"SavetheUKCC" petition

[Alan Kennedy]

[It occurred to me that if he was paying income tax on his earnings from UKCC, he would have paid too much if his gross income from £ 40 per school and £ 15 per qualifying player was reduced by up to 20%.

that is correct except the gross income would have been reduced by 16.67% (sorry to be pedantic). Also whereas in the case of deliberate failure to pay tax HMRC can go back a long way Mr Basman could only correct his tax returns for the last four years. I appreciate that is unfair but the word fairness is not mentioned in the tax law (bankruptcy law however is all about fairness even if it probably does not seem like it to Mr Basman at the moment.)

[Michael Flatt]

The format of the competition originated by Mike Basman is unique with players progressing through each of the levels being awarded titles and prizes.

Mike is also responsible for involving so many independent chess organisers, who include unpaid volunteers and chess parents. It is a mistake to think of it solely as a business.

As regards whether it remains possible to continue a competition with the same format I would leave the final word to Mike Basman.

[Alan Kennedy]

The format of the competition originated by Mike Basman is unique with players progressing through each of the levels being awarded titles and prizes.

Mike is also responsible for involving so many independent chess organisers, who include unpaid volunteers and chess parents. It is a mistake to think of it solely as a business.

As regards whether it remains possible to continue a competition with the same format I would leave the final word to Mike Basman.

I consider it regrettable, for the sake of the children who enjoy the tournament, that you base your reply on sentiment rather than replying the points made above. Whilst there is nothing to stop Mr Basman trading as the UKCC (subject to passing off actions that the Trustee or purchaser would never want to take) but it appears to me that the UKCC is more likely to survive is Mr Basman's involvement is limited for the reasons summarised above. As regards whether I consider it to be a business - the same points would apply if it was a charity except the fiduciary duties are more onerous. I am also not sure why given my experience you do not listen to my advice - perhaps a theme is developing because if Mr Basman had listened to advice I doubt we would be in such a mess. To fail to follow advice once could be considered unfortunate, to do it a second time is beginning to seem like carelessness!

[Roger de Coverly]

I am also not sure why given my experience you do not listen to my advice - perhaps a theme is developing because if Mr Basman had listened to advice I doubt we would be in such a mess.

The problem developed once the turnover from UKCC went above the VAT limit. I believe there were only two possible solutions. One was to increase the entry fee by enough to cover the VAT and do all the necessary bookkeeping to reclaim as much as possible. The other would have been a restructure so that the local stages were conducted by the local county organisations and the bookkeeping was done to a standard which demonstrated that the turnover would not be aggregated. That is after all the position with adult chess, that the turnover of clubs, leagues and Congresses is not aggregated with the ECF.

[Alan Kennedy]

That is after all the position with adult chess, that the turnover of clubs, leagues and Congresses is not aggregated with the ECF.

But adult chess does not have the same trading name for example the Oxfordshire chess association. the UKCC is the same name throughout however and I would urge extreme caution with "business splitting". from my experience HMRC really hate it and most clients get it wrong or end up creating a partnership with a single legal entity for vat purposes. The bookkeeping is not the issue it is whether they will withstand a mystery shopping campaign from hmrc designed to entrap. For example if there was a phone call to Mr Basman's office to say "my son would like to enter your megafinal" would he say it is not my megafinal but the the final run by Oxfordshire Chess. If not the HMRC mystery shopper would allege it is one business and vat would be due and possibly if the admin was really wrong HMRC would argue it was a partnership Oxfordshire chess would become liable for Mr Basman's vat bill as it would be a joint and several liability! There was quite a good article in taxation here http://www.taxation.co.uk/Articles/2013 ... l-we-split. Mr Basman would do well to read the paragraphs at the bottom about the artificial splitting as in the opinion of most practitioners the other cases were lucky to get away with it and others have not been so fortunate.

Alan

[Roger de Coverly]

For example if there was a phone call to Mr Basman's office to say "my son would like to enter your megafinal" would he say it is not my megafinal but the the final run by Oxfordshire Chess.

In adult chess, if someone phoned the ECF Office saying they wanted to enter the Kidlington Congress in Oxfordshire, they would be referred to the contact details on the ECF website's calendar. It's worth reminding ambitious ECF directors every so often that a "more involved" ECF does impose a possible VAT risk on local organisations. If the ECF had tried to run e2e4 style weekend competitions, it would have been up to 20% more expensive than a VAT-free smaller operation.

[John Upham]

ambitious ECF directors

Who (if any) are you thinking of?

Perhaps you are hoping that they are ambitious?

Were you an ambitious actuary?

[Mike Truran]

Who (if any) are you thinking of?

Count me out for a start. The more events that are run by competent (and I stress the word competent) third parties the better as far as I'm concerned.

[Alan Kennedy]

It's worth reminding ambitious ECF directors

Roger I thought you were doing so well - there were even some posts on the forum that left me in a state of shock (because I agreed with you) but then suddenly you turn the tread back to thinly veiled and unsubstantiated attacks of those hardworking fellows at the ECF, how about you say something nice about Mr Truran and his co Directors.......hmmnnn


Alan

[Mike Truran]

Shame there's not an emoticon for "in your dreams".

[Johan Rydahl]

Why don't we all just sign the petition. I think that the Basman case should be seen as a wake up call. Chess receives almost no Government funding and is not VAT exempt. Very different from any other sport. Yes Mr Basman might have been careless but the fact still remains UKCC is under threat. Without it this country will miss out on many future talents.

[Gary Kenworthy]

Competent is an important point. Some folks over the years have also been natural wreckers. (I think not just of BHS).
Rather than looking backwards, and trying to herd cats.
How is the need of dealing with budding chess players going to be planned, validated, delegated etc and actioned?

[Mick Norris]

Why don't we all just sign the petition. I think that the Basman case should be seen as a wake up call. Chess receives almost no Government funding and is not VAT exempt. Very different from any other sport. Yes Mr Basman might have been careless but the fact still remains UKCC is under threat. Without it this country will miss out on many future talents.

Because we fundamentally disagree with tax evasion?

[Roger de Coverly]

Chess receives almost no Government funding and is not VAT exempt.

For many practical purposes, it is exempt. That's because with a handful of exceptions, the ECF and the UKCC being the obvious ones, chess isn't a big money sport, so the turnover of independent leagues and tournaments is well below the VAT threshold.

[JustinHorton]

Yes Mr Basman might have been careless

"Careless" implies forgetfulness, absence of intent.