Chess/Sport

[Alan Ruffle]

Dear All

The future of the UK chess challenge is in danger.

Mike Basman its founder is in financial difficulty


Chess does not feature at the Olympics.

All because chess is not recognised as a sport.

The point about chess not being 'physical' is debatable but perhaps a back door is opening for us in this respect, the 'Paralympics'
Show me another sport/game Olympic or Paralympics that incorporates not only the able bodied, but blind, deaf, paraplegic , wheelchair bound, Parkinson's or thalidomide victims.

English chess could put on a more organised front by showing some internal discipline by at least coming up with a skeleton of events on the national scene not only attracting publicity and sponsorship but possibly recognition as a sport.

The British becomes a national team event played alongside all but the 'Open' county championships.

New - Open county championships.

New - English Individual championships

New - Junior selection tournaments for the world and European championships.

Cheers
Alan Ruffle

[Roger de Coverly]

The future of the UK chess challenge is in danger.

We know that. There's a tax called VAT which Basman trading as UKCC didn't pay, or even calculate. Most chess events not run by the ECF are structured so they are run locally and thus with a turnover below the VAT limit.

New - Open county championships.

New - English Individual championships

New - Junior selection tournaments for the world and European championships.

Surely all of these events exist, or have existed in the past? The title of English Champion is awarded to the best performing eligible player in the British Chamionships.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Dear All

The future of the UK chess challenge is in danger ...

All because chess is not recognised as a sport.

That’s total bo**ocks.

[Mike Truran]

...... and it's total bo**ocks because Basman broke the law, not because chess isn't recognised as a sport.

[Gary Kenworthy]

Mike Truran is very correct. Plus on it being two subjects.

VAT in the UK (Idea is in French Taxation as well) was invented by a top Customs and Exercise chess player and BCF official. It has scuppered a number of chess initiatives, chess events and organisations. The primary cause of their collapse, or complete lack of funds for day to day cashflow.
(BTW#: Same circle who used to take out legal injunctions on B H Wood and his Chess magazine, as he had an anti-establishment streak within him. His magazine was the KIng Pin of the day, with plenty of clever satire and cartoons-- cartoons have are a good legal workaround - as per G.Cruickshank and J.Gillray, Punch, Private Eye).

Chess has always been short of money. It is the root cause of many arguments and fall-outs. Many chess financiers, sponsors and chess treasurers have broken the law. e.g. see History of Hastings congress, BCF etc.

Secondly, I know a bit about Chess as a Sport. e.g. I researched and found the Sport England meetings and order papers. It was Trevor Brooking who had had edited the word physical into the definition of Sport, in the constitutional papers, and in the Lottery Funding. Simple argument was also, there is not enough money to go around, as it was also self protection against interlopers.
Another major reason was that the campaign was hijacked and became less focused with many other bodies such as Darts and several card playing groups were being cross involved. The BCF campaign was internally scuppered, with clandestine and unhelpful surprises.

rgds (FM) Gary Kenworthy.
btw Mike Basman is a personal friend, we go back a long way, in many initiatives. He was part of the Bradford 1966 National Club winning team. He did much for Bradford junior chess etc etc etc

[John Foley]

Basman broke the law

Mike, this is a serious allegation. Unless you are prepared to provide some evidence, then I would respectfully advise you to withdraw the statement and apologise. The fact that someone has a tax bill does not mean they have broken the law.

[JustinHorton]

However, the fact that they have been ruled against in court does mean they have broken the law, do you not think?

[Mike Truran]

John

Perhaps you can explain to me how somebody who was above the VAT turnover threshold for many years and yet consciously made the decision not to charge VAT, and who as a result has been the subject of bankruptcy proceedings by HMRC which are as we speak being enforced, has not broken the law.

If you can do that, I'm sure I will be very happy to apologise.

After HMRC have done so.

Mike

[Nick Grey]

This is probably on the wrong thread ought to go on the save UKCC (ie. Mike) but anyway...

it looks like Mike from comments on the forum that Mike is not acknowledging the bankruptcy order.
Bankruptcy is a legal status of a person, imposed by court order in this case from HMRC, for not repaying debts to HMRC.
HMRC do not issue apologies.

Is the case with the Official Receiver?

[Gary Kenworthy]

I know Mike Basman (as above and elsewhere). The situation is arguably 20 years old (HMRC can only deal with the last ten years). It has been serious for about three years. It was the known law of the land at the time. It is far from unique in the chess world.
Many silly posts, like he can sell the assets (not in administration ! obviously etc).
The postings that subjects like the petition are one and the same -- same view as Mike Truran - as I have posted a few times.
Bottom-line: Mike Truran is correct.
rgds (FM) Gary Kenworthy

[Alan Kennedy]

it looks like .....Mike is not acknowledging the bankruptcy order.
Bankruptcy is a legal status of a person, imposed by court order in this case from HMRC, for not repaying debts to HMRC.
HMRC do not issue apologies.

Is the case with the Official Receiver?

I hope Mr Basman does ackhowledge the bankruptcy order and cooperates with the Trustee as otherwise he could find himself (ultimately) liable to proceedings under Section 363 (4) Insolvency Act 1986 for contempt of court.

[John Foley]

Perhaps you can explain to me how somebody who was above the VAT turnover threshold for many years and yet consciously made the decision not to charge VAT, and who as a result has been the subject of bankruptcy proceedings by HMRC which are as we speak being enforced, has not broken the law.

I find this a rather truculent response. Surely your role is to help those struggling in the chess world, not to kick them when they're down. What are you claiming is the illegal act of which he is guilty? If, as you assert, he has broken the law, and if, as you say, proceedings are ongoing, then the matter is sub judice and you would potentially be in contempt of court. It does not matter whether someone explicitly charges VAT or not. HMRC will, where appropriate, treat the prices charged as including VAT and levy a bill accordingly. As your more learned colleague Alan Kennedy points out, it is only if he fails to co-operate with the trustee in bankruptcy that he could find himself (ultimately) liable to proceedings under Section 363 (4) Insolvency Act 1986 for contempt of court. Being potentially a defendant in civil proceedings is a far cry from the proclamation that he has broken the law.

[Mike Truran]

Thank you for your learned legal advice.

From the HMRC website. Relevant bits highlighted.

What is VAT fraud?
VAT fraud is a type of tax evasion. It happens when a business doesn’t charge VAT when they should, or charges you VAT but doesn’t pay it to HMRC. They might:

ask you to pay cash to avoid paying VAT on a sale or job
ask you to make the payment to someone other than the business, or several payments to different people or businesses
not be registered for VAT when they should be
claim to have applied for a VAT number when they haven’t
use a VAT number that’s false or belongs to someone else - check a UK VAT number is valid

Perhaps you can explain to me how "VAT fraud" and "tax evasion" (HMRC's own words, as far as I can see) do not constitute breaking the law.

[Simon Brown]

The illegal act is VAT evasion, as he is over the threshold so must register. Tax evasion is a crime. As Mike (B) is not a professional it has been dealt with as a civil matter and the penalty is a fine, which here is £300k. I don't know if that was mitigated, which it would be had he co-operated.

Ignorance or disregard of the law doesn't make his actions legal.

[Neil Graham]

The illegal act is VAT evasion, as he is over the threshold so must register. Tax evasion is a crime. As Mike (B) is not a professional it has been dealt with as a civil matter and the penalty is a fine, which here is £300k. I don't know if that was mitigated, which it would be had he co-operated.

Ignorance or disregard of the law doesn't make his actions legal.

I think Simon that this goes back to my post on Page 4 of the UKCC thread where I posted a link (You posted immediately below it). The tribunal case of Basman v HMRC in front of Judge Alexander in February 2014. As I said in that post I leave board members to draw their own conclusions having read the judgement