not merely the promotion of the interest of those engaged in the manufacture and sale of their particular products. The charitable nature of the object of promoting a particular industry depends upon the existence of a benefit to the public from the promotion of the object.

At the risk of providing too much detail, Lord Simonds, when considering the question of whether an element of public benefit is necessary to achieve charitable status in Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd said:

My Lords, once more your Lordships have to consider the difficult subject of charitable trusts … It is a clearly established principle of the law of charity that a trust is not charitable unless it is directed to the public benefit. This is sometimes stated in the proposition that it must benefit the community or a section of the community. Negatively it is said that a trust is not charitable if it confers only private benefits. In the recent case of Gilmour v Coats [1949] AC 448 this principle was reasserted. It is easy to state and has been stated in a variety of ways, the earliest statement that I can find being in Jones v Williams (1767) 2 Amb 651, in which Lord Hardwicke, LC, is briefly reported as follows: ‘Definition of charity: a gift to a general public use, which extends to the poor as well as to the rich …’With a single exception, to which I shall refer, this applies to all charities. We are apt now to classify them by reference to Lord MacNaughten’s division in Income Tax Commissioners v Pemsel [1891] AC 531, and, as I have elsewhere pointed out, it was at one time suggested that the element of public benefit was not essential except for charities falling within the fourth class, ‘other purposes beneficial to the community’. This is certainly wrong except in the anomalous case of trusts for the relief of poverty with which I must specifically deal. In the case of trusts for educational purposes the condition of public benefit must be satisfied. The difficulty lies in determining what is sufficient to satisfy the test, and there is little to help your Lordships to solve it.

What does this mean for charities?

Charitable trusts should ensure that any benefit they bestow are intended to create a benefit for the public. While a private benefit incidental to a charitable public benefit may be allowed, this should not be the primary focus if a trust wishes to maintain its charitable status.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should contact your lawyer about your specific situation. We would be happy to assist you in your journey. Please feel free to contact Steven Moe at stevenmoe@parryfield.com should you require assistance.

Are physical signatures necessary when executing legal documents?

Not always. The rules are found in the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA). The core principle is that a signature must be RELIABLE in order to have any legal effect. In determining whether the signature you have provided is reliable, the questions are:

Does the signature adequately identify you?
Does it indicate your approval of the information in the document?
Given the nature of the transaction, is the means by which your signature was provided (physical or electronic) appropriate?

An electronic method must satisfy the first two aspects above in order to be recognised as an “electronic signature” in New Zealand. Generally, an electronic signature is presumed to be reliable provided:

1. The means of creating the electronic signature is:

(a) linked only to the signatory;

(b) under the control of the signatory alone; and

2. Any alterations to either the signature or the information in the document, is detectable.

However, this presumption may be overturned if the electronic signature is held not to be ‘as reliable as is appropriate’ given the purpose and circumstances in which the signature is being required. This is very much a fact-specific determination that will depend on the context of each situation. It is suggested that the following factors be considered:

the size of the transaction (i.e. the level of risk e.g. documents involving large sums);
how often you transact with the other party concerned; and
whether the other party (and yourself) often enters into the sort of agreement represented by the document.

Practical examples of these principles

Below are some case law examples that help illustrate the standard:

Wilfred v Lexington Legal Ltd

An electronic signature (in the form of an email from a client to their lawyer signing “best regards — Harmon”) sufficed as being a reliable for the purposes of entering into a contract for legal services.

Company Net Ltd v Registrar of Companies

Original signatures were required by the Registrar of Companies in relation to company incorporation documents — albeit in this case, there were issues of identifiability that caused concern. The companies office makes clear that they do accept electronic signatures for most documents.

See: https://companies-register.companiesoffice.govt.nz/help-centre/managing-your-online-account/filing-documents-with-electronic-signatures/

Welsh v Gatchell

Agreements for sale and purchases of land can be signed electronically. Notice to the other party about electronic signatures is already provided in the standard terms of the Auckland District Law Society document which is commonly used for these types of transactions.

Consequently, although electronic signatures will generally be considered reliable, where there is a lot riding on a particular document (i.e. a sizeable transaction as opposed to a mere box ticking activity), it appears prudent to require physical signatures. Where physical signatures pose significant inconvenience and you wish to sign electronically, we advise that you give express notice to the other party that an electronic signature will bind all parties to the contents of the document, and that you expressly specify the form of electronic signature required.

What documents can be signed electronically?

As noted above, documents can be signed electronically as long as the signatory is identifiable and the signature is reliable. However, there are two main caveats to this:

Legal Requirement

Where there is a legal requirement on you to give information to a person (thus requiring your signature), you must obtain that person’s consent to receiving the information through means of electronic signature.

Documents of Integrity

Electronic signatures have no effect on documents that concern “matters of integrity” such as:

Documents relating to citizenship, elections, fish and game, civil aviation, corrections, credit contracts and consumer finance, disabled persons community welfare, fisheries, medicine regulations, misuse of drugs, passports, and court procedural documents;
Documents that relate to affidavits, statutory declarations, documents given on oath or affirmation;
Powers of attorney and enduring powers of attorney, Wills, codicils and the like;
Negotiable instruments;
Bills of lading;
Warrants to enter, search or seize; and
Fair Trading Act 1986 provisions in relation to consumer standards information on goods or services, and products or safety standards.

Is it sufficient to provide electronic pdf versions of the signed documents or are originals always required?

The inclusion of a counterparts clause in documents allows parties to exchange pdf copies of signed agreements through email or fax. The party last to sign the document effects a binding contract upon their provision of the signed document to the other party/parties. It is common practice for physical signatures to be exchanged in this manner i.e. physical signature presented in electronic form/through electronic means will suffice.

The absence of a counterparts clause in the document itself however means that wet-ink physical signatures will be required. A signature may be deemed unreliable where it is performed in a manner that wasn’t agreed to between the parties as evidenced in the document.

Provision of the originally signed documents is also required when executing deeds. Section 10 of the Property Law Act 2007 requires a signed deed to be delivered in order to take effect. Delivery is commonly understood as being the physical handing over of documents either in person or through post. If the intention is to effect delivery otherwise, we advise that this be made clear in the document itself by recording that the deed shall be deemed delivered upon transmission of a scanned copy of the original executed document by one party to the other.

The information contained in this outline is of a general nature, should only be used as a guide and does not amount to legal advice. It should not be used or relied upon as a substitute for detailed advice or as a basis for formulating decisions. Special considerations apply to individual fact situations. Before acting, clients should consult their Parry Field Lawyer.

Interested in pursuing a purpose or cause that benefits the community? The type of vehicle you use is critical in ensuring your efforts are effective and that any assets you hold are protected.

Charitable Trusts and Incorporated Societies are two common vehicles used in New Zealand that often cause much confusion. We provide a short summary outlining the benefits and drawbacks of each option below:

Incorporated Society

Governed by the Incorporated Societies Act 2022 unless a society is yet to reregister under the new Act.
Usually used by sports clubs, cultural groups, etc. that see benefit in wider involvement.
Members can come and go without affecting the vehicle’s identity.
Membership: Minimum number of 10 members required (Body Corporate members do however count as three (3) individuals).
Accountability: committee members (officers) are accountable to the members.
Administration costs: annual financial statements must be filed and annual general meetings held.
Control: democratic control of the vehicle and its activities by its members. Inefficiency may result if majority of the members hinder the society’s purposes. There are some stories of members ousting officers but in our experience this would be very rare.

Charitable Trust

Governed by the Charitable Trusts Act 1957/ Trust Act 2019.
We recommend at least three trustees or an odd number to prevent conflict.
Accountability: individuals (a.k.a trustees) need to operate in accordance with the trust’s deed or be held personally liable for breaching their duties as trustees.
Administration costs: proper records required for activities undertaken, etc. Trustees must meet regularly to make decisions as required by the trust deed.
Control: decisions are made by a select few which may mean greater stability and efficiency. Conflict between the trustees however could adversely affect the performance of the trust. As trustees appoint each other, the ability to change hands of controlling power may be difficult.

Various factors must be considered before committing to a vehicle. We generally find that a Charitable Trust is the most flexible of the two. However, it is important that you consider how your operations are likely to look like. Imagine the future. Will your vehicle advance or hinder your ability to effect your purpose?

Our team is experienced with charities, social enterprises and trusts that are common in this area of law. We would be happy to assist you in your journey. We have free resources including our Charities Legal Handbook. For more information, please feel free to contact us at Parry Field Lawyers.

The information contained in this outline is of a general nature, should only be used as a guide and does not amount to legal advice. It should not be used or relied upon as a substitute for detailed advice or as a basis for formulating decisions. Special considerations apply to individual fact situations. Before acting, clients should consult their Parry Field Lawyer.

What the key change actually entails

If an organisation applies more than 25% of its funds for the benefit of overseas purposes, then it may no longer be considered to be operating ‘wholly or mainly’ in New Zealand and could lose its tax donee organisation status. The reason this may impact on charities you advise is that some charities have traditionally sent significant amounts overseas to support works there (disaster relief, orphanages, aid workers etc). It is possible that religious organisations in particular who support people overseas may already be at, or close to, the new threshold, and be unaware of the changes. It could cause them problems in the future if they continue to operate in the same way.

If you’re a lawyer advising a client who does send funds overseas, it would be important to advise them about the new approach.

The key provision itself

The section relevant in the Interpretation Statement 18/05 and related fact sheet is the Income Tax Act 2017 section LD 3(2)(a) which sets out the meaning of a charitable or other public benefit gift. The type of entity that qualifies is:

“a society, institution, association, organisation, or trust that is not carried on for the private pecuniary profit of an individual, and whose funds are applied wholly or mainly to charitable, benevolent, philanthropic, or cultural purposes within New Zealand.”

In clarifying what these definitions mean – “within New Zealand,” means the purposes are what is looked at, rather than the location where funds are spent. “Wholly or mainly” – will mean “75% or more” of funds being applied in New Zealand. Lastly, “funds are applied,” means action of sorts needs to be taken by the organisation to either spend or accumulate the funds.

The Interpretation Statement has been issued to clarify what entities qualify as a donee organisation under that section.

The “safe harbour exception”

There will be some flexibility in how the percentages will work. An organisation can choose a method to calculate a “safe harbour percentage.” The key steps involved in doing this is to calculate the total funds and then divide that by the amount spent for specified purposes within New Zealand to get the percentage.

If in any year the safe harbour of 75% is not met then IRD can also look at the two preceding years. The purpose of this is to allow for some one off exceptions. It does this by looking at the cumulative figures over the three years. This means that the current year might be at say 70% but the previous two years were respectively at 80% and 90%. By looking at the cumulative total the percentage over the last three years might average 80%. IRD provides some key examples on the guidance of this, see here.

Another option for those sending funds overseas

Schedule 32 of the Income Tax Act 2007 could provide another exception to this new interpretation. If you are a lawyer with a client who will no longer meet the threshold proposed due to the significant funds applied overseas, this provides another option to them.

Applying to be added to Schedule 32 of the Income Tax Act 2007 can give qualifying charities a unique status in the New Zealand tax regime. Schedule 32 status is only granted to a select few (full list here). It provides the ability for those organisation to issue receipts to their donees for donations made to the charity even if applied wholly for overseas purposes.

At times the Government had a flood of requests and even published special guidelines to charities on how to make the application. For those charities that do not have their charitable purposes principally (more than 75%) in New Zealand, then the charity cannot qualify as a donee organisation unless it is listed in Schedule 32.

When applying to be listed under Schedule 32, it is the purposes for which funds are applied which is the most critical point. This may be different to where you spend the money. For example, buying toys in New Zealand to send to children in third world countries would mean that the purposes are overseas, not in New Zealand.

Furthermore, there are other hurdles to be aware of if applying for Schedule 32 status.

The process for applying is long and arduous and IRD has to put a special request to Cabinet for final approval and these happen only once or twice a year.
The purpose of the overseas charity is also important. When applying, Cabinet will want to see that the charity’s purpose falls within these three humanitarian categories; “the relief of poverty, hunger, sickness, or the ravages of war or natural disaster; or the economy of developing countries; or raising the educational standards of a developing country.” Advancement of religion and political advocacy is thus not noted in this list.
You must “tell the story” of your charity, specifically focusing on who the trustees are, what they are involved in and how the charity purposes are being practically carried out. Furthermore, there must be evidence that the New Zealand trustees regularly visit any overseas offices and an audit of the money raised.

Why is this an important change

If someone makes a donation above $5 to a donee organisation they receive a refundable tax credit/income tax deduction. This encourages people to give to organisations that qualify. If an organisation does not have tax donee status then it will be more difficult to solicit donations.

The information contained in this outline is of a general nature, should only be used as a guide and does not amount to legal advice. It should not be used or relied upon as a substitute for detailed advice or as a basis for formulating decisions. Special considerations apply to individual fact situations. Before acting, clients should consult their Parry Field Lawyer.

Summary

downloaded here.

What the key change actually entails

The key provision itself

The “safe harbour exception”

Another option for those sending funds overseas

Why is this an important change

Christchurch CBD

Christchurch – Riccarton

Rolleston

Hokitika

Auckland