Half of my Oxford Degree is in Philosophy ... "In the general case, the meaning of a word its use in the language" .... Rationality is NEVER transcended, as in Rene Descartes "Cogito ergo sum." Emotion is the fuel of Rationality .. not belief ....
Surely a third unless you discount the politics. ;)
It depends on whether John's degree was in Mathematics and Philosophy or whether it was in the more popular PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics). I seem to remember Physics and Philosophy was also an option when I was at Oxford.
DJKL wrote:
But to trump Descartes we of course have the academic works of Humpty Dumpty
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
Written down, of course, by an eminent Oxford mathematician and philosopher!
Is this a Halloween equivalent . ... Is this a Halloween equivalent of an April Fool? Or just trying to make us think of a chocolate bar? Oh I forgot, they're spending our money on it! Pensions for kids!
HHuw Williams is right. I had misread the article to understand that the "residential and life skills centre" was taken from the object of the charity rather the description of the construction. I hadn't checked the charity commission database. Still hope the appeal succeeds.
On Reading Further Their Object Doesn't Seem So Wrong
Having followed the link to the charity's website it would appear to my non-legal mind that the Move On flats to help residents transition to independent living would still fall within the object. Surely transitioning to independent living is residential and involves life skills! And the trustees had taken advice about their VAT liability so were not negligent.
One for the lawyers, this one. And I hope they win!
It doesn't change what I said in my previous post about the need to charities to be vigilant to ensure that that they continue to work within their objects, revised if necessary.
But I do think in this case HMRC appear to be going over the top. And not even saving the taxpayer any money, from the charity's description of how much it's work saves the taxpayer by taking these people out of the welfare/substance abuse/petty crime merry go round.
Importance of keeping charitable objects under review
A harsh decision, and not according to most principles of fairness or natural justice, but it is the law that a Charity's purposes (gov.UK speak for the objects) define the limits of what the trustees can do. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-write-charitable-purposes. And in fact this is a necessary safeguard to discourage a charity from operating way outside its remit e.g. putting a swanky new swimming pool in the Chairman's back garden!
It is a timely reminder for all of us involved with any charities that the object should be kept up to date with what the charity is doing and vice versa. I think this should be checked at least briefly every year, as well as whenever a major new venture is undertaken. With one of the charities I am involved in, I always take another look at the objects as well as the other "soft data" on the Charities Commission Website when submitting the annual return.
It is very easy, particularly with smaller charities, for an accountant to be concerned with getting the finances correct in terms of normal compliance and leave things like the Objects clause to the Trustees. Meanwhile the Trustees, who are often volunteers with no special legal or financial expertise, are keen to do what the charity was set up to do. They acknowledge the need to work with the Treasurer and accountant to get the figures right, but the object is just that part of the constitution that has always been there, so no-one thinks of revisiting it.
And of course what will increase Trustees' reluctance to change a charity's object is that Charity Commission consent is needed to do this with the rear of accompanying extra hassle unless the power is expressly given in the charity's own governing document.
At least it was a country that speaks the same language. It would have been even worse for businesses to receive demands in a language most could not understand!
And so much for repeated government promises to simplify demands for small businesses. With no lower limit some of these payments must cost a lot more to process than any tax received.
Do HMRC plan to put UK taxpayer data on a US company's servers? If all HMRC stores on Google's servers is their own guidance (which I find much harder to search successfully for what I want since it migrated to gov.uk) then fair enough.
If they are planning to hold any details of UK residents' and businesses' tax affairs on servers belonging to a US company then I am very worried indeed!
We have already seen plenty of cases where US authorities believe they have jurisdiction over actions carried out in other countries, and I am sure they would not hesitate to subpoena a US registered company like Google to pass on any confidential info held on British citizens if they felt it was in their interpretation of US interests.
Cashflow advantage to HMRC at the expense of the self-employed.
Is this partly a disguised attempt by HMRC to get their payment sooner?
Once they have the digital tax accounts set up will they then be trying to get traders to keep these up to date and pay HMRC as they go rather than 9 months after year end? (I suppose it might be useful for those who've spent the money by then,)
My answers
Half an Oxford Degree?
It depends on whether John's degree was in Mathematics and Philosophy or whether it was in the more popular PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics). I seem to remember Physics and Philosophy was also an option when I was at Oxford.
Written down, of course, by an eminent Oxford mathematician and philosopher!
Is this a Halloween equivalent . ...
Is this a Halloween equivalent of an April Fool? Or just trying to make us think of a chocolate bar? Oh I forgot, they're spending our money on it! Pensions for kids!
You are right Huw
HHuw Williams is right. I had misread the article to understand that the "residential and life skills centre" was taken from the object of the charity rather the description of the construction. I hadn't checked the charity commission database. Still hope the appeal succeeds.
On Reading Further Their Object Doesn't Seem So Wrong
Having followed the link to the charity's website it would appear to my non-legal mind that the Move On flats to help residents transition to independent living would still fall within the object. Surely transitioning to independent living is residential and involves life skills! And the trustees had taken advice about their VAT liability so were not negligent.
One for the lawyers, this one. And I hope they win!
It doesn't change what I said in my previous post about the need to charities to be vigilant to ensure that that they continue to work within their objects, revised if necessary.
But I do think in this case HMRC appear to be going over the top. And not even saving the taxpayer any money, from the charity's description of how much it's work saves the taxpayer by taking these people out of the welfare/substance abuse/petty crime merry go round.
Importance of keeping charitable objects under review
A harsh decision, and not according to most principles of fairness or natural justice, but it is the law that a Charity's purposes (gov.UK speak for the objects) define the limits of what the trustees can do. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-write-charitable-purposes. And in fact this is a necessary safeguard to discourage a charity from operating way outside its remit e.g. putting a swanky new swimming pool in the Chairman's back garden!
It is a timely reminder for all of us involved with any charities that the object should be kept up to date with what the charity is doing and vice versa. I think this should be checked at least briefly every year, as well as whenever a major new venture is undertaken. With one of the charities I am involved in, I always take another look at the objects as well as the other "soft data" on the Charities Commission Website when submitting the annual return.
It is very easy, particularly with smaller charities, for an accountant to be concerned with getting the finances correct in terms of normal compliance and leave things like the Objects clause to the Trustees. Meanwhile the Trustees, who are often volunteers with no special legal or financial expertise, are keen to do what the charity was set up to do. They acknowledge the need to work with the Treasurer and accountant to get the figures right, but the object is just that part of the constitution that has always been there, so no-one thinks of revisiting it.
And of course what will increase Trustees' reluctance to change a charity's object is that Charity Commission consent is needed to do this with the rear of accompanying extra hassle unless the power is expressly given in the charity's own governing document.
It had to happen sooner or later.
At least it was a country that speaks the same language. It would have been even worse for businesses to receive demands in a language most could not understand!
And so much for repeated government promises to simplify demands for small businesses. With no lower limit some of these payments must cost a lot more to process than any tax received.
Do HMRC plan to put UK taxpayer data on a US company's servers?
If all HMRC stores on Google's servers is their own guidance (which I find much harder to search successfully for what I want since it migrated to gov.uk) then fair enough.
If they are planning to hold any details of UK residents' and businesses' tax affairs on servers belonging to a US company then I am very worried indeed!
We have already seen plenty of cases where US authorities believe they have jurisdiction over actions carried out in other countries, and I am sure they would not hesitate to subpoena a US registered company like Google to pass on any confidential info held on British citizens if they felt it was in their interpretation of US interests.
Cashflow advantage to HMRC at the expense of the self-employed.
Is this partly a disguised attempt by HMRC to get their payment sooner?
Once they have the digital tax accounts set up will they then be trying to get traders to keep these up to date and pay HMRC as they go rather than 9 months after year end? (I suppose it might be useful for those who've spent the money by then,)