Dr. Oonagh Breen:

If it is proposed to amend the Charities Act 2009 to include the advancement of human rights, Revenue would have something to say about it as a stakeholder. However, it may have less to say now that section 7 of the Act, which separates the two issues, is already in force. What one does on taxation matters does not control the definition of "charity". When we were writing the Act, Revenue was instrumental in deciding what was included as a charitable purpose. Anything it did not cover was not included. This is why sports and human rights are not included in the Act. It could not control the second part of the test, public benefit, because it did not have a list and it therefore stated that an organisation would not be bound by the CRA's future definition of "public benefit". It could continue to act as it did previously under the heading of public benefit. In terms of legislation, the Act already provides for regulators, such as the CRA and Revenue, to prepare memorandums of understanding. That is the most important aspect to this. We do not need new legislation, we simply need to ensure the existing provision is used so that the regulators engage with each in order to issue clear guidance to those who have to deal with both bodies.