Charities—employment law

Volunteers

Generally an individual is understood to be a volunteer if they are not obliged to work but agree to perform work for which they are not paid. Without consideration there can be no contract (whether as an employee or as a worker). However, they may be reimbursed expenses that they have genuinely incurred with losing their status as a volunteer. As a volunteer an individual can come and go as they please.

Before taking on a volunteer there may be a number of issues to consider including whether criminal record and/or immigration checks should be undertaken.

There is no requirement to have an agreement with a volunteer. However, the existence of an agreement between a volunteer and an organisation does not automatically mean that it amounts to a contract of employment. A volunteer agreement can, however, be useful for the purposes of setting out what an organisation will provide and what it expects of its volunteers.

See Practice Note: Volunteers.

Employee handbooks

Certain aspects of the employment relationship have to be covered by a written statement of particulars of employment that is given to the employee.

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Private Client News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at FA 2003, s 75A applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Private Client by content type :

Popular documents