Dear All,
Yesterday we received a letter from the UK Tax Authorities rejecting our application for recognition as a charity. Citing a legal precedent, they stated that "the production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of education" and therefore we were not established for exclusively charitable purposes. The ruling they gave stated that "If the object be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education".
The full letter from the HMRC is copied below with some explanatory notes added in { }
Their objection goes to the heart of what we have been established to do. On the surface, it does not appear that any different wording in our constitution or correspondence would have given us a different outcome. Nonetheless, the legal issues may be arguable - our job is not just to produce content in isolation, but also to spread that knowledge and make it accessible to all. I should imagine this will come down to the finer points of law, and it is probably best to engage a lawyer at this stage when we appeal.
If we had applied to the Charity Commission before HMRC the application would have been considered by different lawyers but the same law would apply. Therefore, it is likely that we would have come up against the same problem.
I'm contacting the Foundation to ask them if they are aware of any lawyers familiar with UK law who could help us pro-bono on this.
I'm also sending a note to our MP to thank him for his help in speeding this up: although it is disappointed to get this response, it is better to get it now that in 3 or 6 months' time.
In the meantime, we should probably stop referring to ourselves as a "charity" or an "exempt charity". Before receiving this letter it was reasonable for us to do this as that was our honest view. Now we know there is some disagreement over this, I suggest we should describe ourselves as a "not-for-profit" instead. Whilst we can still get Gift Aid declarations (HMRC have previously confirmed this was ok) we should probably add a caveat on the form explaining that our charitable status is contested.
Regards,
Andrew Turvey Secretary, Wikimedia UK
=========================
Company Secretary Wikimedia UK 23 Cartwright Way Beeston Nottingham NG9 1RL
Date: 17 April 2009
Dear Mr Turvey,
Wiki UK Limited (operating name Wikimedia UK)
Thank you for your letter of 4 March 2009 and enclosures. I am sorry for the delay in replying.
I am aware that you have written to Nick Palmer MP {regarding delays in responding} - a reply to that letter will be sent separately to Nick Palmer MP.
The definition of a charitable company for tax purposes is contained at Section 506(1) Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which states " 'charitable company' means any body of persons established for charitable purposes only". However, the determination of charitable status is a matter of general law.
To be a charity in law it is not sufficient that a company's activities or intended activities are charitable. The memorandum and articles of association of the company must declare objects that are charitable in law and be otherwise in acceptable charitable form so that the company could only carry out charitable activities.
The objects of Wiki UK Ltd are stated at clause 3 of its memorandum of association:
"The charity's Object is to aid and encourage people to collect, develop and effectively disseminate knowledge and other educational, cultural and historic content in the public domain or under a license that allows everyone to freely use, distribute and modify content, by means including (but not limited to):
[9 ways are them listed - for example 'acting as a voice and representative for the community of UK residents and citizens who use and edit such repositories'] "
In your letters of 23 November 2008 and 4 March 2009 you state that the primary purpose of setting up the company is to support the 'Wikipedia' website. {We actually said " support the “Wikipedia” website and the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, in ways that are compatible with UK charity law"}
The stated objects are not charitable in law. The production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of of education and has not been accepted as such in law. In Re Shaw [1957] 1 WLR 729 Mr Justice Harman said "If the object be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education". Nor is the support the Wikipedia, the stated primary purpose of Wiki UK Ltd, a charitable purpose.
Wiki UK Ltd is not established for charitable purposes only as required by the legislation and so is not a charity for tax purposes. The charity tax examptions and reliefs (including Gift Aid tax relief) are not, therefore, available to Wiki UK Ltd.
To help us improve customer service, please quote our reference number and provide a daytime telephone number in any correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
Higher Officer, Technical
This is crazy. :-/ Where to start?
First, fundamentally, the aim of pretty much everything is to increase knowledge. Teaching/education is merely a means to communicate that to people, which is something that an encyclopaedia natively does. To say that producing an encyclopaedia does not advance education - especially considering that this is Wikipedia, which has a huge impact - is simply wrong.
Second, learning how to write an encyclopaedia - something that everyone who contributes to Wikipedia does - is inherently an educational experience. To support that naturally supports the advancement of education. To quote a law from 1957 - over 50 years ago - simply shows how out of date the law, and hence the goverment, is in this respect.
Third, we're not all about Wikipedia. We're about the Wikimedia Movement, or even more generally, the free culture movement. That incorporates a much wider range of projects, including Wikiversity whose aim is explicitly to educate people, and a load of other projects that do this to a lesser extent.
Fourth, stating that "the support the Wikipedia" is "the stated primary purpose of Wiki UK Ltd" is simply wrong; where does it even mention "Wikipedia" in our MoA/AoA?
(There are more points, but I'm too tired right now to phrase them coherently...)
We should definitely respond to HMRC about this; getting lawyers involved seems to be a very good idea. Is it worth contacting LawWorks regarding this?
If we don't get anywhere with HMRC, then we should take this to the media - they'll have a field day with this.
Mike
On 24 Apr 2009, at 21:59, Andrew Turvey wrote:
Dear All,
Yesterday we received a letter from the UK Tax Authorities rejecting our application for recognition as a charity. Citing a legal precedent, they stated that "the production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of education" and therefore we were not established for exclusively charitable purposes. The ruling they gave stated that "If the object be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education".
The full letter from the HMRC is copied below with some explanatory notes added in { }
Their objection goes to the heart of what we have been established to do. On the surface, it does not appear that any different wording in our constitution or correspondence would have given us a different outcome. Nonetheless, the legal issues may be arguable - our job is not just to produce content in isolation, but also to spread that knowledge and make it accessible to all. I should imagine this will come down to the finer points of law, and it is probably best to engage a lawyer at this stage when we appeal.
If we had applied to the Charity Commission before HMRC the application would have been considered by different lawyers but the same law would apply. Therefore, it is likely that we would have come up against the same problem.
I'm contacting the Foundation to ask them if they are aware of any lawyers familiar with UK law who could help us pro-bono on this.
I'm also sending a note to our MP to thank him for his help in speeding this up: although it is disappointed to get this response, it is better to get it now that in 3 or 6 months' time.
In the meantime, we should probably stop referring to ourselves as a "charity" or an "exempt charity". Before receiving this letter it was reasonable for us to do this as that was our honest view. Now we know there is some disagreement over this, I suggest we should describe ourselves as a "not-for-profit" instead. Whilst we can still get Gift Aid declarations (HMRC have previously confirmed this was ok) we should probably add a caveat on the form explaining that our charitable status is contested.
Regards,
Andrew Turvey Secretary, Wikimedia UK
=========================
Company Secretary Wikimedia UK 23 Cartwright Way Beeston Nottingham NG9 1RL
Date: 17 April 2009
Dear Mr Turvey,
Wiki UK Limited (operating name Wikimedia UK)
Thank you for your letter of 4 March 2009 and enclosures. I am sorry for the delay in replying.
I am aware that you have written to Nick Palmer MP {regarding delays in responding} - a reply to that letter will be sent separately to Nick Palmer MP.
The definition of a charitable company for tax purposes is contained at Section 506(1) Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which states " 'charitable company' means any body of persons established for charitable purposes only". However, the determination of charitable status is a matter of general law.
To be a charity in law it is not sufficient that a company's activities or intended activities are charitable. The memorandum and articles of association of the company must declare objects that are charitable in law and be otherwise in acceptable charitable form so that the company could only carry out charitable activities.
The objects of Wiki UK Ltd are stated at clause 3 of its memorandum of association:
"The charity's Object is to aid and encourage people to collect, develop and effectively disseminate knowledge and other educational, cultural and historic content in the public domain or under a license that allows everyone to freely use, distribute and modify content, by means including (but not limited to):
[9 ways are them listed - for example 'acting as a voice and representative for the community of UK residents and citizens who use and edit such repositories'] "
In your letters of 23 November 2008 and 4 March 2009 you state that the primary purpose of setting up the company is to support the 'Wikipedia' website. {We actually said "support the “Wikipedia” website and the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, in ways that are compatible with UK charity law"}
The stated objects are not charitable in law. The production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of of education and has not been accepted as such in law. In Re Shaw [1957] 1 WLR 729 Mr Justice Harman said "If the object be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education". Nor is the support the Wikipedia, the stated primary purpose of Wiki UK Ltd, a charitable purpose.
Wiki UK Ltd is not established for charitable purposes only as required by the legislation and so is not a charity for tax purposes. The charity tax examptions and reliefs (including Gift Aid tax relief) are not, therefore, available to Wiki UK Ltd.
To help us improve customer service, please quote our reference number and provide a daytime telephone number in any correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
Higher Officer, Technical
(Did you intend to send that to the public list? Either way, it's here now, so replying on-list.)
The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I consider to be pretty synonymous with "education". I think at this point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case and see if I can find the details, but really we need someone can that combat legal nonsense with more legal nonsense - I can only illegal nonsense!
2009/4/25 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
This is crazy. :-/ Where to start?
First, fundamentally, the aim of pretty much everything is to increase knowledge. Teaching/education is merely a means to communicate that to people, which is something that an encyclopaedia natively does. To say that producing an encyclopaedia does not advance education - especially considering that this is Wikipedia, which has a huge impact - is simply wrong.
Second, learning how to write an encyclopaedia - something that everyone who contributes to Wikipedia does - is inherently an educational experience. To support that naturally supports the advancement of education. To quote a law from 1957 - over 50 years ago - simply shows how out of date the law, and hence the goverment, is in this respect.
Third, we're not all about Wikipedia. We're about the Wikimedia Movement, or even more generally, the free culture movement. That incorporates a much wider range of projects, including Wikiversity whose aim is explicitly to educate people, and a load of other projects that do this to a lesser extent.
Fourth, stating that "the support the Wikipedia" is "the stated primary purpose of Wiki UK Ltd" is simply wrong; where does it even mention "Wikipedia" in our MoA/AoA?
(There are more points, but I'm too tired right now to phrase them coherently...)
We should definitely respond to HMRC about this; getting lawyers involved seems to be a very good idea. Is it worth contacting LawWorks regarding this?
If we don't get anywhere with HMRC, then we should take this to the media - they'll have a field day with this.
Mike
On 24 Apr 2009, at 21:59, Andrew Turvey wrote:
Dear All,
Yesterday we received a letter from the UK Tax Authorities rejecting our application for recognition as a charity. Citing a legal precedent, they stated that "the production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of education" and therefore we were not established for exclusively charitable purposes. The ruling they gave stated that "If the object be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education".
The full letter from the HMRC is copied below with some explanatory notes added in { }
Their objection goes to the heart of what we have been established to do. On the surface, it does not appear that any different wording in our constitution or correspondence would have given us a different outcome. Nonetheless, the legal issues may be arguable - our job is not just to produce content in isolation, but also to spread that knowledge and make it accessible to all. I should imagine this will come down to the finer points of law, and it is probably best to engage a lawyer at this stage when we appeal.
If we had applied to the Charity Commission before HMRC the application would have been considered by different lawyers but the same law would apply. Therefore, it is likely that we would have come up against the same problem.
I'm contacting the Foundation to ask them if they are aware of any lawyers familiar with UK law who could help us pro-bono on this.
I'm also sending a note to our MP to thank him for his help in speeding this up: although it is disappointed to get this response, it is better to get it now that in 3 or 6 months' time.
In the meantime, we should probably stop referring to ourselves as a "charity" or an "exempt charity". Before receiving this letter it was reasonable for us to do this as that was our honest view. Now we know there is some disagreement over this, I suggest we should describe ourselves as a "not-for-profit" instead. Whilst we can still get Gift Aid declarations (HMRC have previously confirmed this was ok) we should probably add a caveat on the form explaining that our charitable status is contested.
Regards,
Andrew Turvey Secretary, Wikimedia UK
=========================
Company Secretary Wikimedia UK 23 Cartwright Way Beeston Nottingham NG9 1RL
Date: 17 April 2009
Dear Mr Turvey,
Wiki UK Limited (operating name Wikimedia UK)
Thank you for your letter of 4 March 2009 and enclosures. I am sorry for the delay in replying.
I am aware that you have written to Nick Palmer MP {regarding delays in responding} - a reply to that letter will be sent separately to Nick Palmer MP.
The definition of a charitable company for tax purposes is contained at Section 506(1) Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which states " 'charitable company' means any body of persons established for charitable purposes only". However, the determination of charitable status is a matter of general law.
To be a charity in law it is not sufficient that a company's activities or intended activities are charitable. The memorandum and articles of association of the company must declare objects that are charitable in law and be otherwise in acceptable charitable form so that the company could only carry out charitable activities.
The objects of Wiki UK Ltd are stated at clause 3 of its memorandum of association:
"The charity's Object is to aid and encourage people to collect, develop and effectively disseminate knowledge and other educational, cultural and historic content in the public domain or under a license that allows everyone to freely use, distribute and modify content, by means including (but not limited to):
[9 ways are them listed - for example 'acting as a voice and representative for the community of UK residents and citizens who use and edit such repositories'] "
In your letters of 23 November 2008 and 4 March 2009 you state that the primary purpose of setting up the company is to support the 'Wikipedia' website. {We actually said "support the “Wikipedia” website and the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, in ways that are compatible with UK charity law"}
The stated objects are not charitable in law. The production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of of education and has not been accepted as such in law. In Re Shaw [1957] 1 WLR 729 Mr Justice Harman said "If the object be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education". Nor is the support the Wikipedia, the stated primary purpose of Wiki UK Ltd, a charitable purpose.
Wiki UK Ltd is not established for charitable purposes only as required by the legislation and so is not a charity for tax purposes. The charity tax examptions and reliefs (including Gift Aid tax relief) are not, therefore, available to Wiki UK Ltd.
To help us improve customer service, please quote our reference number and provide a daytime telephone number in any correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
Higher Officer, Technical
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Second, learning how to write an encyclopaedia - something that everyone who contributes to Wikipedia does - is inherently an educational experience. To support that naturally supports the advancement of education. To quote a law from 1957 - over 50 years ago - simply shows how out of date the law, and hence the goverment, is in this respect.
To be fair with them: It was a court case, I am pretty sure changes have been made to the applicable law since then, but apparently not to this particular part of it (resp. its interpretation). You can of course try to make a precedent case out of this, by pursuing it up to the higher courts.
Is there any indication in the letter as to what the options are? From a quick glance at the HMRC website, it seems that their Complaints procedure would not apply, as we're talking about a formal decision here. They have two internal procedures, called 'Review' and 'Appeal'. It should be marked in the letter whether there is a Review option (by HMRC itself) or an Appeal option to the independent tribunal (http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/tax/). It is possible that both of them are not available, which means that we would need to seek Judicial Review at the Administrative Division of the High Court...we definitely want to have a lawyer at least for Appeal or Judicial Review, and it would be good for HMRC-internal review.
M.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
(Did you intend to send that to the public list? Either way, it's here now, so replying on-list.)
The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I consider to be pretty synonymous with "education". I think at this point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case
For reference, the case is online here: http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/shaw.html though with terrible markup. I'll look for LexisNexis sources and similar, but those are typically not public, so I thought I'd share that one with the list.
M.
2009/4/25 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
(Did you intend to send that to the public list? Either way, it's here now, so replying on-list.)
The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I consider to be pretty synonymous with "education". I think at this point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case
For reference, the case is online here: http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/shaw.html though with terrible markup. I'll look for LexisNexis sources and similar, but those are typically not public, so I thought I'd share that one with the list.
I've found it on LexisNexis:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=tru...
(probably a better URL, but I don't know how to use LexisNexis!)
The case is about an attempt to form a charity to research inventing a new alphabet for writing English which would have 40 characters and be easier to use. The judge concluded that increasing knowledge is not the same as education, which is entirely correct. The case is about original research, it has nothing to do with encyclopaedias and does not apply to them.
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
The case is about an attempt to form a charity to research inventing a new alphabet for writing English which would have 40 characters and be easier to use. The judge concluded that increasing knowledge is not the same as education, which is entirely correct. The case is about original research, it has nothing to do with encyclopaedias and does not apply to them.
Hopefully a lawyer will think the same. It's evident any attempt to make a UK chapter charitable will likely need one.
- d.
2009/4/25 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
The case is about an attempt to form a charity to research inventing a new alphabet for writing English which would have 40 characters and be easier to use. The judge concluded that increasing knowledge is not the same as education, which is entirely correct. The case is about original research, it has nothing to do with encyclopaedias and does not apply to them.
Hopefully a lawyer will think the same. It's evident any attempt to make a UK chapter charitable will likely need one.
Yeah, it looks that way. If anyone knows a good charity lawyer or knows someone that knows a good charity lawyer, please speak up!
PS David, are you available to come on IRC a sec? If so, /msg me - Tango42. Thanks
Because WMUK would be so closely associated with the 501(c) WMF, I think Mike Godwin should be pointed at this. I appreciate various factors may make him unable to further involve himself, but you don't know what UK legal-eagle contacts he can point your way.
Brian.
-----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 25 April 2009 01:45 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
(Did you intend to send that to the public list? Either way, it's here now, so replying on-list.)
The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I consider to be pretty synonymous with "education". I think at this point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case
For reference, the case is online here: http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/shaw.html though with terrible markup. I'll look for LexisNexis sources and similar, but those are typically not public, so I thought I'd share that one with the list.
I've found it on LexisNexis:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=tru e&risb=21_T6406107890&format=GNBFULL&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=151&resultsUrlK ey=29_T6406107893&cisb=22_T6406107892&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=279841&do cNo=152
(probably a better URL, but I don't know how to use LexisNexis!)
The case is about an attempt to form a charity to research inventing a new alphabet for writing English which would have 40 characters and be easier to use. The judge concluded that increasing knowledge is not the same as education, which is entirely correct. The case is about original research, it has nothing to do with encyclopaedias and does not apply to them.
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
2009/4/25 Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org:
Because WMUK would be so closely associated with the 501(c) WMF, I think Mike Godwin should be pointed at this. I appreciate various factors may make him unable to further involve himself, but you don't know what UK legal-eagle contacts he can point your way.
Yeah, worth letting him know what is going on, but last time I spoke to Mike about UK lawyers he said the only ones he knew would charge us. We would like someone pro-bono if at all possible.
Then I suggest hitting contacts in local activist groups - eg ORG.
Brian.
-----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 25 April 2009 02:05 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
2009/4/25 Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org:
Because WMUK would be so closely associated with the 501(c) WMF, I think Mike Godwin should be pointed at this. I appreciate various factors may
make
him unable to further involve himself, but you don't know what UK legal-eagle contacts he can point your way.
Yeah, worth letting him know what is going on, but last time I spoke to Mike about UK lawyers he said the only ones he knew would charge us. We would like someone pro-bono if at all possible.
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
2009/4/25 Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org:
Then I suggest hitting contacts in local activist groups - eg ORG.
Yeah, I think Seddon is on that.
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I consider to be pretty synonymous with "education". I think at this point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case and see if I can find the details, but really we need someone can that combat legal nonsense with more legal nonsense - I can only illegal nonsense!
I'm not sure I agree with the CC's decision, but it isn't a particularly quixotic one in the context of existing charity law, and I can see where it came from. Consider, for example, the notes at C4 here: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publicbenefit/pbeduc.asp#c
"However, just giving people information is not necessarily educating them. The key is whether it is provided in such a way (however structured) that it is capable of educating them, rather than just adding to factual information."
I think there are ways of interpreting this sort of thing so as to encompass what we do, but it's not unreasonable for them to interpret it differently. Note that there isn't really anything like us in any of the lists of examples!
Approaching this from the position that the law is fundamentally being misapplied, and we need to tell them they're Doing It Wrong, is probably just going to set us up for some angry letters both ways, a quick fall, and being filed as "vexatious" - and the last thing we want is for us to blow the chance fully!
A more effective approach would, perhaps, be to closely compare our submission to the regulations, and see if the use of a different perspective on what we plan to do, or a broadening of our aims, would perhaps fit more comfortably with the (slightly odd) letter of the regulations. After all, we have to fit into charity law *as it exists* if we're going to be a charity at all!
(...and on which note, hrm. if we're not a charity, what are the practical implications of that? I assume with our small turnover it wouldn't make a *vast* difference, but...)
2009/4/25 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I consider to be pretty synonymous with "education". I think at this point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case and see if I can find the details, but really we need someone can that combat legal nonsense with more legal nonsense - I can only illegal nonsense!
I'm not sure I agree with the CC's decision, but it isn't a particularly quixotic one in the context of existing charity law, and I can see where it came from. Consider, for example, the notes at C4 here: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publicbenefit/pbeduc.asp#c
"However, just giving people information is not necessarily educating them. The key is whether it is provided in such a way (however structured) that it is capable of educating them, rather than just adding to factual information."
I think there are ways of interpreting this sort of thing so as to encompass what we do, but it's not unreasonable for them to interpret it differently. Note that there isn't really anything like us in any of the lists of examples!
But that isn't what they're interpreting. They quoted a specific case which they are clearly misapplying. That there are other arguments they could use that would be more justifiable isn't really the point.
Approaching this from the position that the law is fundamentally being misapplied, and we need to tell them they're Doing It Wrong, is probably just going to set us up for some angry letters both ways, a quick fall, and being filed as "vexatious" - and the last thing we want is for us to blow the chance fully!
We need a lawyer to tell them they are doing it wrong so they can do it in an appropriate way to avoid that happening.
A more effective approach would, perhaps, be to closely compare our submission to the regulations, and see if the use of a different perspective on what we plan to do, or a broadening of our aims, would perhaps fit more comfortably with the (slightly odd) letter of the regulations. After all, we have to fit into charity law *as it exists* if we're going to be a charity at all!
Broadening our aims certainly wouldn't help. Our aims need to be entirely charitable, extending them isn't going to remove any uncharitable parts.
(...and on which note, hrm. if we're not a charity, what are the practical implications of that? I assume with our small turnover it wouldn't make a *vast* difference, but...)
At the moment, it doesn't make a great deal of difference, you are right. It may well make a difference in the not too distant future, though. We need to work this all out ASAP.
Well, this is certainly going to give us something to talk/vent/rant about tomorrow!
2009/4/25 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
This is crazy. :-/ Where to start?
First, fundamentally, the aim of pretty much everything is to increase knowledge. Teaching/education is merely a means to communicate that to people, which is something that an encyclopaedia natively does. To say that producing an encyclopaedia does not advance education - especially considering that this is Wikipedia, which has a huge impact - is simply wrong.
Second, learning how to write an encyclopaedia - something that everyone who contributes to Wikipedia does - is inherently an educational experience. To support that naturally supports the advancement of education. To quote a law from 1957 - over 50 years ago - simply shows how out of date the law, and hence the goverment, is in this respect.
Third, we're not all about Wikipedia. We're about the Wikimedia Movement, or even more generally, the free culture movement. That incorporates a much wider range of projects, including Wikiversity whose aim is explicitly to educate people, and a load of other projects that do this to a lesser extent.
Fourth, stating that "the support the Wikipedia" is "the stated primary purpose of Wiki UK Ltd" is simply wrong; where does it even mention "Wikipedia" in our MoA/AoA?
(There are more points, but I'm too tired right now to phrase them coherently...)
We should definitely respond to HMRC about this; getting lawyers involved seems to be a very good idea. Is it worth contacting LawWorks regarding this?
If we don't get anywhere with HMRC, then we should take this to the media - they'll have a field day with this.
Mike
On 24 Apr 2009, at 21:59, Andrew Turvey wrote:
Dear All,
Yesterday we received a letter from the UK Tax Authorities rejecting our application for recognition as a charity. Citing a legal precedent, they stated that "the production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of education" and therefore we were not established for exclusively charitable purposes. The ruling they gave stated that "If the object be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education".
The full letter from the HMRC is copied below with some explanatory notes added in { }
Their objection goes to the heart of what we have been established to do. On the surface, it does not appear that any different wording in our constitution or correspondence would have given us a different outcome. Nonetheless, the legal issues may be arguable - our job is not just to produce content in isolation, but also to spread that knowledge and make it accessible to all. I should imagine this will come down to the finer points of law, and it is probably best to engage a lawyer at this stage when we appeal.
If we had applied to the Charity Commission before HMRC the application would have been considered by different lawyers but the same law would apply. Therefore, it is likely that we would have come up against the same problem.
I'm contacting the Foundation to ask them if they are aware of any lawyers familiar with UK law who could help us pro-bono on this.
I'm also sending a note to our MP to thank him for his help in speeding this up: although it is disappointed to get this response, it is better to get it now that in 3 or 6 months' time.
In the meantime, we should probably stop referring to ourselves as a "charity" or an "exempt charity". Before receiving this letter it was reasonable for us to do this as that was our honest view. Now we know there is some disagreement over this, I suggest we should describe ourselves as a "not-for-profit" instead. Whilst we can still get Gift Aid declarations (HMRC have previously confirmed this was ok) we should probably add a caveat on the form explaining that our charitable status is contested.
Regards,
Andrew Turvey Secretary, Wikimedia UK
=========================
Company Secretary Wikimedia UK 23 Cartwright Way Beeston Nottingham NG9 1RL
Date: 17 April 2009
Dear Mr Turvey,
Wiki UK Limited (operating name Wikimedia UK)
Thank you for your letter of 4 March 2009 and enclosures. I am sorry for the delay in replying.
I am aware that you have written to Nick Palmer MP {regarding delays in responding} - a reply to that letter will be sent separately to Nick Palmer MP.
The definition of a charitable company for tax purposes is contained at Section 506(1) Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which states " 'charitable company' means any body of persons established for charitable purposes only". However, the determination of charitable status is a matter of general law.
To be a charity in law it is not sufficient that a company's activities or intended activities are charitable. The memorandum and articles of association of the company must declare objects that are charitable in law and be otherwise in acceptable charitable form so that the company could only carry out charitable activities.
The objects of Wiki UK Ltd are stated at clause 3 of its memorandum of association:
"The charity's Object is to aid and encourage people to collect, develop and effectively disseminate knowledge and other educational, cultural and historic content in the public domain or under a license that allows everyone to freely use, distribute and modify content, by means including (but not limited to):
[9 ways are them listed - for example 'acting as a voice and representative for the community of UK residents and citizens who use and edit such repositories'] "
In your letters of 23 November 2008 and 4 March 2009 you state that the primary purpose of setting up the company is to support the 'Wikipedia' website. {We actually said "support the “Wikipedia” website and the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, in ways that are compatible with UK charity law"}
The stated objects are not charitable in law. The production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of of education and has not been accepted as such in law. In Re Shaw [1957] 1 WLR 729 Mr Justice Harman said "If the object be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education". Nor is the support the Wikipedia, the stated primary purpose of Wiki UK Ltd, a charitable purpose.
Wiki UK Ltd is not established for charitable purposes only as required by the legislation and so is not a charity for tax purposes. The charity tax examptions and reliefs (including Gift Aid tax relief) are not, therefore, available to Wiki UK Ltd.
To help us improve customer service, please quote our reference number and provide a daytime telephone number in any correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
Higher Officer, Technical
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 00:15, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Third, we're not all about Wikipedia. We're about the Wikimedia Movement, or even more generally, the free culture movement. That incorporates a much wider range of projects, including Wikiversity whose aim is explicitly to educate people, and a load of other projects that do this to a lesser extent.
IANAL, but this seems to be the key thing that we're stumbling on. If we press this aspect of the chapter's purpose, that it supports Wikimedia which is very obviously an educational charity, and that we support all our projects esp. Wikiversity and Wikibooks, then maybe their misapplication will dissapear. Focussing on Wikipedia whenever Wikimedia comes up is something people tend to do.
S
Initial advice from my barrister friend was that HMRC "don't have a leg to stand on". I'm also getting a message sent round the Oxford law department to see if we can get any additional help.
T
-----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l- bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sean Whitton Sent: 25 April 2009 11:36 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 00:15, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Third, we're not all about Wikipedia. We're about the Wikimedia Movement, or even more generally, the free culture movement. That incorporates a much wider range of projects, including Wikiversity whose aim is explicitly to educate people, and a load of other projects that do this to a lesser extent.
IANAL, but this seems to be the key thing that we're stumbling on. If we press this aspect of the chapter's purpose, that it supports Wikimedia which is very obviously an educational charity, and that we support all our projects esp. Wikiversity and Wikibooks, then maybe their misapplication will dissapear. Focussing on Wikipedia whenever Wikimedia comes up is something people tend to do.
S
-- Sean Whitton / sean@silentflame.com OpenPGP KeyID: 0x25F4EAB7
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Looks like my original email to the list bounced - hope this fills in some of the gaps.
Regards,
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Andrew Turvey" raturvey@yahoo.co.uk To: "WMUK" board@wikimedia.org.uk, wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, 24 April, 2009 21:59:07 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Charity application rejected
Dear All,
Yesterday we received a letter from the UK Tax Authorities rejecting our application for recognition as a charity. Citing a legal precedent, they stated that "the production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of education" and therefore we were not established for exclusively charitable purposes. The ruling they gave stated that "If the object be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education".
The full letter from the HMRC is copied below with some explanatory notes added in { }
Their objection goes to the heart of what we have been established to do. On the surface, it does not appear that any different wording in our constitution or correspondence would have given us a different outcome. Nonetheless, the legal issues may be arguable - our job is not just to produce content in isolation, but also to spread that knowledge and make it accessible to all. I should imagine this will come down to the finer points of law, and it is probably best to engage a lawyer at this stage when we appeal.
If we had applied to the Charity Commission before HMRC the application would have been considered by different lawyers but the same law would apply. Therefore, it is likely that we would have come up against the same problem.
I'm contacting the Foundation to ask them if they are aware of any lawyers familiar with UK law who could help us pro-bono on this.
I'm also sending a note to our MP to thank him for his help in speeding this up: although it is disappointed to get this response, it is better to get it now that in 3 or 6 months' time.
In the meantime, we should probably stop referring to ourselves as a "charity" or an "exempt charity". Before receiving this letter it was reasonable for us to do this as that was our honest view. Now we know there is some disagreement over this, I suggest we should describe ourselves as a "not-for-profit" instead. Whilst we can still get Gift Aid declarations (HMRC have previously confirmed this was ok) we should probably add a caveat on the form explaining that our charitable status is contested.
Regards,
Andrew Turvey Secretary, Wikimedia UK
=========================
Company Secretary Wikimedia UK 23 Cartwright Way Beeston Nottingham NG9 1RL
Date: 17 April 2009
Dear Mr Turvey,
Wiki UK Limited (operating name Wikimedia UK)
Thank you for your letter of 4 March 2009 and enclosures. I am sorry for the delay in replying.
I am aware that you have written to Nick Palmer MP {regarding delays in responding} - a reply to that letter will be sent separately to Nick Palmer MP.
The definition of a charitable company for tax purposes is contained at Section 506(1) Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which states " 'charitable company' means any body of persons established for charitable purposes only". However, the determination of charitable status is a matter of general law.
To be a charity in law it is not sufficient that a company's activities or intended activities are charitable. The memorandum and articles of association of the company must declare objects that are charitable in law and be otherwise in acceptable charitable form so that the company could only carry out charitable activities.
The objects of Wiki UK Ltd are stated at clause 3 of its memorandum of association:
"The charity's Object is to aid and encourage people to collect, develop and effectively disseminate knowledge and other educational, cultural and historic content in the public domain or under a license that allows everyone to freely use, distribute and modify content, by means including (but not limited to):
[9 ways are them listed - for example 'acting as a voice and representative for the community of UK residents and citizens who use and edit such repositories'] "
In your letters of 23 November 2008 and 4 March 2009 you state that the primary purpose of setting up the company is to support the 'Wikipedia' website. {We actually said " support the “Wikipedia” website and the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, in ways that are compatible with UK charity law"}
The stated objects are not charitable in law. The production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of of education and has not been accepted as such in law. In Re Shaw [1957] 1 WLR 729 Mr Justice Harman said "If the object be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education". Nor is the support the Wikipedia, the stated primary purpose of Wiki UK Ltd, a charitable purpose.
Wiki UK Ltd is not established for charitable purposes only as required by the legislation and so is not a charity for tax purposes. The charity tax examptions and reliefs (including Gift Aid tax relief) are not, therefore, available to Wiki UK Ltd.
To help us improve customer service, please quote our reference number and provide a daytime telephone number in any correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
Higher Officer, Technical
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 00:15, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Third, we're not all about Wikipedia. We're about the Wikimedia Movement, or even more generally, the free culture movement. That incorporates a much wider range of projects, including Wikiversity whose aim is explicitly to educate people, and a load of other projects that do this to a lesser extent.
IANAL, but this seems to be the key thing that we're stumbling on. If we press this aspect of the chapter's purpose, that it supports Wikimedia which is very obviously an educational charity, and that we support all our projects esp. Wikiversity and Wikibooks, then maybe their misapplication will dissapear. Focussing on Wikipedia whenever Wikimedia comes up is something people tend to do.
Avoiding mention of Wikipedia would be a good start, it's a large and popular website and any mention of it is bound to mix in peoples preconceptions.
It may also be worthwhile to mention your support of Wikieducator, a commonwealth-based charity which is both similar in some ways to Wikiversity+Wikibooks. Wayne Mackintosh, a member of the WMF advisory board is also a prominent member of Wikieducator, so maybe you could get some support from him?
You also want to be clear that you are supporting MediaWiki, the open-source software.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Apr 25, 12:15 am, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
If we don't get anywhere with HMRC, then we should take this to the media - they'll have a field day with this.
I don't think we should contact the media at this stage. HMRC are entitled to reject any application if they think it's not a charity - and given the absense of any UK charities doing similar things to Wikimedia UK it's not completely unreasonable what they've done. They've found a case whcih supports rejecting the application so they've done that.
Complaining to the media or to politicians could reflect badly on us before we've exhausted the avenues for appeal.
Andrew
2009/4/25 andrewrturvey@googlemail.com:
On Apr 25, 12:15 am, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
If we don't get anywhere with HMRC, then we should take this to the media - they'll have a field day with this.
I don't think we should contact the media at this stage. HMRC are entitled to reject any application if they think it's not a charity - and given the absense of any UK charities doing similar things to Wikimedia UK it's not completely unreasonable what they've done. They've found a case whcih supports rejecting the application so they've done that.
Complaining to the media or to politicians could reflect badly on us before we've exhausted the avenues for appeal.
A well written letter from a lawyer is the first step, but we shouldn't rule out using the media to our advantage. Wikipedia vs The Taxman in the court of public opinion would almost certainly end up with a result in our favour!
I'll repeat what I've said before - the case they've found does not support their decision in the slightest. They are completely misapplying it. The case says that original academic research is not inherently charitable, but original academic research is one thing we certainly don't do.
All,
I cannot speak as to the formalities behind the current WMUK, but a number of points do arise.
1. "In your letters of 23 November 2008 and 4 March 2009 you state that the primary purpose of setting up the company is to support the 'Wikipedia' website." if true, whomever wrote and signed off on those letters appears to have caused the initial confusion and, indeed, current problem. Somehow this needs to be retracted big time. In the WMUKv1 Memorandum we had clearly separated ourselves from WMF/WP and wrote clearly Charitable (within the meaning of the relevant laws) terms to pass those hurdles. So far as I read the discussions for WMUKv2 the MoA wasn't so clear in that respect being much looser.
2. From Re Shaw, Public Trustee v Day [1957] "(a) increase of knowledge is not a charitable purpose unless combined with an element of teaching or education," is one of their reasons for the rejection. Certainly, with WMUKv1, I undertook a number of teaching / education activities on behalf of the Chapter, including training days for the British Library et al.
3. Re Thomas's "We need either stop using the word "charity" entirely ..." I would suggest that it should never have been used in the first place. WMUK/WER has only ever been "a Charitable organisation" until such time as it may be recognised as such.
4. Regarding early comments about "going to the media", by definition once it was on this public list it is already there. Arguably the Directors and their advisors should have sorted out a position on these matters - and with the assistance of those at the AGM tomorrow - before making this public at all. Instead brewery matters come to mind.
Best wishes for the future,
Alison Wheeler
2009/4/25 Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com:
All,
I cannot speak as to the formalities behind the current WMUK, but a number of points do arise.
- "In your letters of 23 November 2008 and 4 March 2009 you state that
the primary purpose of setting up the company is to support the 'Wikipedia' website." if true, whomever wrote and signed off on those letters appears to have caused the initial confusion and, indeed, current problem. Somehow this needs to be retracted big time. In the WMUKv1 Memorandum we had clearly separated ourselves from WMF/WP and wrote clearly Charitable (within the meaning of the relevant laws) terms to pass those hurdles. So far as I read the discussions for WMUKv2 the MoA wasn't so clear in that respect being much looser.
I think the objects in the MoA are fine, but too much emphasis has been put on our connections to the WMF in other communications - the same mistake was made with opening a bank account and caused considerable delay. Hopefully everyone has learned from that mistake now.
- From Re Shaw, Public Trustee v Day [1957] "(a) increase of knowledge is
not a charitable purpose unless combined with an element of teaching or education," is one of their reasons for the rejection. Certainly, with WMUKv1, I undertook a number of teaching / education activities on behalf of the Chapter, including training days for the British Library et al.
- Re Thomas's "We need either stop using the word "charity" entirely ..."
I would suggest that it should never have been used in the first place. WMUK/WER has only ever been "a Charitable organisation" until such time as it may be recognised as such.
Exempt charities are charities and do not need to recognised by anyone unless someone actually contests our charitable status and a judge orders us to stop calling ourselves a charity - I doubt this HMRC decision is enough, but we should err on the side of caution.
- Regarding early comments about "going to the media", by definition once
it was on this public list it is already there. Arguably the Directors and their advisors should have sorted out a position on these matters - and with the assistance of those at the AGM tomorrow - before making this public at all. Instead brewery matters come to mind.
Do many (any?) people from the media read this list? It is public knowledge now, but that doesn't mean it is likely to end up in the media unless we take action to make that happen.
wow ... this is kind of surprising. i find all your points very valid. maybe the tax officer could not read that out of the moa object(s)? which "example object" out of http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/registration/exobjhome.asp did you choose? i only noticed that the word "education" is in all which i opened. and not in wm-uk's.
when founding wm-ch it helped a lot to get in touch, and also keep contact to the tax authorities lawyers, who were very helpful to find the right wording. the bylaws (http://wikimedia.ch/Bylaws) are directed into being clearly independent of the wmf, but anyway allowing us to support them without big restrictions.
what we thought about as well was electronic voting, and it is implicitely included as well. this seems very practical in a case where you need an emergency agm to pass e.g. some bylaw change.
and the good thing is: every time one changes the moa objects, one has to ask again to get / renew the charity status :)
rupert. ------------------- http://wikimedia.ch
On Apr 25, 1:15 am, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
This is crazy. :-/ Where to start?
First, fundamentally, the aim of pretty much everything is to increase knowledge. Teaching/education is merely a means to communicate that to people, which is something that an encyclopaedia natively does. To say that producing an encyclopaedia does not advance education - especially considering that this is Wikipedia, which has a huge impact - is simply wrong.
Second, learning how to write an encyclopaedia - something that everyone who contributes to Wikipedia does - is inherently an educational experience. To support that naturally supports the advancement of education. To quote a law from 1957 - over 50 years ago - simply shows how out of date the law, and hence the goverment, is in this respect.
Third, we're not all about Wikipedia. We're about the Wikimedia Movement, or even more generally, the free culture movement. That incorporates a much wider range of projects, including Wikiversity whose aim is explicitly to educate people, and a load of other projects that do this to a lesser extent.
Fourth, stating that "the support the Wikipedia" is "the stated primary purpose of Wiki UK Ltd" is simply wrong; where does it even mention "Wikipedia" in our MoA/AoA?
(There are more points, but I'm too tired right now to phrase them coherently...)
We should definitely respond to HMRC about this; getting lawyers involved seems to be a very good idea. Is it worth contacting LawWorks regarding this?
If we don't get anywhere with HMRC, then we should take this to the media - they'll have a field day with this.
Mike
On 24 Apr 2009, at 21:59, Andrew Turvey wrote:
Dear All,
Yesterday we received a letter from the UK Tax Authorities rejecting our application for recognition as a charity. Citing a legal precedent, they stated that "the production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of education" and therefore we were not established for exclusively charitable purposes. The ruling they gave stated that "If the object be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education".
The full letter from the HMRC is copied below with some explanatory notes added in { }
Their objection goes to the heart of what we have been established to do. On the surface, it does not appear that any different wording in our constitution or correspondence would have given us a different outcome. Nonetheless, the legal issues may be arguable - our job is not just to produce content in isolation, but also to spread that knowledge and make it accessible to all. I should imagine this will come down to the finer points of law, and it is probably best to engage a lawyer at this stage when we appeal.
If we had applied to the Charity Commission before HMRC the application would have been considered by different lawyers but the same law would apply. Therefore, it is likely that we would have come up against the same problem.
I'm contacting the Foundation to ask them if they are aware of any lawyers familiar with UK law who could help us pro-bono on this.
I'm also sending a note to our MP to thank him for his help in speeding this up: although it is disappointed to get this response, it is better to get it now that in 3 or 6 months' time.
In the meantime, we should probably stop referring to ourselves as a "charity" or an "exempt charity". Before receiving this letter it was reasonable for us to do this as that was our honest view. Now we know there is some disagreement over this, I suggest we should describe ourselves as a "not-for-profit" instead. Whilst we can still get Gift Aid declarations (HMRC have previously confirmed this was ok) we should probably add a caveat on the form explaining that our charitable status is contested.
Regards,
Andrew Turvey Secretary, Wikimedia UK
=========================
Company Secretary Wikimedia UK 23 Cartwright Way Beeston Nottingham NG9 1RL
Date: 17 April 2009
Dear Mr Turvey,
Wiki UK Limited (operating name Wikimedia UK)
Thank you for your letter of 4 March 2009 and enclosures. I am sorry for the delay in replying.
I am aware that you have written to Nick Palmer MP {regarding delays in responding} - a reply to that letter will be sent separately to Nick Palmer MP.
The definition of a charitable company for tax purposes is contained at Section 506(1) Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 which states " 'charitable company' means any body of persons established for charitable purposes only". However, the determination of charitable status is a matter of general law.
To be a charity in law it is not sufficient that a company's activities or intended activities are charitable. The memorandum and articles of association of the company must declare objects that are charitable in law and be otherwise in acceptable charitable form so that the company could only carry out charitable activities.
The objects of Wiki UK Ltd are stated at clause 3 of its memorandum of association:
"The charity's Object is to aid and encourage people to collect, develop and effectively disseminate knowledge and other educational, cultural and historic content in the public domain or under a license that allows everyone to freely use, distribute and modify content, by means including (but not limited to):
[9 ways are them listed - for example 'acting as a voice and representative for the community of UK residents and citizens who use and edit such repositories'] "
In your letters of 23 November 2008 and 4 March 2009 you state that the primary purpose of setting up the company is to support the 'Wikipedia' website. {We actually said "support the “Wikipedia” website and the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, in ways that are compatible with UK charity law"}
The stated objects are not charitable in law. The production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of of education and has not been accepted as such in law. In Re Shaw [1957] 1 WLR 729 Mr Justice Harman said "If the object be the mere increase of knowledge it is not in itself a charitable object unless it is combined with teaching or education". Nor is the support the Wikipedia, the stated primary purpose of Wiki UK Ltd, a charitable purpose.
Wiki UK Ltd is not established for charitable purposes only as required by the legislation and so is not a charity for tax purposes. The charity tax examptions and reliefs (including Gift Aid tax relief) are not, therefore, available to Wiki UK Ltd.
To help us improve customer service, please quote our reference number and provide a daytime telephone number in any correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
Higher Officer, Technical
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.orghttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK:http://uk.wikimedia.org
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
But that isn't what they're interpreting. They quoted a specific case which they are clearly misapplying. That there are other arguments they could use that would be more justifiable isn't really the point.
I don't think there's "clear misapplication" here, but I think we're fated to disagree!
To be honest, that's by the by - they've made their ruling, and we can abide by it or we can argue with it. The important thing is deciding where to go from here, and I think it's not nearly as clear a decision as it may seem.
Fighting this is a legitimate desire, and I confess my first reaction as well, but it'll take a lot of time, a lot of effort, and the need to spend scarce money on legal fees. I have no doubt the board (or whoever the board is tomorrow) will happily throw themselves at it, but I'm not sure it's a worthwhile investment of their time and energy at this stage.
Charitable status is a good thing to have, but choosing to fight at great effort to get it, on an uncertain playing field, is going to have the real risk that we drift into focusing on that and not towards a dozen *productive* things we could be doing in the intervening years. Do we really want to make ourselves eternal hostages waiting on the Charity Commission's next ruling?
If we *can* function as a not-legally-charitable-body, doing exactly the same things, then... well, I can't help but feel there's a lot to be said for doing just that. We can address this problem some time in the future, when we can point to things we have done, and have some basis for making it absolutely clear in *practice*, rather than just on paper, why our aims and activities are charitable.
In reply to Andrew's comment as to wheher charitable status was a "worthwhile investment of their time and energy"
Of course we are all volunteers, and this may sound rich coming from someone who chose a barbecue in London over the AGM. But there are several reasons why we want charitable status, the tax advantage of being able to reclaim income tax on donations is considerable and IMHO justifies the hassle of Wikimedia having a formal UK operation.
But there's also a lot of extra credibility that you get from being a registered charity - many doors are open to a registered charity that would otherwise be closed.
So I would hope that the new board would make the attaining of charitable status one of their top objectives.
WereSpielChequers
--- On Sun, 26/4/09, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
From: Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sunday, 26 April, 2009, 1:29 PM 2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
But that isn't what they're interpreting. They
quoted a specific case
which they are clearly misapplying. That there are
other arguments
they could use that would be more justifiable
isn't really the point.
I don't think there's "clear misapplication" here, but I think we're fated to disagree!
To be honest, that's by the by - they've made their ruling, and we can abide by it or we can argue with it. The important thing is deciding where to go from here, and I think it's not nearly as clear a decision as it may seem.
Fighting this is a legitimate desire, and I confess my first reaction as well, but it'll take a lot of time, a lot of effort, and the need to spend scarce money on legal fees. I have no doubt the board (or whoever the board is tomorrow) will happily throw themselves at it, but I'm not sure it's a worthwhile investment of their time and energy at this stage.
Charitable status is a good thing to have, but choosing to fight at great effort to get it, on an uncertain playing field, is going to have the real risk that we drift into focusing on that and not towards a dozen *productive* things we could be doing in the intervening years. Do we really want to make ourselves eternal hostages waiting on the Charity Commission's next ruling?
If we *can* function as a not-legally-charitable-body, doing exactly the same things, then... well, I can't help but feel there's a lot to be said for doing just that. We can address this problem some time in the future, when we can point to things we have done, and have some basis for making it absolutely clear in *practice*, rather than just on paper, why our aims and activities are charitable.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
(who cannot, sadly, be in Manchester this afternoon...)
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
2009/4/27 Dahsun dahsun@yahoo.com:
In reply to Andrew's comment as to wheher charitable status was a "worthwhile investment of their time and energy"
Of course we are all volunteers, and this may sound rich coming from someone who chose a barbecue in London over the AGM. But there are several reasons why we want charitable status, the tax advantage of being able to reclaim income tax on donations is considerable and IMHO justifies the hassle of Wikimedia having a formal UK operation.
But there's also a lot of extra credibility that you get from being a registered charity - many doors are open to a registered charity that would otherwise be closed.
So I would hope that the new board would make the attaining of charitable status one of their top objectives.
I agree. Even if it doesn't reduce our donations (which seems extremely unlikely - people don't generally donate to non-charities) then we still lose a significant amount of gift aid. Other organisations are also going to be far more likely to partner with a charity than a non-charity.
At 11:35 +0100 25/4/09, Sean Whitton wrote:
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 00:15, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Third, we're not all about Wikipedia. We're about the Wikimedia Movement, or even more generally, the free culture movement. That incorporates a much wider range of projects, including Wikiversity whose aim is explicitly to educate people, and a load of other projects that do this to a lesser extent.
IANAL, but this seems to be the key thing that we're stumbling on. If we press this aspect of the chapter's purpose, that it supports Wikimedia which is very obviously an educational charity, and that we support all our projects esp. Wikiversity and Wikibooks, then maybe their misapplication will dissapear. Focussing on Wikipedia whenever Wikimedia comes up is something people tend to do.
S
-- Sean Whitton / sean@silentflame.com OpenPGP KeyID: 0x25F4EAB7
Well, yes, since Wikimedia and Wikipedia differ by a single letter....
Gordo
Do many (any?) people from the media read this list? It is public knowledge now, but that doesn't mean it is likely to end up in the media unless we take action to make that happen.
I think the Register may have its talons in here...
Gordo
I can't see anything (yet) at http://www.theregister.co.uk/
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 27 April, 2009 14:11:32 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Charity application rejected
Do many (any?) people from the media read this list? It is public knowledge now, but that doesn't mean it is likely to end up in the media unless we take action to make that happen.
I think the Register may have its talons in here...
Gordo
And it's in. Good old Andrew Orlowski. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/
Pete / the wub
2009/4/27 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com:
I can't see anything (yet) at http://www.theregister.co.uk/
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 27 April, 2009 14:11:32 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Charity application rejected
Do many (any?) people from the media read this list? It is public knowledge now, but that doesn't mean it is likely to end up in the media unless we take action to make that happen.
I think the Register may have its talons in here...
Gordo
-- "Think Feynman"///////// http://pobox.com/~gordo/ gordon.joly@pobox.com///
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
With the most basic error!
2009/4/27 Peter Coombe thewub.wiki@googlemail.com:
And it's in. Good old Andrew Orlowski. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/
Pete / the wub
2009/4/27 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com:
I can't see anything (yet) at http://www.theregister.co.uk/
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 27 April, 2009 14:11:32 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Charity application rejected
Do many (any?) people from the media read this list? It is public knowledge now, but that doesn't mean it is likely to end up in the media unless we take action to make that happen.
I think the Register may have its talons in here...
Gordo
-- "Think Feynman"///////// http://pobox.com/~gordo/ gordon.joly@pobox.com///
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/ Was only a matter of time. So nice of him to attempt to contact the Board for a comment, but since he got the name of the company wrong twice in the article he probably was unable to work out who to contact.
James
2009/4/27 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com
I can't see anything (yet) at http://www.theregister.co.uk/
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 27 April, 2009 14:11:32 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Charity application rejected
Do many (any?) people from the media read this list? It is public knowledge now, but that doesn't mean it is likely to end up in the media unless we take action to make that happen.
I think the Register may have its talons in here...
Gordo
-- "Think Feynman"///////// http://pobox.com/~gordo/ gordon.joly@pobox.com///
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
2009/4/27 James Hardy wikimediauk@weeb.biz:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/ Was only a matter of time. So nice of him to attempt to contact the Board for a comment, but since he got the name of the company wrong twice in the article he probably was unable to work out who to contact.
Someone should probably make Jimmy Wales aware of this article, he may want to complain about his company and ours being conflated like that... We should certainly complain about it. The board should write to his editor pointing out the errors.
I'm also interested in his sub-headline, "Decision unlikely to be amended". Is that just his personal opinion? I haven't seen anyone else make such a statement and it is odd to use your own opinions as sub-headlines...
Jimmy already knows, although I don't know what (if any) action he will take.
Just to confirm, I haven't been contacted by phone about this at all, and am not aware that The Register has made any attempts at communicating with WMUK. If they have, then perhaps they would have avoided making embarrassing, elementary mistakes...
Mike Peel (personal view)
On 27 Apr 2009, at 16:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/27 James Hardy wikimediauk@weeb.biz:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/ Was only a matter of time. So nice of him to attempt to contact the Board for a comment, but since he got the name of the company wrong twice in the article he probably was unable to work out who to contact.
Someone should probably make Jimmy Wales aware of this article, he may want to complain about his company and ours being conflated like that... We should certainly complain about it. The board should write to his editor pointing out the errors.
I'm also interested in his sub-headline, "Decision unlikely to be amended". Is that just his personal opinion? I haven't seen anyone else make such a statement and it is odd to use your own opinions as sub-headlines...
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
The Register - specifically Orlowski - doesn't make elementary mistakes. They publish fiction related to Wikipedia.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Michael Peel Sent: 27 April 2009 17:44 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Charity application rejected
Jimmy already knows, although I don't know what (if any) action he will take.
Just to confirm, I haven't been contacted by phone about this at all, and am not aware that The Register has made any attempts at communicating with WMUK. If they have, then perhaps they would have avoided making embarrassing, elementary mistakes...
Mike Peel (personal view)
On 27 Apr 2009, at 16:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/27 James Hardy wikimediauk@weeb.biz:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/ Was only a matter of time. So nice of him to attempt to contact the Board for a comment, but since he got the name of the company wrong twice in the article he probably was unable to work out who to contact.
Someone should probably make Jimmy Wales aware of this article, he may want to complain about his company and ours being conflated like that... We should certainly complain about it. The board should write to his editor pointing out the errors.
I'm also interested in his sub-headline, "Decision unlikely to be amended". Is that just his personal opinion? I haven't seen anyone else make such a statement and it is odd to use your own opinions as sub-headlines...
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
From: "Andrew Turvey" ratur...@yahoo.co.uk
Dear All,
Yesterday we received a letter from the UK Tax Authorities rejecting our application for recognition as a charity....
Whilst we can still get Gift Aid declarations (HMRC have previously confirmed this was ok) we should probably add a caveat on the form explaining that our charitable status is contested.
Regards,
We have recently received further correspondence with the UK Tax Authorities on this matter in which they requested that we do not solicit Gift Aid Declarations unless and until we are recognised as a charity.
In light of this we have revised our Donations and Membership forms.
We should also mention that any higher rate tax payers who have donated to Wikimedia UK and filled out a Gift Aid Declaration should not include this amount in their tax return as they will not be entitled to claim further tax relief, until, that is, we are recognised by HMRC.
Thank you for your patience with us on this.
Regards,
Andrew Turvey Secretary, Wikimedia UK Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL, United Kingdom.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org