"SavetheUKCC" petition

[Jonathan Bryant]

Does anyone else think he'd be better off starting a crowd-funding thing saying "Hey, i messed up, I forgot to collect all the VAT. I'd like to keep the UKCC going so throw us a fiver" ....

Better off in the sense of acknowledging his own responsibility for where he’s got to - yes.

Better off in the sense that it would raise significant sums of money - I very much doubt it. Especially now. Maybe if that’s what he’d done right from the start - although I doubt even that - but do you really see 60,000 people chucking in £5 each now?

[Stephen Noonan]

I don't know. That potato salad bloke on Kickstarter had a target of $10 to get ingredients and ended up with $55,000.

I doubt if he'd get it all, but some would give more than a fiver (me) some might give a couple of quid. Fiver's not much to most chess parents. Lot of good will, especially in Surrey. i reckon he's got an amazing data base. If he dropped the BS and just said he needed help, I reckon it'd go a long way.

Some guy with an idea for a new kind of pillow raised $200,000


Worth more than 379 signatures or whatever.

Más que nada.

[Ian Thompson]

I doubt if he'd get it all

Doesn't that make the whole thing pointless then?

Whatever is raised reduces Basman's debts, but isn't enough to discharge him from bankruptcy. He still gets discharged after a year (assuming that's what the bankruptcy order said), just with less remaining debts than he otherwise would have had. Any money donated would just have gone straight to HMRC and done nothing to help Mike Basman.

[Stephen Noonan]

He might have more than zero money to begin with.

[Nick Grey]

John Upham - I hope you got paid.

As secondary schools have to teach financial awareness this case sets some excellent example of bad financial practice leading to bankruptcy.
It cannot be all down to the fluffy mascots which are luxuries.

Mike has previously threatened legal action against chess organisations causing loss of our money so I have no sympathy at all. It may well be that the assessment is with 100% penalty of concealed and deliberate if no accounting records have been provided.

[Matthew Turner]

[Oh and I wonder if Delancey/UK land paid VAT on the sponsorship which wouldn't have been exempt under any circumstance I think.

Generally, sponsors announce a sponsorship of say £10,000 and then send a cheque for £8,000 having deducted the VAT themselves. I would be very surprised if this hadn't happened.

[Michael Farthing]

It is the correct way of doing it and the only way of reporting it.

[David Sedgwick]

Generally, sponsors announce a sponsorship of say £10,000 and then send a cheque for £8,000 having deducted the VAT themselves.

Being pedantic, shouldn't that be £8,333? Or do I not understand VAT?

[Matthew Turner]

David,
I think you are correct.
Matt

[Roger de Coverly]

Being pedantic, shouldn't that be £8,333? Or do I not understand VAT?

VAT isn't a withholding tax, so is it not the liability of the recipient?

If a sponsor is doing their bookkeeping rigorously, they would request a VAT receipt if sponsoring a VAT registered body.

[Graham Borrowdale]

A business sponsor would normally expect to receive an invoice before parting with money, so, having agreed to sponsor an event to the tune of £10000, I would expect to receive an invoice for £12000. The contract would usually say, for the avoidance of doubt, that the amount excludes VAT. If the agreement was for £8333 + VAT I would expect to be invoiced for £10000, and would pay £10000; the recipient would be responsible for passing the VAT onto HMRC.

[Alan Kennedy]

Mike and Pat need to be retained via either salaries or honorarium (I'm not sure which).

The general rule of insolvent situations is to part company with the previous management as quickly as possible. You would want to investigate the reasons for the failure (and usually that relates to management) and then act accordingly. Sometimes management just get unlucky eg a large bad debt, a flood etc more usually management are the issue.

The IPR of UKCC clearly rests with Mike and the 20 years he has invested in developing it.

Does this future have any traction?

the IPR vests with his trustee in bankruptcy and Mr Basman does not own anything. Therefore no the future does not have traction unless you involve the trustee.

Alan

[Roger de Coverly]

the IPR vests with his trustee in bankruptcy and Mr Basman does not own anything. Therefore no the future does not have traction unless you involve the trustee.

Presumably the recent finals weekend, being after the bankruptcy had the support or agreement of the Trustee. Has the Trustee been named?

[JustinHorton]

Generally, sponsors announce a sponsorship of say £10,000 and then send a cheque for £8,000 having deducted the VAT themselves.

Being pedantic, shouldn't that be £8,333? Or do I not understand VAT?

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.

Mike has previously threatened legal action against chess organisations causing loss of our money so I have no sympathy at all.

This is not the worst point ever made.

It may well be that the assessment is with 100% penalty of concealed and deliberate if no accounting records have been provided.

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.

[Alan Kennedy]

the IPR vests with his trustee in bankruptcy and Mr Basman does not own anything. Therefore no the future does not have traction unless you involve the trustee.

Presumably the recent finals weekend, being after the bankruptcy had the support or agreement of the Trustee. Has the Trustee been named?

If Mr Basman had paid the costs of the venues etc then I doubt anyone would have cancelled the event. As regards the fluffy bunnies you will have to ask the Trustee or Mr Basman. It is a while since I studied insolvency law but I pretty certain the role of the Trustee is to realise Mr Basman's assets not to police Mr Basman's conduct - that is for the Official Receiver albeit that the Trustees may refer issue to him. There is a helpful guide for bankruptcy http://bit.ly/2cqrX2i which refers to a list of bankruptcy restrictions including the prohibition from carrying on a trade in a different name - to quote section 360 of the insolvency act 1986


The bankrupt is guilty of an offence if—

he engages (whether directly or indirectly) in any business under a name other than that in which he was adjudged bankrupt without disclosing to all persons with whom he enters into any business transaction the name in which he was so adjudged.

I do not know whether Mr Basman traded under the name UKCC or his own name or indeed disclosed his own name appropriately but he would be well advised to take advice on the issues before proceeding. In case anyone wishes to rely on the above comments they should treat the above as general comments and take specific advice from an Insolvency practitioner before proceeding. Details of the Trustee can be seen here https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk ... CaseType=B