"SavetheUKCC" petition

National developments, strategies and ideas.
Roger Lancaster
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Roger Lancaster » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:52 pm

Subject to all certainties mentioned earlier, I think I agree with Roger. The point I was (clumsily) trying to make was that, even in the worst case scenario, the former Mrs Basman would not be dumped unceremoniously and penniless on the streets - she would be entitled to half the net value ("net" reflecting any outstanding mortgage, legal costs, etc) of the house. Also, if she is an elderly person in poor health, the local council would almost certainly have a duty (at latest, at the stage where she was threatened with homelessness within 28 days) to advise and assist under the provisions of the various Housing Acts. Obviously she should seek advice as soon as possible from a local solicitor or, failing that, CAB or equivalent body.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Roger Lancaster » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:55 pm

While I take Christopher's point, I should observe out that it is Mike who has brought the matter into the public domain.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7314
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:59 pm

Well, yes. I am tempted to go and see him play blindfold chess. Though it sounds more like a protest than a genuine fund-raising event.

Reminds me of Brian Haw.

Alan Kennedy
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:33 am

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Alan Kennedy » Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:10 am

the situation with Mrs Basman is not uncommon and yes the Trustee can take the house unless it is solely owned by Mrs Basmaan. There is a particularly helpful article from the citizens advice http://bit.ly/2j7kww1 which summarises my understanding of the legal position. Most interestingly it says The court may decide that there are some exceptional circumstances which mean you can keep your home or at least delay its sale. These might include you have a disabled child and the house has been adapted for their needs or you're over 70.If you think this might apply to you, you should ask your partner to speak to the bankruptcy trustee about this. You may need to get advice about whether your circumstances are exceptional. I understand it is quite common for the courts to give at least a year but Mrs Basman is better off arguing for longer.

What is not covered is the pragmatics of dealing with the situation. The trustee in bankruptcy will think along the following lines: I have a limited amount of resources in the case (ie £40000 plus the half the equity in the house) and if I get into a dispute then thenthe equity may well be disappated in legal fees. Therefore Trustees in bankruptcy will very often listen to very generous offers in settlement to avoid a dispute. For example I heard of a case the other day were the insolvency practitioner accepted £25K for a debt worth £125K because the defendant used that very strong argument "I have very few assets but what I have I will spend on legal fees before you get possession". In another case the Trustee indicate 70K would be acceptable for equity of 100K - that was however much more clear cut. The other factor is that the split of the equity in the house may not be to be clear cut. For example Mr Basman's share of the equity might be reduced because he did not contribute equally to the house value or because he remortgaged the house to fund a loss making business :) - this is complex but it gives something else for Mrs Basman to use as a delaying tactic. If you are interested the insovency service helpfully summarises the issues http://bit.ly/2jVFHG9

Also in the circumstances it is highly possible that a well meaning relative (or chess player buys out Mr Basmans half share (or to be correct the trustees half share) at a considerable discount and lets Mrs Basman stay there rent free secure in the knowledge that they will receive a profit from the discounted offer when the house is eventually sold. Mike, if you are reading this i hope it is helpful. If I am in London I will take up your challenge! For the avoidance of doubt these are general comments only as I am not an Insolvency practition and you and your wife should take advice before proceeding. I hope it reads well. Posting articles on the ecforum during tax return season is not recommended.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18102
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:21 am

Alan Kennedy wrote: Also in the circumstances it is highly possible that a well meaning relative (or chess player buys out Mr Basmans half share (or to be correct the trustees half share) at a considerable discount and lets Mrs Basman stay there rent free secure in the knowledge that they will receive a profit from the discounted offer when the house is eventually sold.
The commercial concepts of equity release and lifetime mortgages come to mind as well. For that matter, there are loan companies or specialist investors who might buy the house at a pittance and offer a lifetime tenancy in return.

Nick Grey
Posts: 1153
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Nick Grey » Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:28 am

I thought this thread was dead.

Not sure why you think the local authority will pick up the tab. Says ex-wife so assume a divorce. Housing authority is not Surrey County Council so if Kingston Upon Thames is likely to be in very deep mess (yes I'm divorced & was living in Kingston upon Thames). Mike is also making himself intentionally homeless by not paying his taxes. Of course if it is a social services decision really need to know exactly where - if Surrey County Council you may have noticed referendum or 15% on Council Tax. of course if Kingston & supported I could object to my council tax bill & the accounts for supporting someone who blatantly ignores taxes.

No sympathy at all now & Mike is too late in my decision to play chess once in a week tonight - last night. We were playing Surbiton.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Roger Lancaster » Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:48 am

Nick, my reference to the local housing authority having a Housing Act duty related exclusively to someone in the apparent circumstances of the former Mrs B. Anyone found to be "intentionally homeless" is owed a lesser duty by the local housing authority but there is nothing in this thread to indicate that the former Mrs B is likely to be found "intentionally homeless". But, as I and others have said, she should seek specialist advice - there may be factors of which we here are unaware.

John McKenna
Posts: 3722
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by John McKenna » Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:19 am

If it should eventually transpire that VAT is not payable on entry fees to chess tournaments and is all refunded does that leave IM Michael Basman up a creek having been thrown a paddle after the tide has gone out?
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2970
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:32 pm

"If it should eventually transpire that VAT is not payable on entry fees to chess tournaments and is all refunded does that leave IM Michael Basman up a creek having been thrown a paddle after the tide has gone out?"

Yes - the law as it stands at the time of the alleged offence is what is supposed to count and I think HMRC would stick to that (especially as they would have to repay any money they got.)

Having said that, a judge recently decided that Amazon were allowed to break Transport of Dangerous Goods Regulations.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18102
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:39 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote: Yes - the law as it stands at the time of the alleged offence is what is supposed to count and I think HMRC would stick to that (especially as they would have to repay any money they got.)
I would suspect the EBU would still have to fill in VAT forms to show what part of their finances was now VAT free. That in part was Basman's problem, had he done some appropriate book keeping, the VAT liability was probably much less than claimed by HMRC. If he was making enough out of the UKCC to pay himself a taxable income for his work, an increase in VAT is offset by a reduction in his personal liability to tax.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2970
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:19 pm

"That in part was Basman's problem, had he done some appropriate book keeping, the VAT liability was probably much less than claimed by HMRC. "

That is quite possible - in the good old days, HM Customs and Excise would have made a fairly sensible estimate, now that HMRC are running the show, they seem to be a bit greedy. They would of course argue that if the accounts are no good, they don't know what a sensible estimate is. They do tend to take the view that if they repeatedly ask for information and are not happy with what they get, that there are grounds for suspicion.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Roger Lancaster » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:56 am

Kevin Thurlow wrote:"If it should eventually transpire that VAT is not payable on entry fees to chess tournaments and is all refunded does that leave IM Michael Basman up a creek having been thrown a paddle after the tide has gone out?"

Yes - the law as it stands at the time of the alleged offence is what is supposed to count and I think HMRC would stick to that (especially as they would have to repay any money they got.)

Having said that, a judge recently decided that Amazon were allowed to break Transport of Dangerous Goods Regulations.
Is there not the relevant point that HMRC were not relying on the law but, because there is no unique legal definition of "sport", on the Sport England definition of "sport" which isn't quite the same thing?

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2970
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:06 pm

"Is there not the relevant point that HMRC were not relying on the law but, because there is no unique legal definition of "sport", on the Sport England definition of "sport" which isn't quite the same thing?"

Possibly. No rules cover everything - that's why I (and many others) spent a few years advising HMC&E/HMRC on scientific matters. HMRC would take advice on unclear cases (they may also have previous similar cases which were decided one way, so they adopted the consistent approach). Also, HMRC are like any other organization, different staff would have different opinions, some are nice and some are nasty, maybe someone took a dislike to Mike and found against him for that reason? There is always an appeal process, but that can take a long time to get sorted out and you might lose anyway.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 693
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by Roger Lancaster » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:13 pm

There is one further point. Take the example of an EBU duplicate bridge tournament entry fee of (say) £24, and assume current VAT rate of 20% and no chargeable VAT output which could be offset, when the issue appears to reduce to a repayment being sought of the £4 paid to HMRC. But, if the £4 is eventually reclaimed successfully, does it legally belong to the EBU or to the competitor who paid the full £24 to the EBU in the first place? Same consideration, of course, with ECF and maybe others.

User avatar
David Shepherd
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:46 pm

Re: "SavetheUKCC" petition

Post by David Shepherd » Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:27 pm

Regarding who gets to keep the VAT see the following link http://www.uhy-uk.com/resources-publica ... und-claims/

Post Reply