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 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 ago - simply shows how out of date the law, and hence the goverment,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 A
