CASC Status - rule change

[johntoon]

Hi Damian,

The last point on the following link confirms that no deregistration charge will be levied for clubs who can't comply with the new rules and ask to leave the CASC scheme during the current review period https://www.gov.uk/government/news/changes-to-rules-for-community-amateur-sports-clubs-cascs

See also point 6.1.8 on the detailed guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-amateur-sports-clubs-detailed-guidance-notes/community-amateur-sports-clubs-detailed-guidance-notes#if-a-casc-no-longer-meets-the-conditions

 

[Chris Crowley]

The Croydon CC became a CASC so we could get the LA rates rebated however when we applied they refered our claim to the local inland revenue valuation office who refused to allow it  (even though the same office had approved the sports council grant to purchase the premises!!) -any advice chris crowley

 

[Cookie]

CASC's benefit from an 80% mandatory rate relief.

So if you are a CASC you will get the rate relief.

What reason did they give for refusal?

 

[ttxela]

I don't understand what is wrong with having members who don't participate or guest fees that subsidise the members?

When I ran a small shooting range we were able to keep our subs low because of members who only turned up once in a blue moon and subsidised the regulars.

If everyone had turned up to every session it would have sunk us! we had about 200 members and only a 3 firing point range!

 

[Jenny P]

The Croydon CC became a CASC so we could get the LA rates rebated however when we applied they refered our claim to the local inland revenue valuation office who refused to allow it  (even though the same office had approved the sports council grant to purchase the premises!!) -any advice chris crowley

Is there a possibility that this was because your LA was in Wales, not England?  Reason for asking is that Wales appears to have a slightly different take on some legislation compared to England.

As has been said, in England the rate rebate is certainly mandatory for all CASCs.

Basically, unless you are able to comply with the new conditions introduced in April 2015 (minimum 50% taking part in a club caving activity on at least 12 occasions per annum) then being a CASC is no longer worth while.  Either you won't be able to comply with the new rules or else the hassle of attempting to keep the necessary records to prove to HMRC that you do comply is probably not worth it.

Some clubs have already made the decision to leave the system, others are intending to recommend to a meeting of their members that the club leaves the system.  Point is that if you do decide to leave, you have to let HMRC know before April 2016 in order to be able to do so without any financial penalty.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Point is that if you do decide to leave, you have to let HMRC know before April 2016 in order to be able to do so without any financial penalty.

I understood you had to HAVE LEFT CASC by April 2016 if you did not wish to attract any penalty.  That could be a protracted process if many others are also doing so at the same time.

 

[Clive G]

Caving is a potentially dangerous activity (I have several dead caving friends who died caving) and so under no circumstances should cavers be placed in a position where they are forced or coerced into participation in caving activities against their own better judgement. It is also preferable to have people caving within clubs, however regularly or infrequently, and not to force individuals to have to cave individually outside of caving clubs.

Caving is done voluntarily by people who come together to share the enjoyment and the risks of caving as a group activity. Such groups can be as small as two or three people or up to tens in numbers - although the latter tends to upset the likes of clubs such as SWCC, when a large group turns up and they all want to go caving together in OFD . . .

Caving is also about the science of caving, which caving club members carry out at home or in a laboratory - such as in computing and drawing up cave surveys; analysing hydrological tests; and collating and describing samples and specimens collected from caves. Caving also requires reading about caving, which members do through their caving club libraries - but largely at home - and this doesn't make the act of going caving any less of a sporting activity.

Someone in the BCA needs to make a special case for caving, taking into account the importance of the collective knowledge, which is enhanced by a wide membership base for caving clubs, drawing in the experience of age as well as the energy of youth, and that it would be grossly unfair and unreasonable to legislate that financial allowances for genuine sporting clubs are only permitted if this wide membership base is severely curtailed, through an artificial hoop-jumping numbers game, which is not applicable to highly specialised sporting pursuits such as caving.

The real test of whether caving club members are serious about caving is whether they carry active caving insurance and it seems only fair and reasonable that caving clubs should be permitted to define their active membership base on the basis of the number of caving members subscribed for active caving insurance, rather than through participation in an artificially determined number of 'club' caving trips per year.

If you look at the situation concerning the presence of Radon gas underground in certain parts of the UK, then cavers should be able to choose their own level of participation in the activity, according to their personal circumstances and past experience/exposure, and to require that they should do otherwise would clearly put HMRC into the realms of being liable should any deaths be subsequently attributed to excessive exposure. This is especially the case with cave diving, where there should be no external pressure to perform whatsover, should a diver feel the circumstances and conditions are not suitable for cave diving.

 

[johntoon]

The Croydon CC became a CASC so we could get the LA rates rebated however when we applied they refered our claim to the local inland revenue valuation office who refused to allow it  (even though the same office had approved the sports council grant to purchase the premises!!) -any advice chris crowley

Hi Chris,

I wonder if there was an expectation that registering for CASC would allow a full 100% reduction in rates. As has already been said CASC registered clubs get a mandatory 80% rates reduction within the UK. However, some clubs, registered or not, also got a discretionary reduction in rates. Over the last few years as LA budgets have been squeezed by central government these discretionary reductions are harder to come by and are being withdrawn.

If you are a small club with only one property it's likely you'd qualify for small business rates relief-normally 50%. Due to the current economic landscape the government have temporarily extended small business rates relief to 100%, funded centrally, which means that any club converting to CASC in the last couple of years is likely to have incurred additional costs rather than saving money as a result of having to pay 20% rates.

 

[johntoon]

I don't understand what is wrong with having members who don't participate or guest fees that subsidise the members?

When I ran a small shooting range we were able to keep our subs low because of members who only turned up once in a blue moon and subsidised the regulars.

If everyone had turned up to every session it would have sunk us! we had about 200 members and only a 3 firing point range!

Nothing wrong with having members of a club that don't participate unless you take advantage of a tax advantaged scheme designed to encourage participation in sport, such as CASC...

 

[johntoon]

Point is that if you do decide to leave, you have to let HMRC know before April 2016 in order to be able to do so without any financial penalty.

I understood you had to HAVE LEFT CASC by April 2016 if you did not wish to attract any penalty.  That could be a protracted process if many others are also doing so at the same time.

As was said by Jenny you have to notify HMRC before 1 April - a simple letter will suffice. They will then write back, eventually, confirming the date from which you exit the scheme. All CASCs have received or will receive a letter from HMRC notifying them of the changes.

Most golf clubs, rugby clubs and other deemed high risk sports clubs were contacted at the beginning of the year. I'm treasurer of the Lancashire Mountaineering Club and we received ours a week and a half ago. A little over 4 months from the deadline to consider the repercussions and potentially leave CASC proves why many such clubs will continue to fly below HMRCs radar.

 

[johntoon]

Caving is a potentially dangerous activity (I have several dead caving friends who died caving) and so under no circumstances should cavers be placed in a position where they are forced or coerced into participation in caving activities against their own better judgement. It is also preferable to have people caving within clubs, however regularly or infrequently, and not to force individuals to have to cave individually outside of caving clubs.

Caving is done voluntarily by people who come together to share the enjoyment and the risks of caving as a group activity. Such groups can be as small as two or three people or up to tens in numbers - although the latter tends to upset the likes of clubs such as SWCC, when a large group turns up and they all want to go caving together in OFD . . .

Caving is also about the science of caving, which caving club members carry out at home or in a laboratory - such as in computing and drawing up cave surveys; analysing hydrological tests; and collating and describing samples and specimens collected from caves. Caving also requires reading about caving, which members do through their caving club libraries - but largely at home - and this doesn't make the act of going caving any less of a sporting activity.

Someone in the BCA needs to make a special case for caving, taking into account the importance of the collective knowledge, which is enhanced by a wide membership base for caving clubs, drawing in the experience of age as well as the energy of youth, and that it would be grossly unfair and unreasonable to legislate that financial allowances for genuine sporting clubs are only permitted if this wide membership base is severely curtailed, through an artificial hoop-jumping numbers game, which is not applicable to highly specialised sporting pursuits such as caving.

The real test of whether caving club members are serious about caving is whether they carry active caving insurance and it seems only fair and reasonable that caving clubs should be permitted to define their active membership base on the basis of the number of caving members subscribed for active caving insurance, rather than through participation in an artificially determined number of 'club' caving trips per year.

If you look at the situation concerning the presence of Radon gas underground in certain parts of the UK, then cavers should be able to choose their own level of participation in the activity, according to their personal circumstances and past experience/exposure, and to require that they should do otherwise would clearly put HMRC into the realms of being liable should any deaths be subsequently attributed to excessive exposure. This is especially the case with cave diving, where there should be no external pressure to perform whatsover, should a diver feel the circumstances and conditions are not suitable for cave diving.

Completely agree with most of your comments Clive, however, HMRC aren't pressuring people into participating in the sports their clubs organise. They are merely saying that off the back of consultation it was agreed with many National Governing Bodies that members of a club would be expected to participate, as a minimum, in that particular sport once a month. This was deemed to be a reasonable hurdle to prevent so called social clubs, such as the rugby club with one team but 100's of supporters gaining the advantage of subsidised drinks at the clubhouse bar etc which was anti-competitive with the pub down the road.

HMRC's other argument is that they held a long and public consultation almost two years ago on the proposed rules changes as they were then and the BCC didn't participate. Its highly likely there won't be a similar review of the scheme for some significant time - this is the first change in over 10 years, and the consultation only came about due to a review of the charitable sector, pressure from sporting groups and pressure from the EU on state aid/anti-competition rules.

The participation rules reflect the commentary of the NGB's that were involved in the consultation, the Rugby Football Union, Lawn Tennis Association, Football Association, Royal Yachting Association, British Canoe Union, Golf Association and others. They all have a common theme - most are competitive in nature and most of their activities occur and recur at a fixed geographic place on a regular basis, subject to away competitions.

Having lobbied my local MP and one of the ministers for sport with the BMC it's fair to say this topic is way down the current government's agenda and the only way to lift it up the agenda woulda be for similar groups such as the BMC and BCC to pool their resources and lobby hard to improve matters.

 

[johntoon]

Basically, unless you are able to comply with the new conditions introduced in April 2015 (minimum 50% taking part in a club caving activity on at least 12 occasions per annum) then being a CASC is no longer worth while.  Either you won't be able to comply with the new rules or else the hassle of attempting to keep the necessary records to prove to HMRC that you do comply is probably not worth it.

Some clubs have already made the decision to leave the system, others are intending to recommend to a meeting of their members that the club leaves the system.  Point is that if you do decide to leave, you have to let HMRC know before April 2016 in order to be able to do so without any financial penalty.

Personally I think it's folly that caving clubs are considering leaving the CASC scheme as a result of the rule changes or recommending to members that their club leaves. If it isn't worth being a CASC now it wouldn't have been worth it when club's converted. There are loads of easy ways of adapting to the new rules and some difficult ones too that I've mentioned on this thread already - my personal favourite is just to get a declaration from members about participation at membership renewal time. This could be done in paper form, online using something like surveymonkey or in your membership software.

I've said it many times already but caving clubs are going to be low risk in terms of abusing the existing old rules in HMRC's eyes (the new rules make it easier to identify abuse) and it's unlikely they'll be sending staff with clickers at cave entrances across the country.

The guidance on this is issue is targeted at team sports or sports with a fixed playing venue neither of which are relevant to a caving club. Ultimately though a club's committee only needs to satisfy themselves that they keep "sufficient records" on participation and I believe an annual members declaration (which is the same as a signing in book) meets the requirement - extracts from the HMRC guidance are below:

2.21.5 Clubs will need to keep sufficient records to allow them to work out whether they have met the requirement to have 50% of their members participating in eligible sport.

2.21.6 Examples of records you could keep include:
?a signing-in book for members to use when they participate at the club
?records of training courses attended
?records of membership participation in matches (whether as a participant or as a volunteer preparing facilities or driving the club vehicle)

2.21.7 This isn?t a complete list and HMRC is willing to consider other types of evidence as long as the club can show that it is a reliable record of participation. If a club is forced to cancel a planned event due to circumstances outside of their control they should keep evidence of the circumstances and if necessary, contact their sport?s governing body or HMRC for advice.

 

[al]

The CASC scheme was originally set up as an encouragement for clubs to promote participation in sports - for lots of healthy reasons - healthy for the participants, and healthy for the sports themselves and, more importantly, the future of sport in this country.

However, most of the comments from the clubs which participated in the recent BCA teleconference seemed to view CASC simply as a tax-avoidance scheme, and the annual declaration of participation levels were seen as an unnecessary imposition on cavers, and a problem for the clubs.

If we believe that encouragement of members to go caving is desirable, but that HMRC's expectations and their methodology of achieving this go against the fundamental principles of our sport (because it isn't anything like football, tennis or golf) then shouldn't BCA be fighting our corner and pointing out the differences between sports, rather than simply suggesting that clubs should dip out of the scheme?

 

[bograt]

Surely this scheme has only been of benefit to those clubs that have a valuable asset - like a hostel?, when one is implying that the BCA should take a stand, one should remember that BCA was established to represent ALL cavers, I suspect that the change in rules would not affect the majority--.

It should also be remembered that when 'the powers that be' refer to 'sport', they invariably mean competitive sports, a category I am glad that caving is not included in!.

 

[nickwilliams]

Someone in the BCA needs to make a special case for caving....

...shouldn't BCA be fighting our corner....

As johntoon has already pointed out, this was the subject of a consultation by HMRC in the recent past. As it happens, HMRC appear to have made no attempt to contact registered clubs to tell them that the consultation was taking place and have instead relied on bodies such as the Sport and Recreation Alliance (formerly the CCPR) for input. The SRA is very proud of the influence they have had on HMRC over CASCs but their position was based entirely on the interests of the larger sports they represent and BCA was never asked for our view (despite us being paid up members).

However, so far as HMRC is concerned we've had our chance to have an influence and it's our fault that we missed it. I would say that the chances of BCA having any further influence on HMRC on this are somewhere between negligible and zero.

As Bograt says, only a minority of BCA clubs are affected by this and as you are well aware, BCA is staffed entirely by volunteers who already have too much to do. While the potential impact on the few clubs which are CASCs may be significant, this is not an existential crisis for the caving community as a whole. I certainly think I have better things to do with my time than to pick a fight with HMRC which I am almost certain to lose, and I suspect other BCA officers feel the same.

 

[johntoon]

The CASC scheme was originally set up as an encouragement for clubs to promote participation in sports - for lots of healthy reasons - healthy for the participants, and healthy for the sports themselves and, more importantly, the future of sport in this country.

However, most of the comments from the clubs which participated in the recent BCA teleconference seemed to view CASC simply as a tax-avoidance scheme, and the annual declaration of participation levels were seen as an unnecessary imposition on cavers, and a problem for the clubs.

If we believe that encouragement of members to go caving is desirable, but that HMRC's expectations and their methodology of achieving this go against the fundamental principles of our sport (because it isn't anything like football, tennis or golf) then shouldn't BCA be fighting our corner and pointing out the differences between sports, rather than simply suggesting that clubs should dip out of the scheme?

I wasn't aware of the BCA teleconference but it just goes to show most people misunderstand the CASC scheme which is a tax advantaged scheme often confused with but similar to charitable status from a tax point of view. Tax avoidance is the domain of footballers and the wealthy...

If the BCA have suggested clubs give up CASC it seems very irresponsible!

 

[bograt]

Someone in the BCA needs to make a special case for caving....

...shouldn't BCA be fighting our corner....

As johntoon has already pointed out, this was the subject of a consultation by HMRC in the recent past. As it happens, HMRC appear to have made no attempt to contact registered clubs to tell them that the consultation was taking place and have instead relied on bodies such as the Sport and Recreation Alliance (formerly the CCPR) for input. The SRA is very proud of the influence they have had on HMRC over CASCs but their position was based entirely on the interests of the larger sports they represent and BCA was never asked for our view (despite us being paid up members).

However, so far as HMRC is concerned we've had our chance to have an influence and it's our fault that we missed it. I would say that the chances of BCA having any further influence on HMRC on this are somewhere between negligible and zero.

As Bograt says, only a minority of BCA clubs are affected by this and as you are well aware, BCA is staffed entirely by volunteers who already have too much to do. While the potential impact on the few clubs which are CASCs may be significant, this is not an existential crisis for the caving community as a whole. I certainly think I have better things to do with my time than to pick a fight with HMRC which I am almost certain to lose, and I suspect other BCA officers feel the same.

Luv you Nick 

 

[bograt]

Quote from a CLIMBER;

If the BCA have suggested clubs give up CASC it seems very irresponsible!

'Nuff said'---

 

[johntoon]

Surely this scheme has only been of benefit to those clubs that have a valuable asset - like a hostel?

The irony is that for golf clubs etc with acres of land then yes the scheme is of a huge benefit for them financially but for most clubs the real benefits of CASC lie with the ability to reclaim Gift Aid on membership subs, if structured correctly, and donations.

Just an example the financial benefits to the LMC annually are in excess of ?600 and less than ?150 of that relates to savings on our huts. Although technically we lose out at the moment due to the way small business rates relief works.

There are also lots of other benefits to CASC status. Most funders will only provide grants to CASC registered clubs, many financial institutions offer discounts or better savings rates to registered CASCs, you can access discounted computer licensing, free Google advertising amongst other things as a CASC that a normal club couldn't.

 

[johntoon]

Quote from a CLIMBER;

Awww - never been called that before