"SavetheUKCC" petition

[Alex Gillies]

From my experience HMRC ought to be going after the Deliberate and concealed part of the penalty regime.

Schools cannot retrospectively be charged the VAT & can only put VAT through a LAs HMRC claim on provision of a valid tax invoice.
Some set ups may even have charges to parents & in those cases cannot put their VAT liability through its books either, nor PTAs invoices.
.

They could if they agreed to it but why would they. I also accept it could not happen in the real world, more hypothetical.

Seems clear they ought to have paid 20% more vat - if not the event may be potentially not viable. I can see complications for the school but hopefully they can provide a solution or when they cant parents cover the vat. My focus was to make it work from the organisers view point.

I agree with other points you raise and also see where you are coming from though.

[Alex Gillies]

I would have thought the bottom line with VAT is that all entry fees would have to be increased by 20% or some lesser amount to the extent there are offsets available.

Either way organisers can save vat and/or simply the vat process or restructure below limit. Not hope it goes away.

[Nick Grey]

Schools can reclaim the VAT they are charged on goods and services used wholly in the core education activities.
Chess is not a core education activity. The article says it is a complicated. 20% is the current standard rate. Of course that may change with Brexit.
Either way it requires a valid VAT invoice & the whole process is subject to external audit for LAs & also HMRC.

I have more concerns now I know who originated the petition.

My sympathy is with children & parents & other junior & adult organisers & volunteers who may or may not be trying to keep some form of national competition. But not these organisers.

[Nick Grey]

Why a question for accountants?
HMRC come before prizes.
Were they issued as cheques & have they bounced?
MJBs bankers will be aware by now.

Not as if the owner of a football club where HMRC challenge preferential football creditors.

[Nick Grey]

Sorry John did you pull your post? My answers to your question.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why a question for accountants?

Or lawyers for that matter.

Perhaps this year's event was not run by Mike Basman trading as UKCC, but a legally separate body using the name of UKCC. Otherwise what is apt to happen is that all the entry fees and sponsorship income would be seized to pay the legal fees and VAT bill. Think for example of when that Christmas hamper firm went bust. The client money was not ring fenced.

[Ray Sayers]

Too much speculation and not enough facts. As a junior organiser, I am interested in:

- Is UKCC/Mike going to sort this out with the VAT man? If yes, great, else
- Is the UKCC going to continue in some form as a new entity run by whoever? If yes, great, else
- Will individual counties be allowed to run their own version of the UKCC to plug the gap in the junior calendar without being sued? If yes, great else
- Then a lot of juniors just lost out on competing in a competition they seem to enjoy and be motivated by.

But I don't think we are going to get the answers to these questions quite yet.

[Michael Flatt]

The sponsor, Delancey, continues to promote its association with the UKCC on their corporate website: http://www.delancey.com/chess-challenge.html

It is interesting to see the full list of community projects that Delancey support which includes the charity, Chess in Schools and Community: http://www.delancey.com/culture.html

The latest posting on the UKCC website is a well presented report on the 21st Terafinal:
Fairy Tale Ending for the Delancey Chess Challenge! - http://www.delanceyukschoolschesschalle ... ing-PR.pdf

[John Swain]

The sponsor, Delancey, continues to promote its association with the UKCC on their corporate website: http://www.delancey.com/chess-challenge.html

It is interesting to see the full list of community projects that Delancey support which includes the charity, Chess in Schools and Community: http://www.delancey.com/culture.html

The latest posting on the UKCC website is a well presented report on the 21st Terafinal:
Fairy Tale Ending for the Delancey Chess Challenge! - http://www.delanceyukschoolschesschalle ... ing-PR.pdf

Perhaps all is not doom-and-gloom since the Fairy Tale Ending report refers to arrangements next year for an U9 cup and an extra £200 for this particular prize. At the same time, it goes on to refer to the threat to the tournament's very existence due to the tax problem.

[Neill Cooper]

UKCC has been a wonderful contribution to junior chess in this country. It has provided an ideal competition for schools who are not used to running chess competitions and also to counties where there has been little other junior chess organisation. At my secondary school many players have enjoyed taking part in both the school competition and follow on rounds.

What has happened is a pity for UK chess but a tragedy for Mike Basman personally. Having given so much to encourage junior chess he now finds himself bankrupt.

Going forwards all is not lost - many know the great benefits of UKCC to promoting chess is schools and clubs. I am sure that county junior organisation could run an 'Ourshire Chess Challenge'.

However, we should learn from what has happened and anything else should be subject to suitable professional advice, from either accountants or lawyer, as appropriate. Running a national event but with financially independent Megafinals could well be (VAT) Tax evasion, whilst UKCC brand name cannot be used without suitable permission.

I hope that come November my school is again invited to enter UKCC.

[David Blower]

I can't be the only one who is uncomfortable with the comparison to slavery in that statement!

[JustinHorton]

I'm struggling to find that, David, can you help me out?

[David Blower]

Yes.

http://delanceyukschoolschesschallenge. ... ration.pdf

[JustinHorton]

Thanks. Yes, completely out of order (albeit not at all atypical for its author).

[NickFaulks]

I can't be the only one who is uncomfortable with the comparison to slavery in that statement!

I do not believe that Mike set out to remove money from the pockets of UK taxpayers, or even that this was the eventual net effect of his actions. I want to support him, but he makes it terribly difficult.