Charity Box - probate asset?

securityguy

Malthusian wrote: »

They can whistle for it. Best of luck fighting the charity's lawyers.

Having read the fundraiser's code, it's pretty clear that if the charity handed one of their members an official fundraising box, they'd be under no illusions that that the box, and any money that was put into it, would be anything other than the charity's.

The Fundraisers' Code is irrelevant: it isn't law, and the executors, beneficiaries and creditors aren't bound by it, as they aren't fundraisers (in general).

It's clear that the box remains the property of the charity. It's no different to if you died with your employer's car in your driveway or your employer's laptop in your study.

If you die with your employer's car on the drive they do not own your coat that you left on the back seat, nor the money in the glove box. And the issue of who owns data on company-provided IT equipment is, to put it mildly, vexed (and company AUPs haven't been tested in court for good reason).

Giving it to a fundraiser to take home with them doesn't make it the fundraiser's property, any more than a company car becomes the employee's when they park it on their driveway

The contents of the company car are certainly mine, assuming they were mine before I put them in the boot.. Your analogy is entirely false. Are you _seriously_ saying that if I have a company car then the contents of my suitcase in the boot transfers to my employer when I use it to go on holiday?

To repeat: morally I absolutely agree with you. I am curious, however, as to the utter certainly people appear to have that charity boxes have the sanctity of the confessional.

Malthusian

If you die with your employer's car on the drive they do not own your coat that you left on the back seat, nor the money in the glove box.

But if someone handed me £150 in my capacity as a fundraiser for the Children's Society, and then I drive off with it and run into a tree with the cash still on the back seat, it's still the charity's. Not the employer's, and not my estate's.

The physical location of the money is irrelevant, what matters is the intent of whoever it was put the money in the box. (As I said, with £150 in the box it's unlikely it all came from the deceased.) By putting the money in the box they were indicating very clearly that they're transferring ownership to the charity, not the deceased.

Hmm. Any contents? OK, so if I put a gram of cocaine in the charity box and leave it on my shelf, I'm in the clear when old bill comes a calling, but the charity is on the hook for possession of a Class A substance?

You're confusing possession with ownership.

Here's another example: I put all my money in a charity box and the declare myself bankrupt. Do my creditors _really_ have no claim, at all, on the contents?

The Official Receiver would claim the money from the charity, just as they would if you'd given all your money to your brother before declaring bankruptcy. If it's still in the box that would make things very easy for them.

securityguy

Malthusian wrote: »

The Official Receiver would claim the money from the charity, just as they would if you'd given all your money to your brother before declaring bankruptcy. If it's still in the box that would make things very easy for them.

Right. And the Official Receiver stands, in relation to a bankrupt, in a very similar position to an executor and an estate.

unforeseen

I think the assumption that the deceased was a bone fide fundraiser for the charity is erroneous. Charities such as the one mentioned hand out collection boxes willy nilly to any member of the public , more as a visible memory jogger than anything else. There is no registration of the fundraiser or any other check, not even address recording.

I therefore doubt the deceased is classed as a fundraiser for these reasons. These boxes are left in a stack at church doors for example with a note to please take one.

getmore4less

Back in the real world.

If giving it to charity leave it off the capital return.
(unless you are short for the charity reduction in IHT)

Too much bother to account for it as a charity debt(donation) on the IHT forms and the inventory & account.

Fermion

As the sum in the box is know it seems that the box has already been opened.

Actually the box wasn't opened, but my Mother had pinned a label to the box with a note of the approx. amount of the last contents when opened by the Children's Society Rep - I'm assuming the contents are similar this time

The box is actually quite a robust plastic box about 5"x4"x3" -

Yorkshireman99

Deleted xxxxxxxxxx

Yorkshireman99

securityguy wrote: »

The Fundraisers' Code is irrelevant: it isn't law, and the executors, beneficiaries and creditors aren't bound by it, as they aren't fundraisers (in general).



If you die with your employer's car on the drive they do not own your coat that you left on the back seat, nor the money in the glove box. And the issue of who owns data on company-provided IT equipment is, to put it mildly, vexed (and company AUPs haven't been tested in court for good reason).



The contents of the company car are certainly mine, assuming they were mine before I put them in the boot.. Your analogy is entirely false. Are you _seriously_ saying that if I have a company car then the contents of my suitcase in the boot transfers to my employer when I use it to go on holiday?

To repeat: morally I absolutely agree with you. I am curious, however, as to the utter certainly people appear to have that charity boxes have the sanctity of the confessional.

More irrelevant fantasy.

unforeseen

Fermion wrote: »

Actually the box wasn't opened, but my Mother had pinned a label to the box with a note of the approx. amount of the last contents when opened by the Children's Society Rep - I'm assuming the contents are similar this time

The box is actually quite a robust plastic box about 5"x4"x3" -

Nice!

After 26 posts OP decides to dripfeed some more relevant information that makes a lot of the other posts pointless.

Why do people expect relevant responses when they fail to supply all the info?

getmore4less

unforeseen wrote: »

Nice!

After 26 posts OP decides to dripfeed some more relevant information that makes a lot of the other posts pointless.

Why do people expect relevant responses when they fail to supply all the info?

Because they don't know the relevant information when they start.