Cycling UK Forum

My first response to this idea was no it isnt right, we dont deserve to be a charity.
On asking friends if they were for it, that was their response too.

This is based on my friends and I seeing the CTC first and foremost as a club for the benefits of the members. Dare I say OUR club.

I havent been around for a long time and dont have much invested in the club. However the club does have a lot invested in it. Now if the club goes to be a charity doing good for all then those of us who are just after a members club could just form our own club or even join some of the many existing independant clubs. Either instead or aswell as the CTC.
That is fine by me but what about the people who built the club, who have life memberships and otherwise have a lot invested in it. They are effectivly being robbed of their own club. The buildings and money may be replacable but what about the name, the logo and some of the valuable assetts like CJ for instance.

The answer given is that it is OK they can carry on as before but within a charity.
However that remains to me and many others morally unacceptable, I dont like to take from charities when quite frankly I am not in need of charity money to fund my PERSONAL hobby and transport.

I can see that the CTC RTR is charitable work and it would be alright for that to receive charity funding. However I think it immoral that that should extend to my (mostly well off) friends and I driving 50 miles in our cars to do a 20 mile pleasure ride and pig out on cake.

People banding together into sports clubs tend to be well placed to encourage others to take part as well. The 2006 Act specifically names the promotion of sporting participation as a public benefit and therefore charitable (presumably owing to the inactivity-related health problems of the nation).

In UK law, a charity is a wider concept than helping the disadvantaged or sick. It's anything that benefits society within certain guidelines. It's quite common for membership organisations that provide significant social benefit as well as member services to be charities. There are restrictions, however, on the balance of the two types of activity.

If you disagree, you ought really to speak to your MP about getting the law changed. I don't think the CTC proposals are anything but entirely within the spirit of the law as it stands.

"If you disagree, you ought really to speak to your MP about getting the law changed. I don't think the CTC proposals are anything but entirely within the spirit of the law as it stands."

There is a clear difference between the law and morality.
This was a moral question not a legal one.
If your answer to a moral question is that it is legal, I can only wonder even more about its morality.

Also your suggestion that I speak to my MP on such an issue is such an over reaction that I detect I may have annoyed you.
Is it because I question the morality of the move or just for raising the subject of morality in the first place?

I entirely agree that legality and morality are not the same thing. For example, many tax "manoeuvres" are legal but not moral; that is because they follow the letter of the law, but not the plain intention of Parliament in making it.

My point was rather that society, through Parliament, has deliberately and knowingly set out to offer tax advantages to organisations that carry out certain activities, and that the CTC appears plainly to meet those criteria. Therefore, this is a question of whether it is in the interests of the CTC to accept an offer freely made.

It may or may not be advantageous, but it is hard to see how it could not be moral.

meic wrote:................. the logo and some of the valuable assetts like CJ for instance.

meic - I appreciate that this is a serious matter, but this caught my eye and it's had me weeping with laughter. I now imagine CJ stuffed, mounted and placed in the National Office lobby, box spanner in hand, with a motto adorning the plinth. 'Let not the toe clip meet the mudguard'. And the plinth had better not be carbon fibre......

And you're right, of course. CJ is part of the fabric. I saw him at the Madison shindig this time last year, and the respect in the room from the wider trade was tangible. He is one of our treasures. He is, crudely put, a member benefit. (And if that doesn't get me a pint next time we meet, I don't know what).

Hi Meic , being an ex rtr rep the expences where £50 per annum [ about 2 years ago] no travelling expences.
and if you have read the rtr manual it could be a 24 7 job and only on a state pension i resigned as it was
costing me money ,the club faces many challenges as the goal posts keep moving.

.

plato wrote:Hi Meic , being an ex rtr rep the expences where £50 per annum [ about 2 years ago] no travelling expences.
and if you have read the rtr manual it could be a 24 7 job and only on a state pension i resigned as it was
costing me money ,the club faces many challenges as the goal posts keep moving.

I must say that I dont even see that side of the CTC. There isnt much recruiting literature for RTR reps, the club doesnt exactly give them a high profile.

I can see why Sustrans have more volunteers, 20p/mile on your bike and reasonable expenses re-imbursed. I dont suppose that the volunteers claim that much but at least they can if they want to.

I found the item below on the CTC web site.

The Council has concluded that today's CTC primarily exists to promote the benefits of cycling to society - whether individuals (our Members and beneficiaries) or wider society - and to use changes in legislation to become wholly charitable is a really important statement of CTC’s intent which will further achievement of our ambitions for cycling.


I can not understand how any member only part of the CTC, Web site, membership groups and other things benefit the rest of society.

I underlined the part above that does seem to be a change of direction. Is it that all parts of the CTC will be for the use of all of society.

Edwards wrote:The Council has concluded that today's CTC primarily exists to promote the benefits of cycling to society - whether individuals (our Members and beneficiaries) or wider society - and to use changes in legislation to become wholly charitable is a really important statement of CTC’s intent which will further achievement of our ambitions for cycling.

It doesn't make sense to me. Why does the CTC need to promote the benefits of cycling to it's members who are presumably already active cyclists well aware of the benefits.

So I'm paying my memberships fees to an organisation where providing membership services is a secondary objective?

The CTC's first objective should be to provide member services with benefits to wider society being incidental.

I don't need charity and I think all tax breaks whether for charity or other reasons should be targetted at people who need them.

there's some rather inelegant gymnastics going on to make a case that this, that and the other is 'charitable'. The stark fact is that we only get the giftaid if member benefits are confined to 25% of the subs. That's about nine quid.

I'm waiting for the publication of the tax advice that Council received last month, and led to tears, a walk-out, and general panic, with people suggesting that it be 'summarised' to the membership. I understand it's being edited for 'commercial confidentiality'.

Good here, isn't it? Bet you never thought you joined a club that kept information secret on grounds of 'commercial confidentiality'.

The AGM proposals from Council in support of the unified charity option will build a stronger and more open CTC with better governance and membership control over the full range of our activities.

If the above is realy meant why the secrets?

Another Moral Question?

.

"However, this is not absolute – HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) allow benefits of up to 25% of a donation to be given to the donor. If CTC becomes a charity, CTC will need to agree with HMRC what the value of CTC membership benefits given to members is. We will also need members to elect to tell us that they are UK taxpayers where appropriate. "

Does that mean that 25% is the maximum amount of the annual sub that can be used for member services?

Or can the sub be split into donation and subscription parts?

Maybe it would have been simpler if the CTC had just paid the stamp duty and capital gains tax when moving into the new HQ. At least we'd still own the building!

irc wrote:"However, this is not absolute – HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) allow benefits of up to 25% of a donation to be given to the donor. If CTC becomes a charity, CTC will need to agree with HMRC what the value of CTC membership benefits given to members is. We will also need members to elect to tell us that they are UK taxpayers where appropriate. "

Does that mean that 25% is the maximum amount of the annual sub that can be used for member services?

Or can the sub be split into donation and subscription parts?

If the whole of the annual sub is treated as a "donation" for Gift Aid purposes, then yes, no more than 25% can be returned in member benefits. (That's slightly different from the CTC spending 25% on member services, though - see below.)

Yes, the sub can be split into donation and subscription parts, in which case the CTC can only claim Gift Aid on the donation part. This is all explained quite well on the HMRC website.

Now, here's the catch. As HMRC says (my emphasis):

"The value of a benefit is always the value to the recipient, not the cost to your charity... of providing the benefit."
"For many benefits the value is simply the retail value of the item or service. For example if a donor receives a free theatre ticket, the value of the benefit is the face value of the ticket. Where a retail value can't be found, your charity... must work out how much someone would be prepared to pay for the item or services - looking at similar commercial transactions will help."

So take, say, third-party insurance cover, which we get as a member benefit. The value of that as a benefit, for HMRC's purposes, is based on what you or I would have to pay elsewhere to get similar cover - not on what it costs the CTC to provide that cover. Third-party cover costs the CTC, very roughly, a couple of quid per member. (About £140K in total, according to the accounts.) If I were to try and get equivalent third-party insurance on the open market, it would probably cost substantially more: let's be modest and say about £5 a year. The value of that benefit to me as a member should then be calculated as £5, not the £2 it actually cost the CTC. And of course that, on its own, would be a substantial chunk of that 25% of the membership fee.

It has to be said that many charities, including some big ones, get away with flouting the Gift Aid rules quite blatantly. I wouldn't like to see the CTC risk that though.