----- Original Message ----- From: "John Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [ql-users] Quanta
An interesting contribution from John, as the secret to QUANTA's future lies in how you use its income and capital. Contrary to popular ideas QUANTA is not in financial crisis, but is a very healthy organisation. Its financial stability could be its most important contribution to the QL community. Each year it ploughs thousands of pounds into QL activities, but the question is how far these are benefitting members. QUANTA spends �1,500 to �2,000 a year sponsoring shows, which works out at a subsidy of about �20 per attendee per year. This is why it is important we work hard to improve the quality of shows. As John has said QUANTA is a non-profit organisation for the benefit of its members. This restricts what can be done with its income and capital, but it does not mean that the capital is unuseable. What would be the reaction if QUANTA backed a software or hardware project for members only? For example, QUANTA backed the Q60. This, I understand, was in the form of a loan that was repaid. How would people have reacted if QUANTA had made it available to QUANTA members only? A Q60 costs �545. Would it have been too much to ask for an extra �14 or �17 for QUANTA membership on top? > > As a previous treasurer of Quanta who had difficulty assuring the Inland > Revenue of their status and who also had difficulty convincing committee > members of the tax laws I can assure Roy that the prospect of charging for > entry would be very unlikely as that would make all workshops "members only" > If ANY money or benefit is received from a non Quanta member then the > association becomes liable for corporation tax as it is then a "trading > organisation". > When it's turnover was much higher it would have been liable for VAT too. > Corporation tax at present is only paid on Bank Interest and will continue > to be paid while Quanta funds are such as to earn interest. > > The same difficulty arises when considering amalgamating with QLToday. > Non Quanta members would be contributing to the joint effort. > The tax man may understand but it isn't worth the risk. > > This should have been explained to Jochen at the time and I thought it was, > though at the time most of the benefit would have been to QLToday as Quanta > had an a more than adequate editor. > > John Taylor. >
