CASC Status - rule change
- Thread starter damian
- Start date
Clive G
Member
bograt said:
Caving Club cottages exist all around the caving regions and are the basis of organised caving activity in the UK. No matter whether you are a university caving club member or a member of any caving club without a cottage of their own, then, provided you cave further away from home than reasonable driving distance, you are highly likely to be making use of another club's caving cottage, somewhere, and the very favourable overnight and day-changing fees that these caving-tailored accommodations are currently able to offer. Just do a simple comparison with commercial accommodation prices for non-caving-club hostels, etc., and see how the cost escalates, even for just a weekend from Friday night to Sunday afternoon.
Not only do these caving club cottages provide a base for sleeping at and caving from, but also often the means for keeping a record of caving trips currently in progress - with call-out times for those who may get into difficulty underground and not return as anticipated. In addition, the equipment used for running cave rescues and the headquaters from which to organise and control cave rescues are often stored and provided through such cottages.
So, what you are looking at here is not so much a 'tax-avoidance' scheme as a viable means by which affordable accommodation and crucial back-up services can be provided for the benefit of the whole caving community. This is an allowance which benefits not just the caving clubs and their members concerned, but everyone who uses those facilities for participating in their sport of caving. Caving cottages are not provided to make a profit, so much as facilitate and make possible caving for those who have to travel long distances to reach their intended caving region. The time for the tax authorities to step in is in the event that a caving club is wound up and any associated real estate liquidated for the personal benefit and gain of individual members, as opposed to being handed over to another club or similar organisation serving the caving community.
al
Member
I should imagine it's too late to do much about the CASC issue other than leave or stick with it (warts and all), especially considering what Nick has already said, and the deadline involved.
For the future though, it might be worth thinking about things like this - where only a national body can really deal with government departments, and would also be best placed for seeking and disseminating general advice on national matters.
Not a criticism of BCA - just something to think about.
For the future though, it might be worth thinking about things like this - where only a national body can really deal with government departments, and would also be best placed for seeking and disseminating general advice on national matters.
Not a criticism of BCA - just something to think about.
As I said somewhere much earlier in this debate, our club was approached by the LA to become a CASC because both they and our club would save money on rate relief. They already gave us 100% rate relief but, by us becoming a CASC, they would be able to claim back from the government 80% of that. In fact they claimed back the 80% and also gave us the extra 20% so we still had 100% rebate.
As for " ... real benefits of CASC lie with the ability to reclaim Gift Aid on membership subs, if structured correctly, and donations." - we never even looked at this - subscriptions are complicated enough to administer anyway without the additional faff.
Our rates, without the rates relief, would come to between ?2,500 and ?3,000. So to cover this, we either up the members' subscriptions by around ?25 - ?30 a year, or we up the ?6.00 per bed-night we charge visiting clubs to around ?12.00 and also raise our own members Hut Fees - or a combination of both.
So, the CASC system seemed to be doing what it was aimed to do in encouraging cheaper membership of clubs to enable the use of their facilities to a wider membership and also enabling clubs from outside our area to use cheap accommodation when they visited. It also brings more visitors and trade into the area throughout the year, as opposed to just summer tourism.
It seems we are now classed as a "small business" which is also due some rate relief so, if we leave the CASC system we'll have to see what that entails. We might also talk to the LA about the business we bring into the region, along with other caving clubs offering accommodation.
As for " ... real benefits of CASC lie with the ability to reclaim Gift Aid on membership subs, if structured correctly, and donations." - we never even looked at this - subscriptions are complicated enough to administer anyway without the additional faff.
Our rates, without the rates relief, would come to between ?2,500 and ?3,000. So to cover this, we either up the members' subscriptions by around ?25 - ?30 a year, or we up the ?6.00 per bed-night we charge visiting clubs to around ?12.00 and also raise our own members Hut Fees - or a combination of both.
So, the CASC system seemed to be doing what it was aimed to do in encouraging cheaper membership of clubs to enable the use of their facilities to a wider membership and also enabling clubs from outside our area to use cheap accommodation when they visited. It also brings more visitors and trade into the area throughout the year, as opposed to just summer tourism.
It seems we are now classed as a "small business" which is also due some rate relief so, if we leave the CASC system we'll have to see what that entails. We might also talk to the LA about the business we bring into the region, along with other caving clubs offering accommodation.
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
As Johntoon says, there are additional benefits from being a CASC if the club Treasurer can be bothered to use them. But I recall for example the subscription being gift aided got caught up in a detail over the cost of the publications issued to members. The Treasurer of one of the clubs I belong to spent some effort working his way through much if not all of the advantages to make it become a mundane albeit lengthy task and made fair profit for the club.
My take is that the real problem facing caving clubs is that the majority of their members would not meet the active 12 times a year rule, so fall at the first fence. Though it does beg a question as to whether clubs should be doing more to get their members actively involved rather than just sitting at home and reading the publications. But recalling from BCA membership details when I was Treasurer that there were a fair number of people who were members of 4 or more clubs, the thought of achieving 4 * 12 = 48 trips / meets per year does seem unrealistic.
As I said to one Treasurer when asked about my level of caving activity, well club focused about 15 time per year across three clubs, but rope (and to a lesser extent BCA) seems to consume most of my waking time - my wife views me as being addicted.
Now I must get back to getting today's hit.
My take is that the real problem facing caving clubs is that the majority of their members would not meet the active 12 times a year rule, so fall at the first fence. Though it does beg a question as to whether clubs should be doing more to get their members actively involved rather than just sitting at home and reading the publications. But recalling from BCA membership details when I was Treasurer that there were a fair number of people who were members of 4 or more clubs, the thought of achieving 4 * 12 = 48 trips / meets per year does seem unrealistic.
As I said to one Treasurer when asked about my level of caving activity, well club focused about 15 time per year across three clubs, but rope (and to a lesser extent BCA) seems to consume most of my waking time - my wife views me as being addicted.
Now I must get back to getting today's hit.
pwhole
Well-known member
I personally believe that attaining a minimum of 12 'participatory events' a year as a member of a caving club is so easy that I can't see how this could be perceived as a problem, given that monthly meetings and other non-caving activities can count towards it too. Admittedly I'm keen, but I would wonder at my need to be in a club where I didn't participate at least a reasonable amount. I don't like wasting time, as you can't claim it back. Granted, many members of clubs may be old, injured or ill, or may have been in the club over 40 years already and frankly are just a bit bored with it, but are still happy enough to pay the (very low) annual subs. But even in those circumstances, there are opportunities for participation and for those to be easily logged.
I've also found that writing up most of my trips has proved to be (in the long term) very, very useful, not least as I'm permanently pestering more experienced cavers for write-ups or recollections of trips they did 30+ years ago. Some of them actually did (and still do - you know who you are!). Again, that's partly as most of my trips these days are project-based, so there's a need to document them accurately. But even just 'Went caving in Oxlow, 23/11/15' would be perfectly acceptable as someone's personal activity record - if that's not achievable after a trip, but an hour in the pub is, well...
Personally I don't see that as intrusive, in terms of satisfying HMRC requirements, but also appreciate there's much more to this than trip-logging.
We've had some interesting debate about the property issues, as the TSG Chapel is slap-bang in the middle of Castleton on the busiest section of road possible, with very difficult vehicular access for any future potential owner - in many ways, its current usage as a caving club is probably its most practical usage, given where it is, and any other usage involving huge compromises for a new owner, whether commercial or residential. Caving clubs in the middle of the countryside with only sheep for neighbours, or clubs without any property at all may have very different considerations, which doesn't help the CASC-caving community as a whole define a unified approach to the asset-transfer issue, especially when time is tight.
I've also found that writing up most of my trips has proved to be (in the long term) very, very useful, not least as I'm permanently pestering more experienced cavers for write-ups or recollections of trips they did 30+ years ago. Some of them actually did (and still do - you know who you are!). Again, that's partly as most of my trips these days are project-based, so there's a need to document them accurately. But even just 'Went caving in Oxlow, 23/11/15' would be perfectly acceptable as someone's personal activity record - if that's not achievable after a trip, but an hour in the pub is, well...
Personally I don't see that as intrusive, in terms of satisfying HMRC requirements, but also appreciate there's much more to this than trip-logging.
We've had some interesting debate about the property issues, as the TSG Chapel is slap-bang in the middle of Castleton on the busiest section of road possible, with very difficult vehicular access for any future potential owner - in many ways, its current usage as a caving club is probably its most practical usage, given where it is, and any other usage involving huge compromises for a new owner, whether commercial or residential. Caving clubs in the middle of the countryside with only sheep for neighbours, or clubs without any property at all may have very different considerations, which doesn't help the CASC-caving community as a whole define a unified approach to the asset-transfer issue, especially when time is tight.
NewStuff
New member
pwhole said:
I know a fair few people that prioritise Family life above underground. I do the same. I would love to get out more, but not at the expense of not spending time with the family, which can be hard enough to come by as it is. It's no stretch at all to imagine a significant amount of people that genuinely can't make 12 trips a year without impacting family, work, whatever.
pwhole
Well-known member
Yeah, I don't have a family, which is admittedly a big time-absorber, so apologies if it sounded flippant, as I don't have to consider others when I go caving. But it doesn't just have to be caving trips that are counted, but all sorts of club-related work that needn't necessarily be at the club's 'venue'. I cannot see HMRC clerks analysing individual caving logs, as they barely had time to do my tax rebate at all last year, given when it arrived, so I'm sure a more general form of activity log can be provided where the 'sport' in question is a decidedly non-competitive one. Apart from the obvious 'friendly competition' that exists between clubs for discovery work. But it's not like we have caving tournaments or leagues, so I still think caving clubs in general would be treated as far less important than the large institutions mentioned above who are clearly as much business as (p)leisure.
pwhole said:
"I personally believe that attaining a minimum of 12 'participatory events' a year as a member of a caving club is so easy that I can't see how this could be perceived as a problem, given that monthly meetings and other non-caving activities can count towards it too."
However, the problem comes in attempting to prove that 50% of the club takes part in a minimum of 12 such 'participatory events' every year. Those clubs who are CASCs have now, finally and at last, received the letter from HMRC which lists what are considered to be such events. It isn't as easy to prove this as you might think because they have to be "club events" - going caving on your own or with a group of buddies doesn't seem to count.
Quite a few of the larger clubs with a club cottage have older members who aren't able to go caving as much as they would like to but still provide valuable support for the club (often financially, as they may now be better off than the younger members) or are happy to spend time maintaining club premises, producing club publications, etc. However, in HMRC's grand scheme of things, these people don't count - which just seems short-sighted and counter-productive.
"I personally believe that attaining a minimum of 12 'participatory events' a year as a member of a caving club is so easy that I can't see how this could be perceived as a problem, given that monthly meetings and other non-caving activities can count towards it too."
However, the problem comes in attempting to prove that 50% of the club takes part in a minimum of 12 such 'participatory events' every year. Those clubs who are CASCs have now, finally and at last, received the letter from HMRC which lists what are considered to be such events. It isn't as easy to prove this as you might think because they have to be "club events" - going caving on your own or with a group of buddies doesn't seem to count.
Quite a few of the larger clubs with a club cottage have older members who aren't able to go caving as much as they would like to but still provide valuable support for the club (often financially, as they may now be better off than the younger members) or are happy to spend time maintaining club premises, producing club publications, etc. However, in HMRC's grand scheme of things, these people don't count - which just seems short-sighted and counter-productive.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
Bob Mehew said:
Disagree - the real problem is HMRC's (uninformed) opinion as to what counts as "participation".
A while ago I spent some time picking the brains of an octogenarian member of a club I'm in. The information which he readily gave directly led to a breakthrough in a northern cave.
The time given by said octogenarian in helping me would not count under HMRC's ill thought out criteria yet it has immeasurable benefits for the club. Neither would my time spent on research - yet research is an integral part of cave discovery. Besides which, should we really expect an octogenarian member to go caving at least 12 times a year? I realise that some do - but just because many senior cavers aren't active underground doesn't mean they're not highly valued members of the club.
(Jenny P was apparently typing her most recent post whilst I wrote the above - I suspect we think along very similar lines here.)
Mark Wright
Active member
pwhole said:
Until Jenny's recent post I personally believed that attaining a minimum of 12 'participatory events' a year should not be a problem, however, the majority of the club you use as an example and many other clubs would probably find it a MAJOR problem. Whilst attendance at club meetings might well be allowable, most, if not all of the TSG monthly meetings in the past year have only just been quorate requiring only a 15% membership attendance!!
I have recently had to question my membership of the TSG as I have only ever attended the AGM's and a couple of monthly meetings in the past 12 odd years. I have not been on a single TSG caving trip in that time as I usually cave with members of other clubs. The only two monthly meetings I have attended were where the CASC issue was being discussed.
After a lot of deliberation I decided to withdraw my membership from the club. Unfortunately if every club member questioned whether they should still be a member when they don't meet the new minimum requirements for CASC status then the significant increases in club membership and hut fees that would have to be implemented if clubs with huts no longer got the rate rebate that Jenny mentions would have to be implemented anyway.
In reality I think it a little naive to think that the rate rebates currently available to CASC members are likely to be in place by the end of the current governments tenure, I'm sure most people would think that hospitals and schools should be prioritised for funding over caving clubs with ?250K+ hostels.
pwhole said:
Getting to the pub after a trip, for me anyway, is THE most important part of a trip and would ALWAYS come before writing up the trip. Like Phil, I do usually write up all my 'project-based' trips though, usually on ukCaving.
pwhole said:
Personally I see it as being very intrusive. Where and when I go caving is my business and is certainly not the business of HMRC.
If 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 didn't see the 'lots of other benefits to CASC status' that Johntoon mentions being of any relevance then perhaps those clubs should pull out of the scheme on moral grounds, after all, we are all quick enough to slate Google, Amazon and Starbucks when they avoid paying their taxes.
Just a thought.
Mark
Chocolate fireguard
Active member
Mark Wright said:
I have filled in a tax return every year for the last 17 years, and on the 2 or 3 times when I have needed advice I have found HMRC to be helpful.
In the (unlikely?) event of them asking for proof of 50%/12trips per year why wouldn't they accept input from lots of sources, including ukCaving?
al
Member
Jenny P said:
As TSG secretary, I have received this letter, and it doesn't say that the participation needs to be "club events" anywhere in the text of the letter.
However, in response to the BCA Secretary's letter enquiring about what counts as participation, HMRC did reply:-
The following would count towards participating threshold in an eligible sport:
1. Members attending the club and arranging activities themselves.
2. Activities arranged by members and attended by members of another club.
Graigwen
Active member
johntoon said:
This is very true in normal circumstances, for the obvious reason that Caving Clubs don't offer much scope for tax avoidance and HMRC are severely short of resources now.
However many years ago when I worked for the then Inland Revenue I was obliged to conduct several investigations into sporting and other mutual associations as a result of malicious complaints by members of the public who had communicated their allegations to the media. The Departments management were so afraid of being shown to be neglectful that investigations were undertaken even when it seemed very unlikely that they would be cost effective.
Chris Crowley
Member
The old rules had something about level of participation (cant`t remember what) so I asked the IR person dealing with CASC whether we would have to cull those who didn`t participate if they were say ill or pregnant and would this be allowed under the non discrimination rules ! -I got a rather agitated don`t be silly reply chris crowley
Peter Burgess
New member
You mustn't confuse those in official positions by taking common sense to its logical conclusions, Chris.
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
Earlier it was claimed that if a club wanted to get out of CASC without consequence, then they would have to have informed HMRC before 1 April 2016. I have just got sight of HMRC's response to BCA on the topic and it quite clearly states "It will be necessary to complete all necessary transactions relating to the closure of a deregistering CASC prior to 1 April 2016." So there is little time left to complete the process, given what would have to be done and also cope with HMRC inevitable 'timely' responses.
I am just glad I ignored suggestions long ago to make BCA into a CASC as the time frame for changing the constitution would take much of the 3 months (- 6 days) remaining.
I am just glad I ignored suggestions long ago to make BCA into a CASC as the time frame for changing the constitution would take much of the 3 months (- 6 days) remaining.
