"SavetheUKCC" petition

[Alan Kennedy]

I am guessing there's lots of people reading this thread who really don't understand VAT and are finding it very hard to follow.

What records were provided to HMRC and when is one of those pertinent pieces of information that we don't know, mainly because the individuals who do know are too busy producing stupid documents featuring Mike Basman in a St George costume.

The VAT issue is largely irrelevant because HMRC raised assessments and Mr Basman did not appeal against them in time. The liability is therefore crystalised. You be better off trying to understand bankruptcy law.

Alan

[Alan Kennedy]

I am guessing there's lots of people reading this thread who really don't understand VAT and are finding it very hard to follow.

What records were provided to HMRC and when is one of those pertinent pieces of information that we don't know, mainly because the individuals who do know are too busy producing stupid documents featuring Mike Basman in a St George costume.

The VAT issue is largely irrelevant because HMRC raised assessments and Mr Basman did not appeal against them in time. The liability is therefore crystalised. You be better off trying to understand bankruptcy law.

if you care about the future of the uk chess challenge can I suggest that you pursuade Mr Basman to faciliate the sale of the business to an external third party and act in the best interest of his creditor (s). I doubt whether anyone would take it over while Mr Basman is still involved (or claiming that he is). It is time for him to step aside. I appreciate for all of us whose children may have received Cheepy Chirpy or Tiger Worm this might seem harsh but bankruptcy is a very harsh place to be.


Alan

[Roger de Coverly]

I do not know whether Mr Basman traded under the name UKCC or his own name

The HMRC VAT case was against Mike Basman trading as UK Chess Challenge.

[JustinHorton]

I am guessing there's lots of people reading this thread who really don't understand VAT and are finding it very hard to follow.

What records were provided to HMRC and when is one of those pertinent pieces of information that we don't know, mainly because the individuals who do know are too busy producing stupid documents featuring Mike Basman in a St George costume.

The VAT issue is largely irrelevant because HMRC raised assessments and Mr Basman did not appeal against them in time.

It's not irrelevant to whether people can understand some of the postings that have been made on the issue.

[Mick Norris]

if you care about the future of the uk chess challenge can I suggest that you pursuade Mr Basman to faciliate the sale of the business to an external third party and act in the best interest of his creditor (s)

I'm not sure what it is worth to a third party, who could simply set up an identical business, given there won't be any protection of the IP involved

[Michael Farthing]

It won't be Mr Basman's to sell.

[Alan Kennedy]

if you care about the future of the uk chess challenge can I suggest that you pursuade Mr Basman to faciliate the sale of the business to an external third party and act in the best interest of his creditor (s)

I'm not sure what it is worth to a third party, who could simply set up an identical business, given there won't be any protection of the IP involved

One hopes Mr Basman will realise that if the UKCC as a business (ie 000s of children enjoying chess) is to survive then the most likely way that will happen is he cooperates with a purchaser but agrees to step aside after a short while. It is worth hardly anything to a third party - it clearly didn't make money so why would anyone pay good money for it - the only reason it will be purchased is for mainly altruistic reasons. For Mr Basman to think he can dress up as a knight, get the government to change policy, annul his bankruptcy and somehow provide him with a business that provides him with a living (when it did not before) is truly cloud cuckoo land.

edit earlier typo corrected

[Alan Kennedy]

It won't be Mr Basman's to sell.

agreed that is my point.

[Alan Kennedy]

I am guessing there's lots of people reading this thread who really don't understand VAT and are finding it very hard to follow.

What records were provided to HMRC and when is one of those pertinent pieces of information that we don't know, mainly because the individuals who do know are too busy producing stupid documents featuring Mike Basman in a St George costume.

The VAT issue is largely irrelevant because HMRC raised assessments and Mr Basman did not appeal against them in time.

It's not irrelevant to whether people can understand some of the postings that have been made on the issue.

the issue to be understood is that if you do not pay over vat that you should have collected from your customers (because you were above the turnover threshold and had to register for vat) the HMRC make a guess (called an assessment of your liability) and you have 30 days to appeal against the assessment. Mr Basman clearly did not appeal and the guess becomes a final liabilty and if you do not pay it HMRC apply to the court to have you made bankrupt. After that time all your assets pass to your trustee in bankruptcy including the list of names of all the children who have played in the UKCC. As regards the calculation of vat on invoices all invoices raised are deemed to be vat inclusive unless the contract specifies otherwise. At current rates vat output tax is 1/6 of the gross vatable price eg the customer is charged £120 and £20 is paid to the government and the taxpayer keeps £100. hope that is helpful.

[Jonathan Bryant]

It is worth hardly anything to a third party ... it will be purchased is for mainly altruistic reasons.

... truly cloud cuckoo land.

While not disputing your last point, what’s the "it" you’re imagining being purchased here?

[Michael Farthing]

The name, the mailing list, the contacts list for venues... Not a lot monetary wise but very useful for someone trying to replicate.
The amount it could be sold for is probably minimal, but the trustee also has a duty to salvage what he/she can of the enterprise.

[NickFaulks]

the mailing list

I don't doubt there would be buyers for that at some price ( insurance brokers? ) but are you allowed to sell it?

[John McKenna]

SNIP... For Mr Basman to think he can dress up as a knight, get the government to change policy, annul his bankruptcy and somehow provide him with a business that provides him with a living (when it did not before) is truly cloud cuckoo land.

I'd call it quixotic -

Tell me who was the ignoramus who signed a warrant of arrest against such a knight as I? Who was he that did not know that knights-errant are independent of all jurisdictions... the fool that knows not that there are no letters of patent of nobility that confer such privileges or exemptions as a knight-errant acquires the day he is dubbed... ? What knight-errant ever paid poll-tax, duty, queen's pin-money, king's dues, toll or ferry? (Cervantes Don Quixote)

[Miguel de Cervantes became collector of revenues for the kingdom of Granada in 1594 and in order to remit the money he entrusted it to a merchant/banker who then absconded. His assets were insufficient to cover the whole amount lost so he was imprisoned in Seville in Sept. 1597. He was released after a year and finally died bankrupt (again) in the year 1616.]

(By the way, how sure are you that "the legal process appears to have been exhausted some time ago", and just when do you think that was, Justin?)

About nine pages ago, ha ha.

When Basman's appeal got thrown out.

This thread is not about saving the UKCC it is about pillorying someone who has offended your sensibilities.

When you start describing six-figure tax evasion as offending one's sensibilities, I think you write your own argument's epitaph.

Justin is right to say that (but I still disagree about "six-figure tax evasion" not being a matter of sensibilities). However, he didn't provide a link to a previous post in this thread in which it can be seen that Mr. B did try to appeal - on very shaky grounds according to the judge (see link in quoted post below) - but made a mistake regarding the time allowed to do so and his belated attempt was disallowed -

The following judgement may be of assistance - it goes back to 2013. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC ... 03334.html. I make no comment on what the judge has to say in his ruling; I leave it to forum members to draw their own conclusions.

Going on to a further point raised by Justin and others; despite the above ruling it seems clear from the entry form that VAT wasn't levied or mentioned after the ruling.

So I would be right if I were to state that Mike Basman was informed that he should be adding VAT, lost a court case on the matter, was refused permission to appeal against that judgement and was nevertheless some years later still not adding VAT?

6... The concepts of 'fraud' and 'negligence' for the purpose of administering penalties have been superseded by the concepts of 'deliberate' and 'careless' behaviour with effect from 24 Dec. 2008. The concepts of 'deliberate' and 'careless but not deliberate' have been introduced into VAT law.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/guide/ ... lties.html

When all is said and done the whole series of eccentric episodes seem, as I said, quixotic.

[Michael Farthing]

the mailing list

I don't doubt there would be buyers for that at some price ( insurance brokers? ) but are you allowed to sell it?

We were talking about the business as a whole. The business as a whole includes the mailing list and would be transferred with it. The point of the post was that the business assets were of minimal individual value but of practical in use in resurrecting its traditional activity.

[Mick Norris]

John don't quote me saying something I didn't say