(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 protected]>: > 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 ago - simply shows how out of date the law, and hence the goverment, 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 > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
