Charity status: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Protected "Submission to HMRC": official ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)) [cascading])
(new draft covering letter)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Letter==
==Covering Letter==
Dear Sirs,


Re: Wiki UK Limited (operating name Wikimedia UK)
Dear Mr Y....,


Your ref: [insert]
;Re: Wiki UK Limited (operating name Wikimedia UK)


I refer to your letter dated 17 April 2009 (“your Letter”). I kindly note your apology for delays in responding to previous correspondence and that you will be writing separately to Nick Palmer MP on this point.
;Your ref: [insert]


As regards the application of Wiki UK Limited for charitable status, I do not agree with your finding that the stated objects of the company are not charitable in law. For the reasons set out in this letter, I would ask you to formally reconsider this decision.
I refer to your letter dated 17 April 2009 refusing our application to be recognised by you for tax purposes as a charity and to our telephone call on 1 May, during which we discussed the legal situation regarding the “advancement of education” and the ways we can take our case forward.


===Advancement of education===
The Wikimedia Foundation, the owners of Wikipedia, are recognised as a charity under the law of Florida. Several of our sister “chapters” - including Wikimedia Hong Kong, Wikimedia Germany, Wikimedia Sweden and Wikimedia CH - are also recognised in their jurisdictions as charities. We continue to believe that our activities and our objects are similarly charitable and in our case constitute the charitable advancement of education. However, we accept that we are not aware of any existing English charities whose activities are similar to us, and understand your reluctance to grant tax benefits in the absence of these. Therefore, we would like to ask you to refer our case to the Charity Commission, using the mechanism we discussed on the phone, and ask their view on whether out activities are charitable or not.


It is stated in your Letter “the production of an encyclopaedia is not the charitable advancement of education ... in law”. This cannot, in light of the relevant authorities, be a correct statement of the law. The charitable head of “advancement of education” can cover “almost any form of worthwhile instruction or cultural advancement”: Hanbury and Martin, ''Modern Equity'', 16th ed, p404. It will be noted that the following activities have been held to be charitable under the head of “advancement of education”:
We have set out in our previous letters an outline of our activities and the reasons why we think we are charitable. The charitable object of the “Advancement of Education” is already accepted for libraries, museums and art galleries. We consider that our activities are analogous to these organisations, albeit in a different technological context.


* The production of a dictionary: ''Re Stanford'' [1924] 1 Ch 73 (see also [1971] Ch 626, 630);
Like Libraries, we make educational material available to the public. Like Art Galleries, we display works of art and works of historical interest for the public to see. And like Museums, our projects are not simply an indiscriminate collection of facts: our projects accept only articles that are considered notable, newsworthy or educational. <ref> Wikipedia, for instance, has the following content policy:  
* The publication of Law Reports : ''Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales v AG'' [1972] Ch 73, Court of Appeal;
* The establishment and maintenance of museums: ''British Museum Trustees v White'' (1826) 2 Sm & St 595; Re Pinion [1965] Ch 85;


===Re Shaw===
{{quote|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT)}} </ref>
Your Letter refers to the case of ''Re Shaw's WT'' [1957] 1 WLR 729 and points to the dictum of Harman J's that “... if the object be merely the increase of knowledge, that is not in itself a charitable object unless it be combined with teaching or education”.


I note, first of all, that the requirement of “teaching or education” is assumed - even according to the fragment of the dictum that your Letter cites - to be an additional requirement only where the primary object is the conduct of original research (“the mere increase of knowledge”) rather than the ''dissemination'' of existing knowledge and research. Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects (Wikiversity, Wikibooks & Wikischools) are exclusively concerned with the public dissemination of knowledge and research, rather than with the conduct of original research projects.
We enclose two attachments in support of our case:


However, and in any event, in ''Re Hopkins'' [1965] Ch 669, Wilberforce J held:
# Examples of how the resources that we promote, including the Wikipedia website, are used in structured learning.
# A legal analysis comparing our activities to the relevant case law


“I think, therefore, that the word "education" as used by Harman J. ''In re Shaw, decd.; Public Trustee v. Day'' must be used in a wide sense, certainly extending beyond teaching, and that the requirement is that, in order to be charitable, research must either be of educational value to the researcher or must be so directed as to lead to something which will pass into the store of educational material, or so as to improve the sum of communicable knowledge in an area which education may cover...”
Thank you once again for the assistance you have given and we look forward to hearing from you in due course.


It is therefore not correct as a matter of law to say, as your Letter appears to imply, that only direct “teaching” or instruction will be covered under the head of education. This was disapproved in ''Re Hopkins''. Instead, in order to be charitable, the research must simply lead to something that will pass into the store of educational material or improve the sum of communicable knowledge. Returning to Re Hopkins, the decision in ''Re Shaw'' that a (highly unusual) trust to 'research the advantages' of a phonetic alphabet was not charitable, was seen as having been made on the grounds that such an object would not lead to increase “the sum of communicable knowledge”, presumably because there would not be any real public or scholarly interest in the outcome of such a project'.
Yours sincerely,
 
For those reasons, the decision in ''Re Shaw'', which concerned a highly unusual trust, has very little relevance to our company's objects and hence to its application for charitable status. Indeed, nothing in that decision serves to indicate that the publication of a free online encyclopaedia would not constitute a charitable “advancement of education”.
 
===Relevant authorities===
The decision in ''Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales v AG'' [1972] Ch 73 would be applied in this situation. In that case, the Court of Appeal held that the publication of the Law Reports series was within the charitable head of “advancement of education”. By analogy, an online facility for the collection and dissemination of knowledge and other “educational, cultural and historic content” would be taken to fall within this head of charity.
 
In the ''Incorporated Council of Law Reporting'' case, Sachs LJ said:


“It would be odd indeed and contrary to the trend of judicial decisions if the institution and maintenance of a library for the study of a learned subject or of something rightly called a science did not at least prima facie fall within the phrase "advancement of education."


The justification for treating the publication of a free, online encyclopaedia, as within the rubric of “advancement of education” is even stronger, because the particular issue in the ''Incorporated Council'' case, of whether a resource used by professionals for the advancement of their careers could be said to be within the realm of “advancement of education”, does not arise in the case of the Wikipedia website and the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.


You will note, finally, that in ''Re Stanford'' [1924] 1 Ch 73, it was assumed by all parties that a gift for the completion and publication of a dictionary was charitable. This case was cited at first instance in the ''Incorporated Council of Law Reporting'' case: [1971] Ch 626 at 630. This is a very close analogy to the objects of our company. We are surprised that your Letter does not cite this case.
Andrew Turvey
Secretary
Wikimedia UK
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited.
Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827.
The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL, United Kingdom.


===Conclusion===
== Attachments ==
At this stage, I would ask HMRC to review their decision on the application of Wiki UK Limited for charitable status, taking consideration of the points made above.


You should note that we are confident in our view that our objects are charitable in law, and we will look to appeal any decision that we feel is based on a misapplication of the law in this situation.
# [[/Use of Wikimedia resources in structured learning]]
 
# [[/Legal analysis of the advancement of education]]
Yours sincerely,

Revision as of 00:52, 26 May 2009

Covering Letter

Dear Mr Y....,

Re
Wiki UK Limited (operating name Wikimedia UK)
Your ref
[insert]

I refer to your letter dated 17 April 2009 refusing our application to be recognised by you for tax purposes as a charity and to our telephone call on 1 May, during which we discussed the legal situation regarding the “advancement of education” and the ways we can take our case forward.

The Wikimedia Foundation, the owners of Wikipedia, are recognised as a charity under the law of Florida. Several of our sister “chapters” - including Wikimedia Hong Kong, Wikimedia Germany, Wikimedia Sweden and Wikimedia CH - are also recognised in their jurisdictions as charities. We continue to believe that our activities and our objects are similarly charitable and in our case constitute the charitable advancement of education. However, we accept that we are not aware of any existing English charities whose activities are similar to us, and understand your reluctance to grant tax benefits in the absence of these. Therefore, we would like to ask you to refer our case to the Charity Commission, using the mechanism we discussed on the phone, and ask their view on whether out activities are charitable or not.

We have set out in our previous letters an outline of our activities and the reasons why we think we are charitable. The charitable object of the “Advancement of Education” is already accepted for libraries, museums and art galleries. We consider that our activities are analogous to these organisations, albeit in a different technological context.

Like Libraries, we make educational material available to the public. Like Art Galleries, we display works of art and works of historical interest for the public to see. And like Museums, our projects are not simply an indiscriminate collection of facts: our projects accept only articles that are considered notable, newsworthy or educational. [1]

We enclose two attachments in support of our case:

  1. Examples of how the resources that we promote, including the Wikipedia website, are used in structured learning.
  2. A legal analysis comparing our activities to the relevant case law

Thank you once again for the assistance you have given and we look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely,


Andrew Turvey Secretary Wikimedia UK Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL, United Kingdom.

Attachments

  1. /Use of Wikimedia resources in structured learning
  2. /Legal analysis of the advancement of education
  1. ↑ Wikipedia, for instance, has the following content policy:
    Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT)
Retrieved from "https://dev.wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Charity_status&oldid=3948"