"SavetheUKCC" petition

National developments, strategies and ideas.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18188
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:26 pm

JustinHorton wrote: This implies that he receives no income from the event. Is this actually the case?
I thought it accepted that he draws an income equivalent or probably lower than what it would cost to employ someone to run the event.

VAT is an unavoidable menace when turnover exceeds the exemption limit. Various strategies are available to minimise its effect. Declaring it slavery or serfdom doesn't work.

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Message from Mike Basman

Post by Neill Cooper » Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:58 am

John Upham wrote:Mike Basman has asked me to post this message:
“Thank you for your lively debate about the UKCC on the Forum. To clear up one point, many people seem to think that the UKCC is an enormous organisation which makes loads of money. In fact it is run by two people (myself and Pat Armstrong) with hundreds of volunteers, and much of it is done from the back of my garage. At no time in my ten year negotiations with HMRC did they ever suggest that I was stashing away money. It was a theoretical debate. Yes, the turnover is great, but the profit is small and any chess player can get by on £20,000 pa. Because the work of running a tournament for 45,000 children from 1,200 schools with 4 stages, 42 Megafinals, two Gigafinals and a Terafinal, is so onerous, people have not understood that my main argument is about saving time rather than money. Whereas HMRC is not concerned about the amount of time we spend on their work.

...

So, more analysis please. It’s what we chess players are meant to be good at!”

Best wishes,
Mike B
I think that there are only 2 options:

1) reduce the income (turnover) to below the VAT threshold
2) do the bookkeeping and pay the VAT

Reducing the income would require a cut in expenditure on badges, gold stickers and mascots; certificates and rosettes; trophies and prize money. These are the things that make the event so popular with young chess players.

So it look like the bookkeeping must be done. I am sure that there are many chess parents out there would be willing to help, but Mike would probably be frustrated by the need to record all income and expenditure. An alternative would be for UKCC to employ a (part time) administrator to undertake the bookkeeping and related tasks.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7595
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:46 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
JustinHorton wrote: This implies that he receives no income from the event. Is this actually the case?
I thought it accepted that he draws an income equivalent or probably lower than what it would cost to employ someone to run the event
Analysis? Is there actually any evidence to back up that claim?

What we do know is that HMRC believe that £300K of VAT has gone missing - that may be peanuts down your way, but up here it isn't

The story is gaining traction now though
Chess Mind
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18188
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:04 am

Mick Norris wrote: Is there actually any evidence to back up that claim?
Did not Basman himself admit that he made enough from UKCC to be subject to personal Income Tax on the net proceeds? That said, he ought to be able to claim some of it back if his income was only 80% of what he thought it was.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7595
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:56 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Mick Norris wrote: Is there actually any evidence to back up that claim?
Did not Basman himself admit that he made enough from UKCC to be subject to personal Income Tax on the net proceeds? That said, he ought to be able to claim some of it back if his income was only 80% of what he thought it was.
That's not evidence that he is making less than the cost of employing someone to run it for him - anyway, I have no interest in what he says, I will listen when someone provides independent evidence
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 6626
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by JustinHorton » Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:43 am

Indeed as far as I am concerned, the only evidence we have so far is that Mike Basman, being aware of his legal obligations, chose to ignore them for many years, until he was finally pursued by the law in a perfectly normal procedure, which process was extended by a wholly groundless appeal until finally Basman was made bankrupt (by which point he was still not complying with his obligations). As a result the event which he organised, and from which he received an income, is now endangered entirely through his own irresponsible actions. He has not been singled out or mistreated. He has brought this on himself.

Now if any of the above paragraph is incorrect I would be glad to know it, as I would also be glad to know if Basman really has a house in Chessington that he stands to lose or whether he was really giving his labour to UKCC "freely" and "in his own time". But with evidence, please.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18188
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Sep 01, 2016 12:53 pm

JustinHorton wrote: as I would also be glad to know if Basman really has a house in Chessington that he stands to lose or whether he was really giving his labour to UKCC "freely" and "in his own time". But with evidence, please.
UKCC was "Mike Basman trading as UKCC". We know this from the legal papers. That means the debts of UKCC are legally the debts of Mike Basman. The address in Chessington has been quoted as his contact address ever since the days of the audio cassettes. I don't know whether he stands to lose it.

Chess organisations in the UK are usually either unincorporated associations or Companies limited by Guarantee. Had UKCC been set up as a CLG, that would have ring fenced Mike Basman's personal assets. It would of necessity have required more paper work and there would be possible sanctions against directors for non filing of VAT Returns.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 6626
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by JustinHorton » Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:19 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: The address in Chessington has been quoted as his contact address ever since the days of the audio cassettes. I don't know whether he stands to lose it.
Do we in fact know that it is his to lose?

(I mean I wouldn't normally ask because it isn't my business, but in this instance the claim is being made in his defence.)
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3048
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:29 pm

"It is quite obvious that it is not HMRC's intention to re-legalise slavery but to fulfil their remit to uphold the tax laws in this country, however flawed they may be."

When they feel like it - senior HMRC officials don't seem too keen to uphold the tax laws where Google, Starbucks etc. are concerned! (Not that gives anyone else an excuse to avoid tax...)

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1828
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Sep 01, 2016 4:07 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote:"It is quite obvious that it is not HMRC's intention to re-legalise slavery but to fulfil their remit to uphold the tax laws in this country, however flawed they may be."

When they feel like it - senior HMRC officials don't seem too keen to uphold the tax laws where Google, Starbucks etc. are concerned! (Not that gives anyone else an excuse to avoid tax...)
Why is an excuse needed for tax avoidance? What has it got to do with upholding the tax laws? Please learn to use the correct terms. Senior HMRC officials pursue tax evasion. They do not pursue tax avoidance. That is because tax evasion is illegal and tax avoidance is not.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Sean Hewitt » Fri Sep 02, 2016 12:06 am

JustinHorton wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote: The address in Chessington has been quoted as his contact address ever since the days of the audio cassettes. I don't know whether he stands to lose it.
Do we in fact know that it is his to lose?
Yes, at least in part. There are three individuals who own the property of whom Mike is one.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 6626
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Sep 02, 2016 7:21 am

Which is kind of interesting, since that's the third different version I've heard this week, these being essentially
  • - Mike Basman owns the house
    - Mike Basman does not own the house
    - Mike Basman part-owns the house.
So which of these should we believe and why?

As I say, this is only pertinent seeing as a tendentious version of events is being broadcast by Basman supporters and we're being enjoined to sign petitions, consider Basman hard-done-by etc.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3048
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Sep 02, 2016 9:24 am

" Senior HMRC officials pursue tax evasion."

The point I was making is they do when it suits them. Evidently, that was not as clear as I thought.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2391
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Mike Truran » Fri Sep 02, 2016 9:43 am

As Michael says, the distinction between evasion and avoidance is an important one. Politicians' regular and disingenuous conflation of the two terms is a deliberate attempt to confuse public opinion such that perfectly legal tax avoidance mechanisms come to be seen in the public eye as somehow immoral and dishonest. What Mike has done is tax evasion - pure and simple.

Apple and Google didn't write the tax laws. It's entirely HM Government's responsibility if their civil servants can't draft tax law properly.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 736
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Roger Lancaster » Fri Sep 02, 2016 12:43 pm

It's entirely valid to make the distinction between (legal) avoidance and (illegal) evasion but, although it's slightly off topic here, it's worth noting that the distinction is becoming somewhat blurred through the government's recent determination to act against artificial tax avoidance schemes and, broadly speaking, treat these as tax evasion.

Post Reply