UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: faithlilly on December 23, 2017, 01:48:46 PM
-
It would appear a delay in filing the fund accounts has been requested.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215
What Companies House say about a delay.
"If there is a special reason for doing so, you may apply to extend the time for delivering accounts to Companies House; for example, if there has been an unforeseen event which was outside the control of the company and its auditors".
63
-
I have never seen a prepayment for accountancy in the accounts, just one for the auditors. That leads me to think that the director who was also an accountant dealt with their year-end and filing with Companie's House and HMRC.
December is the busiest month for any accountant as people panic and arrive pleading for help to meet these deadlines. If the accountant is unable to finish all the extra work on time he/she will request more time from the authorities.
That could be the reason for requesting extra time in this case.
-
I have never seen a prepayment for accountancy in the accounts, just one for the auditors. That leads me to think that the director who was also an accountant dealt with their year-end and filing with Companie's House and HMRC.
December is the busiest month for any accountant as people panic and arrive pleading for help to meet these deadlines. If the accountant is unable to finish all the extra work on time he/she will request more time from the authorities.
That could be the reason for requesting extra time in this case.
That could be the case but while other businesses manage to file on time, even in December, the fund has rarely managed this. Further if their accountant can't file the accountants for a fund he is a director of on time it's a bad show.
-
That could be the case but while other businesses manage to file on time, even in December, the fund has rarely managed this. Further if their accountant can't file the accountants for a fund he is a director of on time it's a bad show.
They no longer have a director who is an accountant, though, do they? Reminders used to be sent out by post, but now it's by email. Perhaps the reminder didn't get to the right person.
-
They no longer have a director who is an accountant, though, do they? Reminders used to be sent out by post, but now it's by email. Perhaps the reminder didn't get to the right person.
Isn't John Griffin an accountant ?
-
https://www.gov.uk/change-your-companys-year-end.
Shortening the Accounting Reference Date [ARD] means that the filing deadline at Companies House will be the later of (i) 9 months after the new ARD and (ii) three months after the date of change.
All quite legit, above board and common place.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/change-your-company-accounting-reference-date-aa01
What advantages are obtained in this instance are anyone's guess.
-
The Foundation now qualifies as a Micro Entity and may file online.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-of-a-company-annual-requirements/life-of-a-company-part-1-accounts
-
Isn't John Griffin an accountant ?
No, a tax consultant.
-
The Foundation from offset was classified as a small company so there was no obligation to appoint an accountant. It is now classified as a Micro Entity since recent changes in the law.
As a company limited by guarantee there is no obligation to have the accounts audited unless requested by 10% of members.
Regardless of whether or not an accountant is employed the obligation to "sign off" and file documents on time rests with the company directors.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-of-a-company-annual-requirements/life-of-a-company-part-1-accounts
-
No, a tax consultant.
Ah I see.
-
The Foundation from offset was classified as a small company so there was no obligation to appoint an accountant. It is now classified as a Micro Entity since recent changes in the law.
As a company limited by guarantee there is no obligation to have the accounts audited unless requested by 10% of members.
Regardless of whether or not an accountant is employed the obligation to "sign off" and file documents on time rests with the company directors.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-of-a-company-annual-requirements/life-of-a-company-part-1-accounts
In a well run company a line would have been drawn on 31st March 2017 and the year end figures compiled ready for filing with the authorities later in the year. I don't expect much information from these accounts as their last effort in respect of the libel trial (to get the SC decision overturned) was rejected on 23rd March 2017. I think it's unlikely that they paid what they owed to the Portuguese Courts before 31st March.
-
Oh Dear. Hopefully no one thinks that this matters.
-
Oh Dear. Hopefully no one thinks that this matters.
Meaning?
-
Meaning?
Well, you tell me why it does matter. Do you think that you might sue them? Do you actually care?
-
Well, you tell me why it does matter. Do you think that you might sue them? Do you actually care?
Does it need to matter to be discussed then?
-
Does it need to matter to be discussed then?
An interesting question.
The Foundation is now classified as a Micro Entity so that kind of puts it in perspective.
-
No, Not at all. But a bit pathetic, don't you think. Is that the best you can do?
No, I don't think my contributions are pathetic or below standard. I am posting on topic and I have professional knowledge of the subject.
-
In my opinion, Oxford Dictionary should review the meaning of the word transparent and the phrase no stone unturned in the light of the Maddie story.
-
In my opinion, Oxford Dictionary should review the meaning of the word transparent and the phrase no stone unturned in the light of the Maddie story.
I was going to suggest the same review for the word 'Vulture' as the phrase.... 'The vultures are circling' ....always comes to my mind as soon as the accounts are mentioned as being imminent. But I see there is no need - as they already have it covered.
No doubt the annual whinge is about to commence because sceptics have been deprived of complaining about - for instance - how many paper clips, Post-it pads etc etc the Fund paid for this year imo.
It's just another blatant McCann bashing exercise IMO with the usual 'outrage' being expressed by some sceptics because the McCanns won't help them to be even more spiteful to them - via the info in the accounts - than they are able to be at the moment.
AIMHO
-
I was going to suggest the same review for the word 'Vulture' as the phrase.... 'The vultures are circling' ....always comes to my mind as soon as the accounts are mentioned as being imminent. But I see there is no need - as they already have it covered.
No doubt the annual whinge is about to commence because sceptics have been deprived of complaining about - for instance - how many paper clips, Post-it pads etc etc the Fund paid for this year imo.
It's just another blatant McCann bashing exercise IMO with the usual 'outrage' being expressed by some sceptics because the McCanns won't help them to be even more spiteful to them - via the info in the accounts - than they are able to be at the moment.
AIMHO
What a peculiar idea, that people are curious about paper clips and Post-it pads. I think you've totally misunderstood the reason for the interest in the accounts of Madeleine's Fund; Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited.
-
What a peculiar idea, that people are curious about paper clips and Post-it pads. I think you've totally misunderstood the reason for the interest in the accounts of Madeleine's Fund; Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited.
Agreed. I pretends that taking an interest in how money donated to a transparent “charity like” organisation is spent is equivalent to worrying about every last penny.
-
Agreed. I pretends that taking an interest in how money donated to a transparent “charity like” organisation is spent is equivalent to worrying about every last penny.
As to why people are interested, I blame Jerry Lawton for one;
Fund set up to help find missing Madeleine McCann could be wiped out
THE fund set up to help find Madeleine McCann could be wiped out, it has emerged.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/599164/madeleine-mccann-fund-cop-parents
-
I was going to suggest the same review for the word 'Vulture' as the phrase.... 'The vultures are circling' ....always comes to my mind as soon as the accounts are mentioned as being imminent. But I see there is no need - as they already have it covered.
No doubt the annual whinge is about to commence because sceptics have been deprived of complaining about - for instance - how many paper clips, Post-it pads etc etc the Fund paid for this year imo.
It's just another blatant McCann bashing exercise IMO with the usual 'outrage' being expressed by some sceptics because the McCanns won't help them to be even more spiteful to them - via the info in the accounts - than they are able to be at the moment.
AIMHO
Oh, do come on. You don't want to deprive them of their Annual Whinge, do you? I mean, it is only once a year. Although it does tend to go on a bit. We haven't yet got over last year. There is still meat to be extracted from that one.
Oh, and then there is still 2007 that we never quite got to the bottom of.
-
Oh, do come on. You don't want to deprive them of their Annual Whinge, do you? I mean, it is only once a year. Although it does tend to go on a bit. We haven't yet got over last year. There is still meat to be extracted from that one.
Oh, and then there is still 2007 that we never quite got to the bottom of.
It appears to be one of those subjects that seems to get an disproportionate response from supporters.
-
It appears to be one of those subjects that seems to get an disproportionate response from supporters.
No, Lovey. It is always Sceptics who raise this subject. "Guess what. The Annual Accounts are due. Oh really." Have you missed that?
Me? I have no idea. I file my Tax Return when someone reminds me.
-
No, Lovey. It is always Sceptics who raise this subject. "Guess what. The Annual Accounts are due. Oh really." Have you missed that?
Me? I have no idea. I file my Tax Return when someone reminds me.
As far as I know any member can start a thread on any subject they wish. Those who aren't interested are under no obligation to contribute. There are several threads to which I haven't contributed for that reason. What I haven't done is criticise the threads or those who have posted on them. I may not share their interest in certain subjects, but they have as much right as anyone else to discuss the subjects which interest them.
-
What really really irks sceptics is the simple fact that the Mccanns promised transparency but ultimately deliver secrecy and obscurity. The accounts hide the fine details of what the fund money was spent on and their is only one reason for doing so imo.
The McCanns are both unwilling and unable reveal what and who the money was spent but an in-depth investigation will get to the bottom of it.
It must be extremely embarrassing to them to have this stick held over them. My challenge to them is reveal their full accounts to the public if they dare.
-
What really really irks sceptics is the simple fact that the Mccanns promised transparency but ultimately deliver secrecy and obscurity. The accounts hide the fine details of what the fund money was spent on and their is only one reason for doing so imo.
The McCanns are both unwilling and unable reveal what and who the money was spent but an in-depth investigation will get to the bottom of it.
It must be extremely embarrassing to them to have this stick held over them. My challenge to them is reveal their full accounts to the public if they dare.
As you say...what irks sceptics....do you think the McCanns care what irks sceptics....they won't be bothered in the slightest
-
As far as I know any member can start a thread on any subject they wish. Those who aren't interested are under no obligation to contribute. There are several threads to which I haven't contributed for that reason. What I haven't done is criticise the threads or those who have posted on them. I may not share their interest in certain subjects, but they have as much right as anyone else to discuss the subjects which interest them.
This is not entirely true. Some Threads are Approved and some are not. I personally stay away from those that I don't like and might be going down a road that I don't want. But I am not the only Moderator on this Forum.
It remains ever possible that some other Moderator might Approve something that I personally wouldn't want.
-
What really really irks sceptics is the simple fact that the Mccanns promised transparency but ultimately deliver secrecy and obscurity. The accounts hide the fine details of what the fund money was spent on and their is only one reason for doing so imo.
The McCanns are both unwilling and unable reveal what and who the money was spent but an in-depth investigation will get to the bottom of it.
It must be extremely embarrassing to them to have this stick held over them. My challenge to them is reveal their full accounts to the public if they dare.
The first end of year accounts were transparent because they included the Profit and Loss Account. Following media criticism that particular account was never included again. Clarence Mitchell's statement was true in reference to the 2007-08 accounts, but not of subsequent years.
The McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "The accounts have been independently audited and are entirely transparent."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id205.htm#30
Hiding the details of the Fund's income and expenditure stopped criticism of specific items of expenditure but it also suggested that the initial criticisms were not unfounded.
-
The first end of year accounts were transparent because they included the Profit and Loss Account. Following media criticism that particular account was never included again. Clarence Mitchell's statement was true in reference to the 2007-08 accounts, but not of subsequent years.
The McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "The accounts have been independently audited and are entirely transparent."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id205.htm#30
Hiding the details of the Fund's income and expenditure stopped criticism of specific items of expenditure but it also suggested that the initial criticisms were not unfounded.
Why does this matter to you so much?
-
I find it totally bizarre that individuals have been so resistant to a missing child's fund ... particularly since it can be reasonably concluded they would have apoplexy at the thought of contributing a farthing to it.
It tells me a lot more about the nature of the critics than it does about anything else. I have never found them edifying.
-
Why does this matter to you so much?
I wouldn't describe anything about this case as mattering to me to any great degree. I'm interested in the reasons for ceasing to be transparent as promised because if someone seems to want to hide something then I'm curious as to what it is and why they want to hide it.
-
I wouldn't describe anything about this case as mattering to me to any great degree. I'm interested in the reasons for ceasing to be transparent as promised because if someone seems to want to hide something then I'm curious as to what it is and why they want to hide it.
While it has never crossed my mind to even wonder. And I know who I would prefer to be..
-
While it has never crossed my mind to even wonder. And I know who I would prefer to be..
Me too. 8((()*/
-
I wouldn't describe anything about this case as mattering to me to any great degree. I'm interested in the reasons for ceasing to be transparent as promised because if someone seems to want to hide something then I'm curious as to what it is and why they want to hide it.
Therein lies a big difference between thee and me as far as Madeleine's case is concerned. It matters to me that the case to find what happened to her should progress as far as it possibly can and that a conclusion may be reached. Hopefully a satisfactory one. So my curiosity is confined to whoever may be hiding something that will lead to that.
The importance of the end of this year's accounts or any other year's for that matter means absolutely zilch to me: it means nothing in my opinion short of the continuance of a vendetta which has been waged against Madeleine and her family for over ten years.
When is enough, enough?
-
Therein lies a big difference between thee and me as far as Madeleine's case is concerned. It matters to me that the case to find what happened to her should progress as far as it possibly can and that a conclusion may be reached. Hopefully a satisfactory one. So my curiosity is confined to whoever may be hiding something that will lead to that.
The importance of the end of this year's accounts or any other year's for that matter means absolutely zilch to me: it means nothing in my opinion short of the continuance of a vendetta which has been waged against Madeleine and her family for over ten years.
When is enough, enough?
Emotive words aside, we all want the case solved, we just aren’t all as restrictive as to how and who.
-
Therein lies a big difference between thee and me as far as Madeleine's case is concerned. It matters to me that the case to find what happened to her should progress as far as it possibly can and that a conclusion may be reached. Hopefully a satisfactory one. So my curiosity is confined to whoever may be hiding something that will lead to that.
The importance of the end of this year's accounts or any other year's for that matter means absolutely zilch to me: it means nothing in my opinion short of the continuance of a vendetta which has been waged against Madeleine and her family for over ten years.
When is enough, enough?
You believe the accounts have nothing of interest to impart. I find them very interesting because it seems that some people want to keep the details secret.
In my opinion a vendetta has been waged for over ten years against those who don't unquestionably accept everything the McCann family say and do. When are they and their supporters going to stop doing that, I wonder?
-
Leeway is being given at the moment. But please can we remember Forum Rules.
-
Emotive words aside, we all want the case solved, we just aren’t all as restrictive as to how and who.
Can you give any indication at all exactly where and how perusal of the 'End of Year Accounts' will contribute to solving Madeleine's case?
-
Can you give any indication at all exactly where and how perusal of the 'End of Year Accounts' will contribute to solving Madeleine's case?
Nothing discussed on any forum will contribute to solving Madeleine's case in my opinion.
-
Nothing discussed on any forum will contribute to solving Madeleine's case in my opinion.
I agree....although some seem to think it will
-
Oh, do come on. You don't want to deprive them of their Annual Whinge, do you? I mean, it is only once a year. Although it does tend to go on a bit. We haven't yet got over last year. There is still meat to be extracted from that one.
Oh, and then there is still 2007 that we never quite got to the bottom of.
Quite so -although I think it's only fair to mention that IMO it wasn't quite so prolific last year as some sceptics had the good grace to recognise that as Amaral had decided for some reason not to publicise his accounts for his supporters to see how their donations to his 'cause' had been spent - the usual indignant outrage re 'transparency' over the McCann accounts would be seen as more than a tad hypocritical by some.
All in my opinion
-
Quite so -although I think it's only fair to mention that IMO it wasn't quite so prolific last year as some sceptics had the good grace to recognise that as Amaral had decided for some reason not to publicise his accounts for his supporters to see how their donations to his 'cause' had been spent - the usual indignant outrage re 'transparency' over the McCann accounts would be seen as more than a tad hypocritical by some.
All in my opinion
I don't 'support' either party, and I donated to neither fund. I have no qualms about pointing out that the transparency promised by the Find Madeleine Fund wasn't delivered. Equally those who appealed for funds to help Amaral haven't, as yet, explained what the money they raised was spent on. That's these people; ‘Citizens in Defence of Rights and Freedoms – Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral’
That means both organisations appear to have let down those who donated to their causes. The only difference is that those who donated to help Amaral have the satisfaction of knowing that the objective was achieved. His lawyers were paid and he was exonerated. The Find Madeleine Fund, on the other hand, has spent shed loads of money on all kinds of projects, but has achieved none of it's goals. Unless you count producing a couple of e-fits which Operation Grange quite liked imo.
-
I don't 'support' either party, and I donated to neither fund. I have no qualms about pointing out that the transparency promised by the Find Madeleine Fund wasn't delivered. Equally those who appealed for funds to help Amaral haven't, as yet, explained what the money they raised was spent on. That's these people; ‘Citizens in Defence of Rights and Freedoms – Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral’
That means both organisations appear to have let down those who donated to their causes. The only difference is that those who donated to help Amaral have the satisfaction of knowing that the objective was achieved. His lawyers were paid and he was exonerated. The Find Madeleine Fund, on the other hand, has spent shed loads of money on all kinds of projects, but has achieved none of it's goals. Unless you count producing a couple of e-fits which Operation Grange quite liked imo.
I get the impression from a previous post - that because the McCann accounts are not as detailed as they could be - you have not ruled out the possibility that this lack of information may indicate an intention to 'hide' information. And yet - even with no accounts at all being provided to the public as a result of Amaral's decision not to publish them - you are able to state as a fact - how the money collected for him was spent and apparently do not consider his own deliberate withholding of info may indicate an intent to hide information on his part imo.
Inexplicable logic IMO.
p.s. Does your knowledge of what happened to his fund money extend to knowing whether any donations to a children's charity were made?.
-
I get the impression from a previous post - that because the McCann accounts are not as detailed as they could be - you have not ruled out the possibility that this lack of information may indicate an intention to 'hide' information. And yet - even with no accounts at all being provided to the public as a result of Amaral's decision not to publish them - you are able to state as a fact - how the money collected for him was spent and apparently do not consider his own deliberate withholding of info may indicate an intent to hide information on his part imo.
Inexplicable logic IMO.
p.s. Does your knowledge of what happened to his fund money extend to knowing whether any donations to a children's charity were made?.
So both funds should be fully transparent. Are we agreed on that ?
-
p.s. Does your knowledge of what happened to his fund money extend to knowing whether any donations to a children's charity were made?.
If it can be known how much a defense lawyer cost to launch an appeal then to successfully defend that appeal through the courts,it'll be known what change is left to give to any childrens charity.
-
So both funds should be fully transparent. Are we agreed on that ?
It's my own personal opinion that after seeing how the McCann accounts were treated purely as 'ammunition' for some sceptics to turn into sticks to beat them with - it was decided not to 'oblige' them in future. If that was the reason - then good for them AFAIAC. The venomous outrage and indignation expressed by some sceptics at this withdrawal of previously available ammo - reminded me of toddlers reacting to having their dummy taken away from them. It still does.
How can anyone have an opinion on the transparency of Amarals's fund accounts - when AFAIK he has decided to keep that information out of the public domain? The only reason I have read for his decision, is that he is not legally obliged to. He apparently feels no moral obligation to his loyal supporters to let them know to what extent their money has helped him thus far. To be so thoroughly 'dismissed' in that way is more than insensitive IMO - it's downright insulting.
All in my opinion.
-
It's my own personal opinion that after seeing how the McCann accounts were treated purely as 'ammunition' for some sceptics to turn into sticks to beat them with - it was decided not to 'oblige' them in future. If that was the reason - then good for them AFAIAC. The venomous outrage and indignation expressed by some sceptics at this withdrawal of previously available ammo - reminded me of toddlers reacting to having their dummy taken away from them. It still does.
How can anyone have an opinion on the transparency of Amarals's fund accounts - when AFAIK he has decided to keep that information out of the public domain? The only reason I have read for his decision, is that he is not legally obliged to. He apparently feels no moral obligation to his loyal supporters to let them know to what extent their money has helped him thus far. To be so thoroughly 'dismissed' in that way is more than insensitive IMO - it's downright insulting.
All in my opinion.
Have you noticed the fact that the Fund for Amaral's defence was not instigated, collected, spent or run by him?
How, therefore do you feel able to blame him for it's alleged shortcomings? Surely those in charge are responsible?
The Find Madeleine Fund was instigated by the McCanns. They promised, and the Fund delivered in it's first year-end accounts, transparency.
You suggest they decided to hide the details in future due to online criticism. I think it was media criticism which led the directors to make that decision. The McCanns themselves have always dismissed criticism online as 'just a few sad trolls'. They have, however, complained long and loud about their treatment by the media.
-
It's my own personal opinion that after seeing how the McCann accounts were treated purely as 'ammunition' for some sceptics to turn into sticks to beat them with - it was decided not to 'oblige' them in future. If that was the reason - then good for them AFAIAC. The venomous outrage and indignation expressed by some sceptics at this withdrawal of previously available ammo - reminded me of toddlers reacting to having their dummy taken away from them. It still does.
How can anyone have an opinion on the transparency of Amarals's fund accounts - when AFAIK he has decided to keep that information out of the public domain? The only reason I have read for his decision, is that he is not legally obliged to. He apparently feels no moral obligation to his loyal supporters to let them know to what extent their money has helped him thus far. To be so thoroughly 'dismissed' in that way is more than insensitive IMO - it's downright insulting.
All in my opinion.
Straight question Benice. Do you think both funds should be absolutely transparent?
-
Straight question Benice. Do you think both funds should be absolutely transparent?
No Faith - not if the accounts are being used and abused by people who see them only as a means of ammunition to persecute the McCanns. The idea that the McCanns should spend their time crawling around in sackcloth and ashes - not only inviting people to kick them, but should actually be obliged to provide them with the means to do so - is not one I subscribe to.
As for Amaral's accounts. I'm struggling to think of a single acceptable/valid reason why he would not want his supporters to have sight of them. Aren't you?
AIMHO
-
Have you noticed the fact that the Fund for Amaral's defence was not instigated, collected, spent or run by him?
How, therefore do you feel able to blame him for it's alleged shortcomings? Surely those in charge are responsible?
The Find Madeleine Fund was instigated by the McCanns. They promised, and the Fund delivered in it's first year-end accounts, transparency.
You suggest they decided to hide the details in future due to online criticism. I think it was media criticism which led the directors to make that decision. The McCanns themselves have always dismissed criticism online as 'just a few sad trolls'. They have, however, complained long and loud about their treatment by the media.
As far as I am concerned it was the public with their donations which instigated the Find Madeleine Fund. Or do you think they should have just put the money into their own private bank accounts and said 'Thank you very much' and left it at that?
I find it difficult to believe that Amaral has no say in whether or not the accounts of his Fund are made public. Or, if that is the case - why he feels no obligation to give the explanation for that decision to his supporters.
AIMHO
-
No Faith - not if the accounts are being used and abused by people who see them only as a means of ammunition to persecute the McCanns. The idea that the McCanns should spend their time crawling around in sackcloth and ashes - not only inviting people to kick them, but should actually be obliged to provide them with the means to do so - is not one I subscribe to.
As for Amaral's accounts. I'm struggling to think of a single acceptable/valid reason why he would not want his supporters to have sight of them. Aren't you?
AIMHO
I'm not arguing that point Benice. It is you who wants special treatment for two of the individuals in this discussion not me.
You claim to believe there is something 'shifty' about Amaral not posting transparent accounts yet refuse to hold the McCanns to such high standards. Don't the people who donate to the fund deserve to know just how their money is being spent ? Does the McCanns brittle feelings really trump the responsibility they have to those donators?
What do you think the McCanns have to fear from posting open and transparent accounts as they promised ? If there is nothing to question in their use of the fund why fear scrutiny ?
-
As far as I am concerned it was the public with their donations which instigated the Find Madeleine Fund. Or do
you think they should have just put the money into their own private bank accounts and said 'Thank you very much' and left it at that?
I find it difficult to believe that Amaral has no say in whether or not the accounts of his Fund are made public. Or, if that is the case - why he feels no obligation to give the explanation for that decision to his supporters.
AIMHO
Who said it was the public who instigated the Fund? Was it the McCanns by any chance?
How can you support the decision of the Madeleine Fund directors to avoid transparency but denigrate the organisers of Amaral's Fund for doing the same? Your argument about criticism doesn't hold water unless you think that no criticism would be aimed at the Amaral Fund.
-
Who said it was the public who instigated the Fund? Was it the McCanns by any chance?
How can you support the decision of the Madeleine Fund directors to avoid transparency but denigrate the organisers of Amaral's Fund for doing the same? Your argument about criticism doesn't hold water unless you think that no criticism would be aimed at the Amaral Fund.
I think if a donation was made before they had the fund instituted it is fair enough to say "the public who instigated the Fund" Well the need for the donations to be managed and encouraged.
-
Who said it was the public who instigated the Fund? Was it the McCanns by any chance?
How can you support the decision of the Madeleine Fund directors to avoid transparency but denigrate the organisers of Amaral's Fund for doing the same? Your argument about criticism doesn't hold water unless you think that no criticism would be aimed at the Amaral Fund.
I found this GUnit - it would seem the McCann's but not by themselves decided something had to be done with all the money that had been collected -
Before its launch the fund had already raised £10,000 from medical colleagues of Gerry and Kate McCann and from a bucket of money filled up by visitors to Leicester's Glenfield Hospital, where Madeleine's father works.
I doubt very much if the McCann's had had anything to do with the collection at the hospital.
By the way, any idea what happened about the petition that was set up to investigate the Fund?
Is it just the McCann's fund for Madeleine, that people are concerned about or all funds for missing children?
-
I found this GUnit - it would seem the McCann's but not by themselves decided something had to be done with all the money that had been collected -
Before its launch the fund had already raised £10,000 from medical colleagues of Gerry and Kate McCann and from a bucket of money filled up by visitors to Leicester's Glenfield Hospital, where Madeleine's father works.
I doubt very much if the McCann's had had anything to do with the collection at the hospital.
By the way, any idea what happened about the petition that was set up to investigate the Fund?
Is it just the McCann's fund for Madeleine, that people are concerned about or all funds for missing children?
Have you given up on justifying secrecy for one fund while demanding transparency for the other? Good, that was an unsupportable position imo.
They did like collecting boxes though, didn't they?. Wasn't the Ocean Club adorned with them after the Fund was set up?
-
I found this GUnit - it would seem the McCann's but not by themselves decided something had to be done with all the money that had been collected -
Before its launch the fund had already raised £10,000 from medical colleagues of Gerry and Kate McCann and from a bucket of money filled up by visitors to Leicester's Glenfield Hospital, where Madeleine's father works.
I doubt very much if the McCann's had had anything to do with the collection at the hospital.
By the way, any idea what happened about the petition that was set up to investigate the Fund?
Is it just the McCann's fund for Madeleine, that people are concerned about or all funds for missing children?
I can't think of one fund set up for a missing child that has as it's directors the child's parents nor one fund that has been used for litigation, can you ?
-
I'm not arguing that point Benice. It is you who wants special treatment for two of the individuals in this discussion not me.
You claim to believe there is something 'shifty' about Amaral not posting transparent accounts yet refuse to hold the McCanns to such high standards. Don't the people who donate to the fund deserve to know just how their money is being spent ? Does the McCanns brittle feelings really trump the responsibility they have to those donators?
What do you think the McCanns have to fear from posting open and transparent accounts as they promised ? If there is nothing to question in their use of the fund why fear scrutiny ?
I've already given my opinion on why the accounts are not as comprehensive as they could have been - or would have been IMO - if they had not been used purely as ammunition to hound the McCanns.
I could be wrong of course, but if not then - good for them - why should they 'facilitate' those whose only aim is to find fault with everything they do - when they don't have to. It's nothing to do with 'fear' imo , but more to do (I hope) with sticking two fingers up to those who having spent their time salivating over the prospect of all that 'new stuff' in the accounts to turn into sticks - then having to bear the disappointment of having their fun curtailed by the McCanns decision to restrict the amount of available ammunition..
As someone who has donated to the Fund - you can rest assured that I don't mind what my money is spent on and never have. If it helped to pay their mortgage then that pleases me. It's risible that it is those people who have never donated and never would who keep telling those who have donated what to think and how up in arms we should all be. Well don't bother on my account - I have no complaints.
I would be amazed if any sceptic who donated to Amaral's fund is happy that no accounts have been made public especially when it seems that it is not even deemed necessary for an acceptable reason or explanation to be given to his supporters for that massive decision. An incredible display of ingratitude IMO.
All the above is purely in my opinion - no-one is obliged to agree with it.
-
Who said it was the public who instigated the Fund? Was it the McCanns by any chance?
How can you support the decision of the Madeleine Fund directors to avoid transparency but denigrate the organisers of Amaral's Fund for doing the same? Your argument about criticism doesn't hold water unless you think that no criticism would be aimed at the Amaral Fund.
Please provide evidence that the McCanns asked for donations from the public for the purpose of starting a fund before any donations from the public had been received. If there is no such evidence - then it's obvious IMO that it was the donations being received and offered by the public which resulted in the McCanns starting a fund in order to deal with that money. IMO they had no idea until they were told that people were making donations and others were enquiring how to do that.
With regard to Amaral's fund. I have merely expressed the difficulty I have in understanding why the decision not to publicise his accounts was taken. Claiming that it was because they were not obliged to by law is hardly an adequate explanation IMO.
AIMHO
-
Please provide evidence that the McCanns asked for donations from the public for the purpose of starting a fund before any donations from the public had been received. If there is no such evidence - then it's obvious IMO that it was the donations being received and offered by the public which resulted in the McCanns starting a fund in order to deal with that money. IMO they had no idea until they were told that people were making donations and others were enquiring how to do that.
With regard to Amaral's fund. I have merely expressed the difficulty I have in understanding why the decision not to publicise his accounts was taken. Claiming that it was because they were not obliged to by law is hardly an adequate explanation IMO.
AIMHO
It is adequate in the sense that the Amaral fund stated what the money was going to be used for- just what it says on the tin. Let us not forget he is the injured party here,with no funds to defend himself against a couple who made an absolute fortune out of the sad situation they created by neglecting their children. And used that money to pursue him for more money AND make him suffer!
Who needs to know about the account- the people running it would soon shout out if something was a miss as unlike the McCann Fund where ALL the people looking after the money are friends and family AND guess what the parents.
A bit rich to state all will be transparent then hide things... why would that be do you think? I would suggest it would enrage people to know their money was not being use d to 'search for Madeliene Beth McCann, but paid for lawyers, pr gurus media consultants and staying in 5 star hotels -not looking for Maddie at all- just visiting lawyers.
-
It is adequate in the sense that the Amaral fund stated what the money was going to be used for- just what it says on the tin. Let us not forget he is the injured party here,with no funds to defend himself against a couple who made an absolute fortune out of the sad situation they created by neglecting their children. And used that money to pursue him for more money AND make him suffer!
Who needs to know about the account- the people running it would soon shout out if something was a miss as unlike the McCann Fund where ALL the people looking after the money are friends and family AND guess what the parents.
A bit rich to state all will be transparent then hide things... why would that be do you think? I would suggest it would enrage people to know their money was not being use d to 'search for Madeliene Beth McCann, but paid for lawyers, pr gurus media consultants and staying in 5 star hotels -not looking for Maddie at all- just visiting lawyers.
About 54 grand was raised by crowd funding in UK.
So what do the regulations say about publishing crowd funding accounts if anything?
1) Donation-based crowdfunding e.g. You Caring
This structure is best for social benevolent enterprises with investors pledging money without expecting anything in return.
2) Donation and reward-based platforms are usually outside the scope of authorisation, although issues can arise depending on how payments are processed (see Payment Processing section below) or if any reward offered starts to look like a return on investment (for example, a profit share from a successful creative enterprise).
3) [Payment]This is a complex area and due to the effect of the PSR, CFP operators often opt to use third party online processing providers (like WePay, PayPal and Stripe) to process payments on their behalf.
https://www.taylorwessing.com/download/article_crowdfunding.html
The situation with The Foundation is simple. Since the first year accounts it has published the bare minimum required by law. There are some really clever convoluted bits about it though.
-
About 54 grand was raised by crowd funding in UK.
So what do the regulations say about publishing crowd funding accounts if anything?
1) Donation-based crowdfunding e.g. You Caring
This structure is best for social benevolent enterprises with investors pledging money without expecting anything in return.
2) Donation and reward-based platforms are usually outside the scope of authorisation, although issues can arise depending on how payments are processed (see Payment Processing section below) or if any reward offered starts to look like a return on investment (for example, a profit share from a successful creative enterprise).
3) [Payment]This is a complex area and due to the effect of the PSR, CFP operators often opt to use third party online processing providers (like WePay, PayPal and Stripe) to process payments on their behalf.
https://www.taylorwessing.com/download/article_crowdfunding.html
The situation with The Foundation is simple. Since the first year accounts it has published the bare minimum required by law. There are some really clever convoluted bits about it though.
Thank you Alice.... Looking at the type in bold... 8**8:/:
-
Can you give any indication at all exactly where and how perusal of the 'End of Year Accounts' will contribute to solving Madeleine's case?
It has nothing to do with solving the case but everything to do with the McCann's credibility and accountability.
Both the Madeleine Fund and the Amaral Defence Fund should have made public what the funds have been spent on, it does neither of them any favours by avoiding doing so imo. Their refusal to account for every last penny rightly attracts suspicion.
-
Have you given up on justifying secrecy for one fund while demanding transparency for the other? Good, that was an unsupportable position imo.
They did like collecting boxes though, didn't they?. Wasn't the Ocean Club adorned with them after the Fund was set up?
Well it seems that Amaral's fund can stay secret as it was crowd funding, can you imagine if the McCann's had done that? They HAD to set up a fund as there was so much money coming in for them to help them, that was the only way the public could help search for Madeleine.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Ocean Club was adorned with boxes, as I said people felt helpless and wanted to help.
In the case of April Jones people felt the same helplessness, the only thing they could do to help was to give to a fund for the parents.
-
I can't think of one fund set up for a missing child that has as it's directors the child's parents nor one fund that has been used for litigation, can you ?
The McCann's are two of the directors.
I believe there was a separate fund for litigation.
-
Do you know the source of funding for this litigation fund?
-
snipped - "Fund directors have decided not to pay for Kate and Gerry's legal defence costs," said Esther. "We stress that the family has not asked for these costs to be paid, however, people have already called in offering their financial support.
-
Do you know the source of funding for this litigation fund?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7008872.stm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7008872.stm
Thanks. That's way back in 2007 though. No mention of him at all these days, nor of Branson, another one time supporter.
Wasn't it Mitchell who was claiming that their loss in the Portuguese courts would empty the search fund ?
No mention of a separate fund then.
-
Thanks. That's way back in 2007 though. No mention of him at all these days, nor of Branson, another one time supporter.
Wasn't it Mitchell who was claiming that their loss in the Portuguese courts would empty the search fund ?
No mention of a separate fund then.
[/quote
2009 Clarence Mitchell -
I’d stress as well that the money that people have donated from around the world is only being spent on that campaign and Kate and Gerry’s legal costs and media management in the shape of me that’s all coming from the financial benefactors who are contributing quite separately so that anybody who has given money to help find Madeleine need have no fear that their money is being spent on lawyers fees or anything like that.
-
Well it seems that Amaral's fund can stay secret as it was crowd funding, can you imagine if the McCann's had done that? They HAD to set up a fund as there was so much money coming in for them to help them, that was the only way the public could help search for Madeleine.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Ocean Club was adorned with boxes, as I said people felt helpless and wanted to help.
In the case of April Jones people felt the same helplessness, the only thing they could do to help was to give to a fund for the parents.
April Jones fund was set up as a charity with her parents playing no part in how the money was distributed. At the time the OFM fund was set up there was a police investigation in full swing which could have borne fruit. There was no need for the McCanns to 'search' for Madeleine. There was no reason to set the fund up as a business. The Charity Commission were willing to work with the McCanns to enable the fund to be given charitable status but interestingly the offer was never taken up. All the stranger when you consider that the fund could have added 25p for every £1 donated by U.K. tax payers, a tidy amount.
-
April Jones fund was set up as a charity with her parents playing no part in how the money was distributed. At the time the OFM fund was set up there was a police investigation in full swing which could have borne fruit. There was no need for the McCanns to 'search' for Madeleine. There was no reason to set the fund up as a business. The Charity Commission were willing to work with the McCanns to enable the fund to be given charitable status but interestingly the offer was never taken up. All the stranger when you consider that the fund could have added 25p for every £1 donated by U.K. tax payers, a tidy amount.
the fund could not be set up as a charity as it was for the benefit of only one person...what you are saying is untrue....you have no idea of ny discussion between the fund and the charity commission so that part of your post is pure invention
-
the fund could not be set up as a charity as it was for the benefit of only one person...what you are saying is untrue....you have no idea of ny discussion between the fund and the charity commission so that part of your post is pure invention
When the fund was set up there was a full scale police investigation in progress and therefore no need for the McCanns to fund a search. There really was no need to set up the fund for one person.
-
We are getting far too much Opinion as Fact. I will have to delete if it doesn't stop.
-
April Jones fund was set up as a charity with her parents playing no part in how the money was distributed. At the time the OFM fund was set up there was a police investigation in full swing which could have borne fruit. There was no need for the McCanns to 'search' for Madeleine. There was no reason to set the fund up as a business. The Charity Commission were willing to work with the McCanns to enable the fund to be given charitable status but interestingly the offer was never taken up. All the stranger when you consider that the fund could have added 25p for every £1 donated by U.K. tax payers, a tidy amount.
It was probably set up as a charity as it wasn't formed in order to search for April.
snipped -
Because Madeleine's Fund is currently focussed on searching for one child only, Madeleine McCann it cannot register as a charity. However in the future, if the objects of the fund are fulfilled and subsequently changed to concentrate on multiple similar cases, it may then be possible to acquire charitable status.
-
When the fund was set up there was a full scale police investigation in progress and therefore no need for the McCanns to fund a search. There really was no need to set up the fund for one person.
People were giving them donations to help the search for Madeleine, they had to set up a fund because of all the donations.
If Kerry Needham had set up a fund to search for Ben then the fund wouldn't have been a charity either, as they were searching for one child.
-
People were giving them donations to help the search for Madeleine, they had to set up a fund because of all the donations.
If Kerry Needham had set up a fund to search for Ben then the fund wouldn't have been a charity either, as they were searching for one child.
There was no need to fund a search when the fund was set up. The McCanns at that time had the benefit of a full scale investigation. Very similar to April Jones in fact.
-
There was no need to fund a search when the fund was set up. The McCanns at that time had the benefit of a full scale investigation. Very similar to April Jones in fact.
But people were so wanting to help that they kept giving the Mccanns money.
Can you suggest any other way than a fund to look after it?
The differences between what happened with Aprils parents and Madeleines was that the Jones knew that the police were actively searching for April. It very rapidly became apparent to The Mccanns that the PJ were not looking for a living Madeleine. That the only purpose for the search by the PJ was to try and find stuff to convict the Mccanns with. imo
-
the fund could not be set up as a charity as it was for the benefit of only one person...what you are saying is untrue....you have no idea of ny discussion between the fund and the charity commission so that part of your post is pure invention
From the Charity Commission.
“We were first approached for our advice about the possibility of a fund to assist the parents’ search on Monday 14 May,” explained a spokeswoman for the Commission. “We held discussions with the family’s lawyers and in the end they decided not to pursue that route.”
-
From the Charity Commission.
“We were first approached for our advice about the possibility of a fund to assist the parents’ search on Monday 14 May,” explained a spokeswoman for the Commission. “We held discussions with the family’s lawyers and in the end they decided not to pursue that route.”
They did not persue that route because the fund was to be used solely to look for Maddie and therefore could not be given charitable status...the question that was asked was why the McCanns did not use charitable status ...that's the answer....no discussion with the CC could change that
-
They did not persue that route because the fund was to be used solely to look for Maddie and therefore could not be given charitable status...the question that was asked was why the McCanns did not use charitable status ...that's the answer....no discussion with the CC could change that
Shame they didn’t wait for the discussions with the CC to finish. They may have arrived at a suitable charity structure.
-
Shame they didn’t wait for the discussions with the CC to finish. They may have arrived at a suitable charity structure.
Who said they did not finish the discussion...your post is opinion not fact
As I understand it there was nothing further to persue
-
Who said they did not finish the discussion...your post is opinion not fact
As I understand it there was nothing further to persue
As the CC were approached on the 14th May and the company was setup on the 15th May, it didn’t allow a typical CC consultation.
-
Madeleine McCann's family could not register the fund for their missing daughter as a charity because its activity is not solely charitable.
Specialist charity lawyers Bates, Wells & Braithwaite spoke to the Charity Commission about the issue. "The fund was set up partly to keep the parents in Portugal," a commission spokeswoman said. "We said that if that was the purpose, it would not be charitable because it is not for the public benefit."
The fund may become a charity at a later date.
https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/madeleine-fund-cannot-charity/governance/article/658938
-
As the CC were approached on the 14th May and the company was setup on the 15th May, it didn’t allow a typical CC consultation.
Set up many charities, have you Slarti ?
-
As the CC were approached on the 14th May and the company was setup on the 15th May, it didn’t allow a typical CC consultation.
What would be the advantage of it becoming a charity? Was it no tax? Is the the McCann fund paying income tax?
-
As the CC were approached on the 14th May and the company was setup on the 15th May, it didn’t allow a typical CC consultation.
again...how do you know what consultation took palce...more assumption....the fund is solely for Maddie and therefore could not have charitable status...that doesnt take long to discuss.
-
What would be the advantage of it becoming a charity? Was it no tax? Is the the McCann fund paying income tax?
no company pays income tax.......the company could claw back the income tax paid by the contributers which is around 20 % if it was a charity
-
again...how do you know what consultation took palce...more assumption....the fund is solely for Maddie and therefore could not have charitable status...that doesnt take long to discuss.
And decide it was the right choice to make it a charity then. I don't see a reason why surplus funds couldn't be placed in a charity in the future. There might come a time when the fund is turned into a charity.
-
Set up many charities, have you Slarti ?
Been involved in a few yes, why?
-
no company pays income tax.......the company could claw back the income tax paid by the contributers which is around 20 % if it was a charity
That sounds different to what happens here. In NZ it is the persons making the donations that get the tax refund.
-
again...how do you know what consultation took palce...more assumption....the fund is solely for Maddie and therefore could not have charitable status...that doesnt take long to discuss.
See Alice’s post.
-
And decide it was the right choice to make it a charity then. I don't see a reason why surplus funds couldn't be placed in a charity in the future. There might come a time when the fund is turned into a charity.
It was not the right choice to make it a charity given the aims of the fund but the mccanns said if the aims of the fund were met..ie ..maddie recovered ...any funds would then be used for seraching for missing children in general
so to all the doubters...why when people raise money for medical treatment for a particilar child do they not seek charitable status ...after a lengthy discussion with the CC and reclaim any tax paid...teh answer should by now be obvious
-
See Alice’s post.
ive seen it but understood the implications long before
Specialist charity lawyers Bates, Wells & Braithwaite spoke to the Charity Commission about the issue. "The fund was set up partly to keep the parents in Portugal," a commission spokeswoman said. "We said that if that was the purpose, it would not be charitable because it is not for the public benefit."
-
ive seen it but understood the implications long before
Specialist charity lawyers Bates, Wells & Braithwaite spoke to the Charity Commission about the issue. "The fund was set up partly to keep the parents in Portugal," a commission spokeswoman said. "We said that if that was the purpose, it would not be charitable because it is not for the public benefit."
How interesting! It wasn't just because it was for one child then? That's the first time I've seen anyone admit that it was for parental expenses.
-
How interesting! It wasn't just because it was for one child then? That's the first time I've seen anyone admit that it was for parental expenses.
The fund was quite clear in its aims....one of which was to support Maddies family...Im surprised you were not aware of this
-
How interesting! It wasn't just because it was for one child then? That's the first time I've seen anyone admit that it was for parental expenses.
That seems reasonable - running shoes wear out, tennis rackets get broken.
-
The fund was quite clear in its aims....one of which was to support Maddies family...Im surprised you were not aware of this
I knew that. It's never been given as one of the reasons for setting up the Fund as a limited company though. I wonder which of the rather vague headings include this 'family support'?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/madeleinesfundgraphic.jpg)
-
no company pays income tax.......the company could claw back the income tax paid by the contributers which is around 20 % if it was a charity
Income tax might not have been the right word, but does "tax on the profits" make sense. Wouldn't a company have to pay tax on it's profits.
Google result "Net Profit. The net profit for your business equals the gross profit minus expenses for items such as rent, depreciation of assets, wages, taxes, utilities, supplies, insurance and licenses. The IRS also calls net profit “ordinary business income.” This is the amount you'll pay tax on." Whereas a charity would be exempt from that "Do charities have to pay tax on donations?
As a charity you can get certain tax reliefs. ... Charities don't pay tax on most types of income as long as they use the money for charitable purposes. You can claim back tax that's been deducted, eg on bank interest and donations (this is known as Gift Aid)."
-
I knew that. It's never been given as one of the reasons for setting up the Fund as a limited company though. I wonder which of the rather vague headings include this 'family support'?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/madeleinesfundgraphic.jpg)
One of the headings has the word "subsistence" in it.
No mention of tax there. Maybe donations aren't considered income but I'm sure they are here.
-
Income tax might not have been the right word, but does "tax on the profits" make sense. Wouldn't a company have to pay tax on it's profits.
Google result "Net Profit. The net profit for your business equals the gross profit minus expenses for items such as rent, depreciation of assets, wages, taxes, utilities, supplies, insurance and licenses. The IRS also calls net profit “ordinary business income.” This is the amount you'll pay tax on." Whereas a charity would be exempt from that "Do charities have to pay tax on donations?
As a charity you can get certain tax reliefs. ... Charities don't pay tax on most types of income as long as they use the money for charitable purposes. You can claim back tax that's been deducted, eg on bank interest and donations (this is known as Gift Aid)."
if there were profits...any money spent as per the aims of the fund count as expenses
-
if there were profits...any money spent as per the aims of the fund count as expenses
So are they paying tax? There seemed to be a big surplus the first year.
"Are grants and donations taxable income for corporation tax?" The answer here seem to suggest they should.
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/are-grants-and-donations-taxable-income-for-corporation-tax
-
So are they paying tax? There seemed to be a big surplus the first year.
"Are grants and donations taxable income for corporation tax?" The answer here seem to suggest they should.
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/are-grants-and-donations-taxable-income-for-corporation-tax
perhaps one of our resident accountnts could tell us
-
It might be the "not for profit" status that means they don't need to pay tax on their surpluses.
http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
"About the Fund
Madeleine's Fund - 'Leaving No Stone Unturned' is a not-for-profit company which has been established to find Madeleine McCann, support her family and bring her abductors to justice. The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector. The directors of the company are Brian Kennedy, Michael Linnett, Edward Smethurst, Jon Corner, Kate McCann & Gerry McCann. They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience. An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability. This should enable the Directors to maintain an appropriate governance distance in the day-to-day operations of the Fund."
So we need to see what the rules are in the "Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector".
-
It might be the "not for profit" status that means they don't need to pay tax on their surpluses.
http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
"About the Fund
Madeleine's Fund - 'Leaving No Stone Unturned' is a not-for-profit company which has been established to find Madeleine McCann, support her family and bring her abductors to justice. The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector. The directors of the company are Brian Kennedy, Michael Linnett, Edward Smethurst, Jon Corner, Kate McCann & Gerry McCann. They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience. An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability. This should enable the Directors to maintain an appropriate governance distance in the day-to-day operations of the Fund."
So we need to see what the rules are in the "Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector".
as I understand not for profit companies reinvest the surplus in the company and therefore do not pay tax
-
So are they paying tax? There seemed to be a big surplus the first year.
"Are grants and donations taxable income for corporation tax?" The answer here seem to suggest they should.
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/are-grants-and-donations-taxable-income-for-corporation-tax
Every Incorporated Company in the UK pays corporation tax on annual profit.
-
This is the answer
https://www.xero.com/ie/resources/small-business-guides/cloud-accounting/non-profit-accounting/
"Apply for tax exemptions
A big advantage of not-for-profit entities is tax exemption. Again, do this early on to get the most benefit from it. Note that although your business is tax-exempt, your employees will still have to pay taxes."
-
This is the answer
https://www.xero.com/ie/resources/small-business-guides/cloud-accounting/non-profit-accounting/
"Apply for tax exemptions
A big advantage of not-for-profit entities is tax exemption. Again, do this early on to get the most benefit from it. Note that although your business is tax-exempt, your employees will still have to pay taxes."
so the benefits of being charitable would be far outweighed by the conditions so not for profit was a much better choice....all taht suspicion from sceptics and theres a simple explanation
-
This is the answer
https://www.xero.com/ie/resources/small-business-guides/cloud-accounting/non-profit-accounting/
"Apply for tax exemptions
A big advantage of not-for-profit entities is tax exemption. Again, do this early on to get the most benefit from it. Note that although your business is tax-exempt, your employees will still have to pay taxes."
Could that be why the online shop was abandoned? Isn't suing newspapers and others for libel deemed profitable?
-
so the benefits of being charitable would be far outweighed by the conditions so not for profit was a much better choice....all taht suspicion from sceptics and theres a simple explanation
They would be subject to audit by the IRS (Inland Revenue in NZ) so it will be up to them to keep the books looking OK.
-
How interesting! It wasn't just because it was for one child then? That's the first time I've seen anyone admit that it was for parental expenses.
See youtube clip:
"Tell us about the Fighting Fund...". "This is not an appeal, the family haven't made an appeal. We've just set up a mechanism for people who said they wanted to do something and contribute, so that the money can be used for all sorts of reasons but probably mainly for legal expenditure."17th May 2007
http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/other-night-i-was-stunned-to-see.html
-
so the benefits of being charitable would be far outweighed by the conditions so not for profit was a much better choice....all taht suspicion from sceptics and theres a simple explanation
CLG and Charitable Status are not mutually exclusive. The RAC being a case in point.
-
Every Incorporated Company in the UK pays corporation tax on annual profit.
Including The Foundation if the end of year figures since inception are to be believed.... 8(0(*
-
The fund was quite clear in its aims....one of which was to support Maddies family...Im surprised you were not aware of this
That was removed from the Articles of Association long since...about 6 years in fact.
It now reads:
Objects
2B. The objects of the Foundation are:
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.
2B.2 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.
-
Although there was no mention of tax paid in the year end 2008 accounts, a sum appears in the 2009 accounts showing the tax paid for the previous year;
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/fund/madeleinesfundaccountsmarch2009_Page_08.jpg)
-
That was removed from the Articles of Association long since...about 6 years in fact.
It now reads:
Objects
2B. The objects of the Foundation are:
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.
2B.2 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.
Yeah...i know
-
As far as I can ascertain the term 'not for profit' has no statutory meaning and HMRC don't allow any tax relief for companies using that description.
-
As far as I can ascertain the term 'not for profit' has no statutory meaning and HMRC don't allow any tax relief for companies using that description.
from what I have seen it does....they do not pay corporation tax
-
Including The Foundation if the end of year figures since inception are to be believed.... 8(0(*
of course john is wrong and not every company pays corporation tax on its profits
-
from what I have seen it does....they do not pay corporation tax
Someone has given you a bum steer.
Companies limited by guarantee
by Jessica Garbett | Feb 22, 2013 | business issues | 0 comments
A guide to Companies Limited by guarantee, contributed by ACCA
Often a source of confusion, this guide to what constitutes a company limited by guarantee should help.
Companies limited by guarantee is one aspect of financial reporting that causes more confusion than it should when, in reality, it is fairly straightforward.
A company limited by guarantee is just a limited company, but with the obvious difference to the usual company entity of there being no share capital. The company’s members are guarantors rather than shareholders.
This form of company entity is often used by charities, but not all companies limited by guarantee are charitable in nature. Other common uses for this type of company are membership organisations and clubs, including sports associations. It is less likely to be used by a normal trading business, as profits cannot be distributed to members by way of a dividend.
The same rules and regulations apply to companies limited by guarantee as to companies with a share capital. This means that the company will have to file accounts at Companies House within the usual deadline, file annual returns, keep proper accounting records, appoint directors and file returns with HMRC. If the company is a charity, registered with the Charity Commission, it is likely that HMRC will not require a CT600 and there will be no corporation tax to pay. But this is not a blanket exemption, and the status of being limited by guarantee does not, of itself, allow a company to escape the liability to corporation tax. The company is required to have at least one director.
Main difference
The main difference between a company limited by guarantee and one limited by shares is that the liability of shareholders is limited to the amount unpaid on shares, whereas the liability of guarantors (the members of a company limited by guarantee) is limited to the amount that they guaranteed. In most cases the amount guaranteed will be £1 per member (similar to the ordinary £1 share in a company limited by shares).
Members cannot receive dividends, and will usually be involved due to their commitment to the company’s objectives, rather than to benefit financially. The memorandum and articles will usually differ from those of the standard share capital company and will generally include a defined list of specific objectives, and also a clause that prohibits the distribution of surplus profits.
The balance sheet of a company limited by guarantee will be the same as that of a company limited by shares, apart from the fact that it will have no share capital. The bottom section of the balance sheet should be headed ‘Reserves’ rather than the usual ‘Shareholders’ funds’. There is no requirement, but it is common practice, to also include a note disclosing the guarantees; something simple such as: ‘The company is limited by guarantee of members and does not have a share capital. The liability of members is limited to £1.’
The usual rules about related parties will apply, and the director(s) will be related parties in the usual way. Whether or not a member falls into the definition of related party will depend on the circumstances.
Payments to members can only be by way of remuneration, as no dividends are possible. If the company is a charity, the members may also be trustees, and there are of course rules about payments to trustees. If the company limited by guarantee is a charity, the disclosure requirements, rules and requirements laid down by the Charity Commission, the Charity SORP and the Charities Acts will also need to be adhered to.
-
from what I have seen it does....they do not pay corporation tax
Madeleine's Fund paid corporation tax. Look at the accounts.
-
Madeleine's Fund paid corporation tax. Look at the accounts.
Why let the truth be in the way ?...................
-
Madeleine's Fund paid corporation tax. Look at the accounts.
fine ..im not an accountant ..
-
Why let the truth be in the way ?...................
the truth of what...that they paid tax..have they ever denied it
-
Madeleine's Fund paid corporation tax. Look at the accounts.
corportion tax on what...on the whole surplus
-
Charities may have to pay corporation tax
-
so the mccans paid corporation tax...is this more evidence of their guilt...in what way is it in any way relevant
-
Why let the truth be in the way ?...................
Im begining to agree with you...perhaps you should ring Sy and explain that the fund has paid tax
-
corportion tax on what...on the whole surplus
What about a deficit? There is no guarantee there is a surplus.
-
Why let the truth be in the way ?...................
Well I hope we've learnt something!
-
so the mccans paid corporation tax...is this more evidence of their guilt...in what way is it in any way relevant
They most certainly did not.
-
Well I hope we've learnt something!
Oh yes! @)(++(*
-
They most certainly did not.
so they didnt pay corporation tax...fine..does any of this have any relevance
-
so they didnt pay corporation tax...fine..does any of this have any relevance
Explain how the McCanns would have paid corporation tax.
It has no relevance to the OP, in fact this thread has been pretty much off topic since about page 2 I merely joined in "In the spirit" rather than in "the letter" as it were.
-
Explain how the McCanns would have paid corporation tax.
It has no relevance to the OP, in fact this thread has been pretty much off topic since about page 2 I merely joined in "In the spirit" rather than in "the letter" as it were.
I dont think they would have...but others seem to think they did
-
Explain how the McCanns would have paid corporation tax.
It has no relevance to the OP, in fact this thread has been pretty much off topic since about page 2 I merely joined in "In the spirit" rather than in "the letter" as it were.
If they paid tax it is definitely on topic IMO.
"Coporation Tax explained. If you're a limited company or an unincorporated body, such as a club, society or association, then you need to pay Corporation Tax. It's important because if you fail to pay, you could be fined daily by HMRC. ... Corporation Tax is a tax on taxable profits."
HOW MUCH DO I NEED TO PAY?
To work out your taxable profits, you start with your company's pre-tax profit for the financial year. You then:
Add back any depreciation charges you've included in your accounts
Deduct your capital allowances (they take the place of depreciation charges)
Add any other relevant income or chargeable gains
Deduct any other relevant deductions, reliefs, allowances or losses
Next:
"Apply the relevant tax rate(s) to calculate your gross Corporation Tax payable
Deduct any relevant tax credits and any Income Tax already deducted from interest income your company received (for example the tax deducted by your bank before it paid you interest)
Finally you deduct any Corporation Tax you've already paid, for example tax paid early, to find the amount of Corporation Tax you need to pay, or the amount of Corporation Tax you can claim back as an over payment."
http://www.smarta.com/advice/accounting-and-tax/tax/coporation-tax-explained/
-
"From 1 April 2015 there is a single Corporation Tax rate of 20% for non-ring fence profits. ..." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-corporation-tax/rates-and-allowances-corporation-tax
So if they are paying 6,000 pounds tax that would be on an amount 5 times greater than that.
-
The Fund paid Corporation Tax every year except 2013 when they got a rebate of £9,756.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hyJhMoErJC4/VsY8aVn0t7I/AAAAAAAAAU0/dgZD4FkuYFg/s1600/2016-02-18_2118.png)
-
The Fund paid Corporation Tax every year except 2013 when they got a rebate of £9,756.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hyJhMoErJC4/VsY8aVn0t7I/AAAAAAAAAU0/dgZD4FkuYFg/s1600/2016-02-18_2118.png)
What is the source of that statement?
-
They certainly do not appear to be paying the normal rate of corporation tax which must have something to do with it being a not for profit company
-
I dont think they would have...but others seem to think they did
I know the McCanns would NOT have paid corporation tax.
-
What is the source of that statement?
The Fund Accounts filed with Companies House.
-
I know the McCanns would NOT have paid corporation tax.
as its your field that doesnt surprise me......just as you thought entonox was an anaesthetic and I corrected you...thats my field ...simple
-
With my limited knowledge it looks like the fund is run as a mutuality . Surplus (profits) all ploughed back into fund for future use rather than being distributed as dividends. Does not attract Corporation Tax.
Tax refunds shown on gs statement probably refund of tax paid on interest on cash balance deducted at source..
what do you think alice
-
The Fund Accounts filed with Companies House.
Please provide a direct link to the page containing the table, thank you.
-
I know the McCanns would NOT have paid corporation tax.
The McCann's didn't, but Madeleine's Fund did.
-
Q: Are the McCanns liable pay corporation tax
A: No.
Q: Is Madeleines Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited Ltd (referred to in the Articles of Association as The Foundation) liable to pay corporation tax.
A: Yes.
Q: Is The Foundation required to make an annual return to HMRC
A: Yes.
Q: What is the rate of corporation tax.
A: Twenty percent.
Q: Does this vary
A: Not for non-ring fenced companies.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-corporation-tax/rates-and-allowances-corporation-tax
Q: What is a “not for profit company”.
A: “Not-for-profit organisation” is a broad term for all independent organisations that do not make private profit for directors, members or shareholders. It is not a legal structure in and of itself.
Q: What is a legal person.
A: Legal person refers to a non-human entity that is treated as a person for limited legal purposes--corporations, for example. Legal persons can sue and be sued, own property, and enter into contracts.
Q: Do company directors have personal liability for company taxes.
A: For the most part however there is no personal liability of the directors in respect of the tax liabilities of the company. In the event of company insolvency, HMRC can do little to recover any unpaid corporation tax (and will simply stand as another unsecured creditor).
In relation to VAT, whilst it has no direct recovery powers, HMRC can (and more often than not will) require security for VAT in relation to any future businesses with which any of the directors of the insolvent company may become involved.
-
With my limited knowledge it looks like the fund is run as a mutuality . Surplus (profits) all ploughed back into fund for future use rather than being distributed as dividends. Does not attract Corporation Tax.
Tax refunds shown on gs statement probably refund of tax paid on interest on cash balance deducted at source..
what do you think alice
It is run as a Company Limited by Guarantee.
A company limited by guarantee is just a limited company, but has no share capital. The company’s members are guarantors rather than shareholders.
The same rules and regulations apply to companies limited by guarantee as to companies with a share capital. i.e the company will have to file accounts at Companies House within the prescribed deadline, file annual returns, keep proper accounting records, appoint directors and file returns with HMRC.
-
Shall we run a book on whether the accounts are filed this week?
-
Shall we run a book on whether the accounts are filed this week?
Put me down for yes this week, for all the good they'll be !
-
Companies House: "Accounts for a small company made up to 31 March 2017:
This document is being processed and will be available in 5 days"
-
Companies House: "Accounts for a small company made up to 31 March 2017:
This document is being processed and will be available in 5 days"
Now where have I read that before?
-
Put me down for a tenner...
it will show that they are spending most of the money on the search, you know that search along side PJ and OG.. costing a fortune...OR maybe not.