I agree that we don't need to mention Wikipedia firstly in our statement as Wikipedia's function is a debate in education area. Wiki UK is a charitable company which focuses on Open knowledge movement to benefit education and knowledge. Probably, one direction of our movement is to help wikipedia but our primary purpose should to encourage people to help build the open information system to open to public freely.
If need, I can offer varying research results to support our primary purpose is charitable. best, Zeyi 2009/4/25 <[email protected]>: > Send Wikimediauk-l mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Wikimediauk-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Fwd: Charity application rejected (Andrew Turvey) > 2. Re: Charity application rejected (Thomas Dalton) > 3. Re: Law advice (Thomas Dalton) > 4. Re: Law advice (James Farrar) > 5. Re: Charity application rejected (Andrew Whitworth) > 6. Re: Law advice (Virgin, Steve) > 7. Re: Charity application rejected ([email protected]) > 8. Re: Charity application rejected (Thomas Dalton) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:19:06 +0100 (BST) > From: Andrew Turvey <[email protected]> > Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Charity application rejected > To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <12893353.61240661946484.javamail.sys...@atsl_laptop> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Looks like my original email to the list bounced - hope this fills in some of > the gaps. > > Regards, > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- > From: "Andrew Turvey" <[email protected]> > To: "WMUK" <[email protected]>, [email protected] > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/attachments/20090425/c6cd8241/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:29:28 +0100 > From: Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > 2009/4/25 Andrew Turvey <[email protected]>: >> My suggestion is we do (3) so that it's easier to reclaim if/when we do get >> recognised. > > I agree. We need either stop using the word "charity" entirely and > anything related to it (such as gift aid) or we need to make it clear > that our charitable status is contested and we are fighting the > decision. I prefer the latter. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:31:12 +0100 > From: Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Law advice > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > 2009/4/25 Virgin, Steve <[email protected]>: >> >> >> No promises but I know someone connected to the public affairs world who >> specialises in advising law firms in the uk so knows lawyers who can see odd >> angles in cases. He has been involved with some crazy cases over the years. >> If he cannot help he will know a man who can. I will come and listen in >> manchester and then see if I can get to see him next week. >> >> He is also a former labour party 'attack dog' from 1997 when they were >> popular so he may know some people in govt too. > > That sounds good. Thanks! > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:34:06 +0100 > From: James Farrar <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Law advice > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > 2009/4/25 Virgin, Steve <[email protected]>: >> >> He is also a former labour party 'attack dog' from 1997 when they were >> popular so he may know some people in govt too. > > Given recent revelations, is he the sort of person we wish to have > connections with? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:35:19 -0400 > From: Andrew Whitworth <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Sean Whitton <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 00:15, Michael Peel <[email protected]> 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:37:09 +0100 > From: "Virgin, Steve" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Law advice > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <189ab80aac43c04aa5c0c3b5947e2cbb03a96...@ldnmxsmb01.win.dowjones.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > Won't do anything with anyone unless it is agreed. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat Apr 25 13:34:06 2009 > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Law advice > > 2009/4/25 Virgin, Steve <[email protected]>: >> >> He is also a former labour party 'attack dog' from 1997 when they were >> popular so he may know some people in govt too. > > Given recent revelations, is he the sort of person we wish to have > connections with? > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 05:39:52 -0700 (PDT) > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <220d38f0-c2ff-4374-80b6-af7955812...@c12g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Apr 25, 12:15?am, Michael Peel <[email protected]> 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:42:57 +0100 > From: Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > 2009/4/25 <[email protected]>: >> On Apr 25, 12:15?am, Michael Peel <[email protected]> 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. > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediauk-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > > > End of Wikimediauk-l Digest, Vol 45, Issue 17 > ********************************************* > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
