We are concerned that if the shortened declaration, which seeks to transfer the tax liability from the donor to the charity is not adopted, then HMRC may introduce supplementary wording to the declaration to make this provision explicit which we believe would deter donors and have a devastating impact on the take up of Gift Aid.

1. 1
British Red Cross response to Gift Aid and Digital
Giving consultation
Executive summary
The British Red Cross (BRC) welcomes the Government’s consultation on Gift Aid on
donations made through digital channels and is grateful for the opportunity to raise
concerns and provide suggestions on how to improve take up of Gift Aid in this area.
The consultation document sets out three proposals; options for a revised Gift Aid
declaration; two possible models for non-charity intermediaries to collect and distribute
Gift Aid to charities; and a universal Gift Aid declaration database to allow donors to sign
a single declaration to cover all donations to charity.
We believe that with the exception of proposal two (the appointment of non-charity
intermediaries) none of the proposals outlined in the document will help to address the
current issues faced with take up of Gift Aid in the digital arena, specifically donations
made by text. This is because donors are required to input their name and address, along
with their Gift Aid consent as part of a second transaction and very few donors are
motivated enough to complete this second stage on a mobile device, as it is awkward and
time consuming.
We are concerned that the proposals put forward in the consultation do not effectively
address the primary objective of increasing the take up of Gift Aid and if adopted, could
put current arrangements at risk, such as the proposed changes to the Gift Aid
declaration and the introduction of a universal Gift Aid declaration database. A full
response to the consultation questions can be found on page three, but we have
summarised these concerns below.
1 Gift Aid declaration
The tax note that accompanies the Gift Aid declaration confirms that the donor has to
have paid enough income / capital gains tax to cover the donations they make to charities
and Community Amateur Sports Clubs throughout the tax year, but there was never an
explicit requirement for the charity to make the donor aware that they would need to
cover any shortfall, as suggested on page 11 of the consultation document.1
1
*We note in appendix one, that the advice online has now been changed, but we are not aware
of any formal consultation and believe this to be a fundamental change, which needs discussion.

2. 2
We are concerned that if the shortened declaration, which seeks to transfer the tax
liability from the donor to the charity is not adopted, then HMRC may introduce
supplementary wording to the declaration to make this provision explicit which we believe
would deter donors and have a devastating impact on the take up of Gift Aid.
Furthermore, whilst it may be beneficial for charities to offer to repay the tax on some gifts
for commercial reasons (i.e. to preserve the good will and future gifts from the donor), we
cannot agree to this as a default system, since the level of liability is unknown and could
place an unnecessary burden on the charity, if it has to repay money that has already
been committed.
2 Non-charity intermediaries
We are broadly in favour of non-charity intermediaries collecting and managing Gift Aid
on behalf of charities in areas where it is not currently possible for charities to do this
effectively themselves, due to the ‘anonymous’ nature of the gifts, specifically donations
made by SMS text and donations made by direct credit using the faster payments bank
system, or the new to launch ‘mobile to mobile’ payment system.
We foresee a potential obstacle in pursuing this proposal will be that the intermediaries
we have put forward as potentially adding value (mobile phone operators / Banks) will not
be interested in taking on this role. We encourage the Government to work with non-
charity intermediaries to fulfil this role.
3 Universal Gift Aid declaration database
We do not believe a universal Gift Aid declaration database (UGADD) would be feasible if
the charity has to rely on the donor confirming their unique reference number (URN)
because the information would not necessarily be retained by the donor in any reliable
way. In the absence of a URN charity data would have to be matched using other
common criteria like name and address, which would add complexity, and time and the
match criteria is likely to degrade with time.
We acknowledge that there would be some administration cost savings if a universal
database existed, but would be concerned if the UGADD superseded existing
agreements, namely enduring declarations already held by charities, because it is
unlikely that the UGADD system would be able to match the number of individual
agreements held by the charities themselves and so the potential level of tax recovery
would be negatively impacted.
BRC’s vision for Gift Aid and mobile text donations
We see Gift Aid claimed on mobile text donations as an area of potential growth and
would be open to working with HMRC and non-charity intermediaries to explore how we
can improve the take up of Gift Aid in this area. We have included in our detailed
feedback a couple of options for consideration, including a revised declaration (appendix
two), which does not transfer liability for any shortfall to the charities and / or
intermediaries.

3. 3
However, we firmly believe that the only way to improve take up of Gift Aid across the
board, would be to embrace a system where Gift Aid is claimed on all eligible donations,
without the need for a Gift Aid declaration.
In our view charities ought to be able to simply submit a list of all the qualifying donations
they receive using the existing online claim template, with HMRC cross checking against
their database of tax payers and repaying the tax on the donations where an individual
has paid sufficient tax to cover. This would relinquish the need to maintain a Gift Aid
declaration, bringing about substantial savings to the charity and remove the risk of any
shortfall, negating the need for HMRC to recover tax from either the charity or the
individual.
BRC response to consultation questions
We have attempted to answer each question raised by the consultation paper in
sequence and where no comment was applicable, this has been stated.
However as a general note we felt that the paper itself went much further than looking at
the issues around digital giving and Gift Aid and raised some very serious concerns
regarding the future of Gift Aid and proposals that could potentially put current
arrangements at risk.
Detailed feedback has been given in relation to these concerns in the relevant sections,
with alternative suggestions put forward for consideration. These are summarised in the
executive summary as well as at the end of this paper and we hope that the Government
will give these suggestions some thought.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Question 1. Are there any general points about Gift Aid that you would like to raise
with Government?
We believe that the changes made earlier this year, which required charities to add an
additional reference to charity amateur sports clubs in the tax note was superfluous, as
was the stipulation that VAT and Council Tax do not qualify for the purpose of Gift Aid
and we do not understand the perceived lack of clarity in the original statement which
served us well for over a decade.
The online claim system does not allow repayments to be made as itemised values within
the claim and requires that any negative balances be confirmed as an aggregated
balance. This does not help HMRC to identify where a repayment has been made by the
charity and we believe that this may result in them chasing a shortfall where it is not due,
because it has already been repaid by the charity.
We feel that unless repayments are managed as itemised transactions on a claim, then
the audit trail will break down.

4. 4
The claims we have been submitting via the online portal are taking much longer to be
repaid. We suspect that this is due to the size of the claims, but the efficiencies we had
hoped for are not currently being realised.
We have also fed back previously that HMRC sometimes make minor alterations to
guidance notes online (without these being notified via RSS feeds) that could have a
major impact on process (Appendix One).
We would urge HMRC to look at evolving a system whereby individuals can subscribe to
pages and receive alerts when the content has been changed, as we believe that it is
both unreasonable and impractical for HMRC to expect charities to keep checking the
guidance notes on such a substantial document.
Question 2. Beyond digital giving, what other barriers to take-up of Gift Aid do
charities experience?
The barriers to digital giving are in our experience confined to giving by text and not to
online giving per se, where the sector has been successfully collecting and receiving
online donations with Gift Aid since 2000.
Some charities have even successfully developed integrated web systems that link into
their database, enabling the donor to update their address, amend their preferences and
check their Gift Aid tax status.
Although we acknowledge that many online pages are now accessed via mobile devices,
text donations are still our primary area of concern, since this is where the potential
shortfalls lie.
The barriers we face with text donations are the same as those presented by any
payment method where the giving portal allows an anonymous response, since we need
the name and address of the giver in order to claim Gift Aid.
In this respect, appointing intermediaries who are already privy to this information (mobile
phone providers for text, banks for ATM donations, or retailers who offer a round up
facility), will help to alleviate this problem, in the same way that intermediaries like Just
Giving have helped to alleviate problems around collecting the details of sponsors.
However, we still face difficulties with paper sponsorship forms where the participant will
often complete the form on behalf of their friends and family, thus invalidating any Gift
Aid, since there is no evidence of participation in the Gift Aid scheme on behalf of the
sponsor and a pragmatic approach would be welcomed in these circumstances.
The donor benefit rules in relation to challenge events are also hard to manage, since
one could argue that all sponsors are in some way connected to the participant and under
the rules this would disqualify their payments.
The donor benefit rules generally are very complicated and are particularly restrictive in
relation to charity auctions and charity events, where the primary goal is always to raise
money.
The fact that a declaration can be applied to past and future gifts may act as a barrier for
some donors whose personal circumstances are subject to consistent change and these
individuals may choose to withhold consent all together.

5. 5
This is a loss to the charities, but one which we do not believe will be counter balanced
by making the charities wholly responsible for addressing any shortfalls.
Question 3. Do you think a phased implementation of the changes to Gift Aid
proposed in this consultation document would be the best way to proceed?
It is not clear what changes the Government intends to implement as the consultation
highlights a number of options for consideration, some of which would simply not be
operationally viable and we would be very concerned if changes were implemented
without full consideration of impact.
Question 4. What new promotional materials – leaflets, website materials and other
products – could the Government usefully provide to help increase take-up of Gift
Aid?
None.
Question 5. What should these materials contain to be most helpful in encouraging
donors and charities to use Gift Aid?
N/A
Question 6. Might rebranding Gift Aid help increase take-up? How?
No
Question 7. How can the Government work with the charity sector and its
representatives to disseminate promotional material on Gift Aid?
The HMRC website is a daunting landscape for the average donor and it would be useful
to have a mini site which explains the rules in layman’s terms, so that individuals are
assured that they are taking the right decision to Gift Aid.
It would also be useful for donors to have some mechanism for checking whether they
have paid sufficient tax for their donations to qualify for Gift Aid.
Gift Aid on the revenue generated from donations on stock is still misunderstood and the
advice on this could be clearer as could the advice around tax paid on private pensions /
savings.
Chapter 2: The Gift Aid declaration
General Note - On page 11 of Chapter 2, there is a suggestion that a key part of the Gift
Aid process is the charity’s explanation to the donor that they will have to make up the
shortfall in the tax on their donation if they have not paid enough tax to cover.
However there is no element of the tax note that makes this explicit, saying that ‘you
need to have paid enough tax to cover’ is not the same as saying that you will ‘have to
make up the shortfall if you don’t’.
We are very concerned that HMRC may introduce supplementary wording to make this
provision explicit, in order to manage the expectations of donors who will start to see tax

6. 6
repayment requests coming through, following the introduction of the online claim system
which allows HMRC to more effectively evaluate any shortfall on tax paid.
It goes without saying that any supplementary wording would have a devastating impact
on the take up of Gift Aid, as well as calling into question the validity of past declarations
and we would welcome some clarification and re-assurance on this point.
The option to shorten the declaration in order to transfer liability for unpaid tax from the
donor to the charity is being put forward as a benefit to the charity, however this option
will also serve as a benefit to HMRC as it makes their recovery of tax that much simpler.
It is also worth noting that a claw back system would create an unnecessary burden for
some charities, because they could receive a tax demand at any time, which would make
it difficult for them to plan and budget their expenditure.
Question 8. Do you agree that it would be helpful to enable charities to shorten the
Gift Aid declaration in this way, provided they were prepared to accept liability for
a charge to tax where the donor had not paid enough tax to cover the Gift Aid?
We feel that the proposal to shorten the Gift Aid declaration in order to enable charities to
adapt the declaration to fit digital methods of giving is misguided.
It is true that the take up on Gift Aid for digital payments like text to donate is small, but
this is because donors currently have to be re-directed to a new page in order to
complete the declaration and many donors giving this way are not sufficiently motivated
to do this.
However, this would not be a problem if we were able to acquire their contact details from
the mobile phone providers, as we could always contact them subsequently as we do
now with other spontaneous donations.
The length of the Gift Aid statement (taking into account the comments already made in
relation to the supplementary wording recently introduced) is not a problem for other
payment methods and we have worked with the tax note for over a decade.
Whilst it would be desirable in the interest of donor care, to have a mechanism whereby
we could offer to repay the tax for some donors, we would not want this to be the default
option, because it would create an unnecessary and unpredictable burden on the charity.
Furthermore, unless the Government is suggesting that charities relinquish the enduring
declarations that they already hold which clearly transfer the tax liability to the donor, we
find it difficult to visualise how HMRC / the charity would operate a system which allowed
for two different types of declarations.
Our fear is that it would simply not be viable in practice and that acceptance of this
proposal will lead to the erosion of the validity of existing declarations we have worked
hard to acquire and maintain all these years.
If we are considering an amendment to the declaration wording for text donations alone,
then the wording could be shortened working within the existing framework of ‘one off
declarations’ where the tax note is less relevant (please see appendix two).

7. 7
This would also overcome the issue identified on page 31 of the consultation paper where
HMRC, state that a mobile phone number cannot be considered as being unique,
effectively ruling out the legitimacy of an enduring declaration solicited on a previous
transaction.2
Question 9. Do you think a reasonable limit for individual donations that can be
made using a shorter Gift Aid declaration, as set out in Proposal 1, would be £1000,
£5000 or somewhere in between? If not, what limit would seem reasonable & why?
We think that it is artificial to set a threshold, because many donors give small amounts
over a four year period that may amount to a substantial sum over the term, so the
outcome in terms of a repayment might be the same for someone giving £20 a month
over four years and someone giving £1000 as a one off gift.
We also have some doubts in relation to a two tier system, which we believe would be
more complex to manage and would only add confusion.
Furthermore it may be worth noting that charities might be more likely to want to settle
any shortfalls for high value donors, disregarding any liability, because they want to
preserve future income from this group who are as prone to misunderstanding as any
other donor.
Question 10. Given the complexities outlined above, how do you think a tax charge
should fall to charities where a donor has only paid enough tax to cover some of
the Gift Aid on donations they have made in the year?
We do not feel that there is any reasonable way that this can be managed. If delivered on
a first come, first served basis, as smaller charities who submit claims less frequently
would always lose out. The fairest way, if such a system were to be introduced would be
to make all charities proportionally liable in respect of any shortfall.
Question 11. Do you agree that HMRC should be able to tell charities which
donations tax charges relate to?
We believe that it would be unreasonable of HMRC to recover tax without giving us the
details of the individuals, as charities need to update their records so that they are not
continually claiming tax relief for these individuals. Charities also need to record where a
repayment of Gift Aid has already been made, in the event of a payment being refunded
for example, which would initiate an automatic repayment of Gift Aid to HMRC under
current practice.
However, we also acknowledge that any additional statements added into the Gift Aid
declaration to allow for these future disclosures are likely to add sensitivity, increase
anxiety and suppress take up on Gift Aid.
Question 12. Bearing in mind the need to retain a link to donors’ tax affairs in order
to retain Gift Aid’s status as a tax relief, are there any other changes you think it
would be possible and helpful to make to the Gift Aid declaration?
2
HMRC agreed to review their position in relation to mobile numbers at a meeting held with the
Charity Tax Group in September 2013.

8. 8
Given that HMRC now has an automated mechanism to check whether donors have paid
sufficient tax to cover the claims submitted by the charity, we ask ‘why’ it is still necessary
for donors to complete a Gift Aid declaration at all?
We believe that technology has advanced to such a degree that charities ought to be able
to simply submit a list of all the qualifying donations they receive using the existing online
claim template. These donations could then be cross checked against the HMRC
database of tax payers and the tax repaid only on donations where the individual has
paid sufficient tax to cover.
This would still be operating as a repayment of tax, using the existing framework, but with
the added benefit that charities will no longer have to maintain hundreds of thousands of
Gift Aid declarations, which would be a massive saving for the sector, it would also
reduce the level of audit required and effectively eliminate the risk of a shortfall arising.
If there is still a requirement for donors to give consent, this could be managed as an opt
out option, with donors given the opportunity to ‘decline’ to have their tax used this way,
although one could argue that tax paid is for the Government to disburse as it sees fit.
The ‘opt out system’ has been put forward by the sector many times before as being the
only viable option for increasing take up on Gift Aid and we would urge the Government
to explore this option more fully.
Chapter 3: Gift Aid: a greater role for intermediaries
Question 13. What intermediaries exist now? If the Government makes changes to
Gift Aid to make it easier to claim on donations made through intermediaries, what
new intermediaries might emerge to support donations to charity?
We are wholly reliant on intermediaries such as Just Giving, who make it easier for event
participants to manage their sponsorship and whilst we have entertained the idea of
developing similar online platforms, companies such as Just Giving are now so well
established, that the benefit would be questionable.
New intermediaries that we would welcome would be companies that manage payments
made by mobile phone, because we are not currently privy to the name and address data
for these individuals, although we believe that if a legal precedent was set, that allowed
the mobile phone providers to provide us with this data assuming implicit consent, then
there would be less need for us to press for this option.
However as it currently stands charities face a problem reconciling payments which are
clawed back by the mobile phone companies because the telephone numbers are not
confirmed as part of this recovery, compromising the validity of the entire claim. Having
an intermediary that has access to the donor’s personal information would overcome this
problem.
Other potential intermediaries are the banks, especially with the introduction of mobile to
mobile payments using the ‘faster payments’ system. These payments are likely to give
rise to greater numbers of ‘anonymous’ transactions and so there is value in the banks
holding declarations. These could also be used to cover donations made via ATM
machines.

9. 9
Question 14. What are your views on the requirements placed on non-charity
intermediaries and the regulatory powers the Government would need to take
under Proposal 2?
We feel that intermediaries should work under the same statutory framework that is
currently applied to payroll giving agencies. This would give the charities and the public
greater confidence and ensure that money reaches the designated cause.
Question 15. What sorts of features do you think intermediaries would need to
have to have? What sorts of organisations should be able to be intermediaries?
Any organisation claiming Gift Aid on behalf of charities would need to demonstrate that
they are competent financial administrators and be subject to external audit. Small
operators are unlikely to offer a credible portfolio, but organisations like phone companies
and banks that are already subject to external regulation, should be amenable if there is
an incentive for them to take on this additional burden.
Question 16. As set out above, the Government intends to put in place two
requirements under Proposal 2 – a time limit on declarations, and a requirement to
ask donors if they wish to Gift Aid each donation – to reduce the risk of Gift Aiding
a donation in error. Are there other methods to protecting donors against the risk
of over claiming?
We are not sure why payments made through intermediaries are any different to
payments made by donors generally, since donors may potentially forget which charities
they have given declarations to and although we remind our donors that they have a
declaration on record with every appeal letter we send, not all charities do, so presumably
the risk of over-claiming is the same.
This proposal potentially puts all enduring declarations at risk, which would be a great
concern for regular payments received via direct debit, as we place a lot of reliance on
the open declaration. It will not be long before we are soliciting regular payments by
mobile phone, which we would want the intermediaries to manage tax efficiently and they
would not be able to do this if they were presented with the obstacle of a time limited
declaration.
The only way to really avoid over claiming is to re-solicit consent each time, which would
not be a desirable option, as offering an option to opt in every time is likely to undermine
the return considerably and does not lend itself to regular payments made via direct debit
or standing order.
Question 17. Would it be helpful to place a requirement on intermediaries to inform
donors how much they had donated that year, with the amount of tax required to
cover Gift Aid on those donations?
This would be helpful, as donors do lose track, although the intermediary can only
analyse income made via them, other payments discharged directly to the charity or other
charities would not be included in this evaluation and this would need to be made clear.
Question 18. Do you think intermediaries will offer to claim Gift Aid on behalf of
charities as set out under Proposal 2?

10. 10
Some operators might be willing to do this for the additional income they can generate
from administration fees, but some may need an added incentive to take on this
responsibility.
Question 19. What do you think the consequences of the intermediary taking on
liability might be?
We would imagine that they will seek to contractually bind charities so that they can
recover any shortfalls they have had to repay, which makes it even more critical that they
are companies who are properly vetted and audited.
Question 20. If the proposals in Chapter 2 are adopted, do you agree that the
liability for tax charges arising where the donor has not paid enough tax to cover a
Gift Aided donation should fall to the intermediary? Or would it be more
appropriate for the liability to fall to the charity?
As above. We think that the charge should be levied against the intermediary, but they
are likely to seek recovery from the charities.
Question 21. What might be the advantages and disadvantages of Proposal 2 for
charities?
The intermediaries we are seeking are in the areas where it is currently not possible to
claim Gift Aid effectively (e.g. mobile phone payments) so any disadvantage (admin
charge) is negligible compared to the considerable advantage of being able to claim on a
greater proportion of these gifts.
Question 22. How can charities’ relationships with donors be protected under
Proposal 2?
Donors do not necessarily see that they have a relationship with the charities under
current intermediary relationships (Just Giving), even less so through other channels like
text to donate. However, we would like the opportunity to nurture relationships with them
and to also contact them in the future with say an emergency appeal. We imagine that we
could still do this through agreement with the intermediaries around disclosure of data, on
a consent basis and that charities would still be entitled to the mobile phone numbers at
the very least.
Question 23. Do you think Proposal 2 would lead to an increase in Gift Aid going to
charities? What is the evidence for this?
Charities currently face a problem reconciling payments received by text, due to the
absence of audit trail for payments which are clawed back by the mobile phone providers
and having an intermediary in place that is privy to the personal data relating to ‘claw
backs’ would overcome this obstacle.
It would also overcome the issue of donors having to complete a declaration, subsequent
to their making their donation by text, because they could sign up to Gift Aid when they
set up their mobile agreement and would additionally address the issue of mobile phone
numbers being re-cycled as the declaration would be tied to the account holder rather
than the number.

11. 11
Question 24. Do you think Proposal 2 would lead to an increase in overall
donations to charities? What is the evidence for this?
There is no evidence to suggest this.
Question 25. What are the advantages and disadvantages of Proposal 3 over
Proposal 2?
Proposal 3 is not desirable and we would not welcome this development. It is our belief
that intermediaries will be more effective if they are ultimately responsible for the
outcomes of their administration. If the intermediaries simply acted as a conduit,
maintaining declarations, then there is a greater risk that the data will not be maintained
with the same level of due diligence.
Question 26. What are your views on the option that both Proposals 2 and 3 should
be available in parallel?
We would only want to pursue proposal 2. Proposal 3 is closer to the vision of a universal
declaration discussed later in the paper, which is not without its issues.
Question 27. Do you agree that intermediaries should be liable for invalid Gift Aid
declarations and any repayments required or penalties issued in relation to these?
Or should charities be liable, given they will have received any Gift Aid paid out on
these incorrect claims?
If intermediaries were soliciting declarations that were invalid then we would be very
concerned, as this would imply that they did not fully comprehend the rules and they
ought to in these circumstances be fully liable for any penalties as this will help to ensure
that they discharge their duties more effectively.
However, it is unlikely that intermediaries will accept their role, if they cannot recover any
Gift Aid they have to repay, back from the charities, since they are not the beneficiaries of
this income.
Question 28. If Proposal 1 (in Chapter 2) and proposal 3 are adopted in
combination, should the charity be liable for tax charges where the donor has paid
insufficient tax to cover the Gift Aid on the donation? Or should the liability for the
tax charges fall on the intermediary?
We oppose proposal 1 (chapter 2) for the reasons previously stated and there is no
reason why the intermediary would not be able to implement a system whereby the donor
was fully aware of their responsibilities regarding any potential shortfall of tax paid.
A way of reducing any liability to the donor would be to make the declarations operated
by intermediaries time limited, which this group of donors may prefer, especially as their
declarations cover multiple charities.
Question 29. Would intermediaries be content to operate Proposal 3?
We cannot offer an evaluation on this. We presume that proposal 3 would be easier for
them to manage, but we would be reluctant to pursue this option over proposal 2.

12. 12
Question 30. What would be the advantages and disadvantages to charities of
Proposal 3? Are there any advantages or disadvantages for donors?
The disadvantage to the charity is that in the event of an audit, the charity would have to
recover Gift Aid declarations that were maintained by a third party and this adds an
element of risk. There is also the potential for these companies to be bought out or
collapse, which again puts the declaration at risk.
Question 31. Do you think additional HMRC guidance and support would help
digital providers to operate Gift Aid more efficiently and make it easier for donors
to claim Gift Aid on their donations through digital channels?
Yes. There is a lot of misinformation in the sector, perpetuated in no small part by the
operators of text donations. The fact remains that the audit trail for these donations is not
sufficient to allow for Gift Aid to be claimed. Giving the operators a licence to disclose the
personal details of the donors would help to overcome this obstacle.
Question 32. What sort of support could HMRC usefully provide in this area?
The mobile phone providers suggest that they cannot make disclosures under data
protection, but we do not believe that this is a valid position as donors can assign
consent.
The only assistance that HMRC can provide in this arena as it currently stands is to
clearly set the level of acceptability in relation to donations that are anonymously clawed
back, so that there is no need to evaluate whom these relate to.
Question 33. Would more support in this way be sufficient to improve the user
experience of Gift Aid?
N/A
Chapter 4: A universal Gift Aid declaration database
Question 34. What model for a UGADD would you prefer to see in place?
We do not believe a universal Gift Aid declaration would work, if the charity had to place
reliance on the donor confirming their unique reference number, because the information
would not be retained by the donor in any reliable way.
The only model that might work is where a central database is referenced prior to a claim
being made, however it takes a lot of resource and commitment to keep a database up to
date and to ensure that data is formatted in such a way that would allow matching.
This is evidenced by the difficulties charities have encountered in preparing their data for
upload to the online claim system. Common data such as address line 1 and post code
may be formatted differently across different databases. There are also name changes
(due to marriage or divorce) and variations of name like ‘Elizabeth / Betty’ to consider.
Question 35. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a UGADD compared to
either Proposal 2 or 3 set out in the previous chapter, for charities, donors and
intermediaries?

13. 13
A UGADD would diminish the need for charities to maintain Gift Aid declarations, which
would bring some resource savings over time. However, referencing a UGADD would
add time as well as complexity to the Gift Aid claim and negates the value of speeding up
the process through the development of the online claim system.
Well established charities already have robust systems in place to manage their Gift Aid
declarations and we would be concerned if the UGADD was intended to supersede
existing agreements in place as charities have significant volumes of enduring
declarations already on file and would be very concerned if these ceased to be relevant
under this proposal.
If the introduction of a UGADD is intended to supersede, then we are confident that the
sign up rates for a universal Gift Aid Declaration would not in any way match the rate of
GADs already held by individual charities who have nurtured relationships over time and
we believe that our claims would be significantly negatively impacted.
Question 36. How might the introduction of a UGADD fit with charities’ current
systems for managing Gift Aid? Would the benefits outweigh any costs?
We cannot make a reasonable assessment of benefit in order to judge whether this
outweighs the cost of maintaining a central system, but we believe that the benefits would
not be material.
The only desirable outcome would be as previously suggested, that Gift Aid is managed
as an opt-out system, with HMRC checking the tax status of individuals on submission of
claims by charities. This would relinquish the need to maintain a declaration and remove
the risk of over claiming.
Question 37. What functions should a UGADD have, and why?
A centrally managed system would allow donors to cancel the arrangement more easily,
which would be a benefit as currently they must do this with each charity assuming they
can recall where they have given consent.
But we would be concerned that there would be no effective process in place on a
centrally managed system to manage name and address changes, or agreements in
place to ensure that any changes are effectively communicated back to the charities, so
that they were maintaining the same data sets in order to maximise the match rate.
The above would obviously involve data sharing and agreements would need to be put in
place to allow for this.
Question 38. What information should a UGADD pass on to charities about their
donors? How, and why?
We assume that the UGADD would simply be holding data that charities are already privy
to, namely name and address. However if a central database did exist, charities would
probably want the opportunity to analyse giving trends across the sector.
Question 39. Should Gift Aid be claimed directly by the charity, or should the
UGADD claim the Gift Aid on the charity’s behalf?

14. 14
If we move to a central database, then there is little advantage in the charity submitting
the claims. However, the concern with any third party operator is the level of resource
allocated to maintaining credible data. Charities have every motivation to do this,
because it is their bread and butter, but a third party may not be motivated in the same
way.
We also assume that there would be a cost to the service, which would not necessarily
be capped and this would hold the charities at a disadvantage.
Question 40. How could a UGADD best be encouraged to emerge? What might be
the best role for Government in supporting a UGADD’s development?
We would only wish to pursue this if the UGADD was evolved within HMRC’s own
framework, rather than operating through a third party.
Question 41. How should the UGADD and charities identify donors, given the
Government’s requirements on accuracy and security as set out above? Would
donors find this easier than providing a new Gift Aid declaration?
As above
Question 42. How can a UGADD be developed in a way that allows access for a
wide range of charities?
As above
Question 43. Where a Gift Aid declaration has not been taken correctly so it is
invalid, should the UGADD administrator or the charity be liable for the repayment
of the Gift Aid? Why?
A third party operating a UGADD should be wholly responsible for the integrity of the data
that it holds. It would be inappropriate for the charity to be liable.
Question 44. Where a donor has paid insufficient tax to cover a Gift Aid claim made
on a donation, should the donor, the charity or the UGADD operator be liable to
make up the shortfall in tax? Why?
The issues are the same, whether operating through an intermediary or a UGADD. The
operator ought to be wholly responsible for data integrity and any penalties, but any tax
shortfalls would ultimately have to be recovered from the beneficiary or the donor.
Question 45. How can the Government get sufficient assurance that taxpayers’
confidential information is adequately protected by the operators of a UGADD?
Presumably they would have to operate under the same data security standards as
charities and other organisations handling data and be registered with the Information
Commissioners office.
Question 46. How much do you think it would cost to build and/or administer a
UGADD, and how do you get to that figure?

15. 15
It depends on whether the database is simply holding declarations that can be referenced
or facilitating claims, which would make the database more complex, but at a guess, we
would estimate between 3-5 million.
The main costs however would be the on-going resource costs for data capture, data
hygiene and data maintenance, as well as server storage costs of the declarations which
we assume will be scanned, back-ups and disaster recovery.
There is also the question of how the initial solicitation of a universal Gift Aid Declaration
would be resourced. Would this be a paper, telephone or online data collection exercise
and who would cover the costs of this solicitation?
Question 47. How do you think the costs of building and/or operating a UGADD
should be covered?
We do not think that any third party operator would be willing to invest in the development
of this system unless there was scope for them to recover their overhead from the
charities, via admin / management costs.
Question 48. If charities had to pay to use a UGADD, how can these costs be kept
low and transparent, to avoid greater Gift Aid administration costs than is currently
the case?
The costs would have to be regulated or capped or else the charities would be held to
ransom, because the operator would have the monopoly.
Question 49. Do you believe that the costs to charities of using a UGADD would be
outweighed by the benefits e.g. a higher take-up of Gift Aid?
There is no evidence to suggest that the take up would be greater, so we are unable to
answer this question.
Chapter 5: Assessment of impacts
Question 50. In your view, what proportion of relevant donations to charity are
made through ‘new’ digital giving channels compared to more traditional forms of
giving?
We do not count online giving as being part of this evaluation because we receive and
manage Gift Aid on these gifts without issue and have done for many years.
Our analysis is therefore confined to donations made by text, which currently constitute
less than 0.05% of our overall donations, although we expect this figure to grow over
time, especially if it is easier to claim Gift Aid on these gifts, since the payment method
will be more widely promoted.
Question 51.Are these genuinely new donations, or would they otherwise have
been made through a different channel?
It is hard to say, as we are unable to identify the vast majority of donors giving this way in
order to substantiate this analysis. Text donations do not appear to have impacted on
volumes elsewhere, so we assume that these are additional.

16. 16
Question 52.What proportion of the donations made through new digital channels
is currently Gift Aided? How does this compare with other donations of a similar
size?
Our figures indicate that just under 30% of donors giving this way go on to complete a
Gift Aid declaration, which we believe is reasonably high for the sector. This compares to
between 60% for donors giving by cheque / credit card and 85% for donors giving by
direct debit.
Question 53.Given the size of the donations, what is the maximum proportion of
these donations that might practically be Gift Aided?
We would hope to see figures of around 50-60% of text donations being Gift Aided
through intermediaries, who have better access to the donor data.
Question 54.In your view, what effect might the proposals in this document have
on the proportion of donations that are Gift Aided, taking into account:
a) only donations made through ‘new’ channels;
The option for intermediaries to claim on these would have a positive impact on donations
made by text, or mobile to mobile payments, where the charity is not automatically privy
to the donor’s personal data.
b) all donations?
We do not believe that the proposals put forward in this consultation would have a
positive impact on donations made by other means and we would be concerned that
existing systems would be undermined if any of the proposals were adopted.
Question 55. In your view, would the proposals in this document have the effect of
imposing extra costs on your organisation? How? Would these be start-up costs
or ongoing costs? How large would they be?
We would expect an intermediary to charge administration costs which we would accept,
assuming they were reasonable, if we were able to access revenue that is currently
denied to us, as is the case with text donation income.
However, the extra costs that would be imposed by a third party managing a UGADD are
likely to undermine any perceived benefit.
Question 56. Do you agree with the assessment of impacts set out in the summary
of impacts table? In your view, are there any impacts that have not been mentioned
here?
There is no evidence to support the aspiration that the proposals outlined in the
consultation will encourage higher levels of charitable donations.
We believe that there will be a negative impact on existing arrangements if any one of the
proposals is adopted.

17. 17
In summary:
1) Shortening the Gift Aid declaration will ultimately give rise to a two tier system
which we fear will be unworkable and our concern is that this will ultimately lead to
the abolition of the enduring declaration used now.
Charities will also suffer shortfalls if tax is recovered from them directly.
Furthermore we believe that any additional information added to the declaration
which advises donors that HMRC may share information with the charity in order
to effect the repayment, will be off putting and diminish response and will
ultimately not address the desired outcome, which is to make the statement
significantly shorter!
2) The adoption of a Universal Gift Aid declaration system will we believe seek to
supersede existing declarations held by charities, otherwise any claim system
would be unworkable and we do not believe that any third party will be as
successful as the charities in acquiring replacement Gift Aid Declarations from the
existing donor base.
There would also be a transitional period as we move from one system to another
and it is not clear what the transitional arrangements would be.
In conclusion, we would be extremely concerned if any proposal was introduced that
undermined the level of income already being claimed successfully by most charities
and we would suggest again that an opt out system be considered by the
Government, since there is now the technology and we presume the desire to
facilitate a match to the HMRC database via the online claim system, in order to
evaluate the tax status of donors, thus maximising potential.
Such a system would significantly increase the levels of Gift Aid currently being
claimed, it would reduce administration costs for charities since there would be no
need for them to maintain a declaration, nor would they need to actively solicit them.
This finalises our feedback in relation to the consultation. If you have any questions
then please contact the author, Jo Georgiou, Head of Fundraising Support Services,
e-mail jgeorgio@redcross.org.uk

18. 18
Appendix One
This is a cached page from web archives dated 01/10/2012
http://web.archive.org/web/20121001214156/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/gift_aid/declarations.htm
This is the advice now
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/gift_aid/declarations.htm

19. 19
Appendix Two
Suggested one off declaration for SMS text donations
*EXAMPLE*
Explanatory notes
The need for the additional reference to Charity
Amateur Sports Clubs is negated by the statement
that says ‘any other donations I make under Gift
Aid’ as this would include both charities and
CASCs.
Given that the declaration is not enduring, we
could simply collect the minimum in relation to
address as we do with sponsorship.
The act of the donor completing their details and
then submitting the form would constitute their
consent, negating the need for a tick box.