Customize

Is COSRECI eligible to be registered as a charity in the UK?

Discussion in 'Scientology Property Tax' started by RolandRB, Aug 26, 2011.

  1. RolandRB Member

    I think it might be useful if the could find out from the Charity Commission for England and Wales whether COSRECI would be eligible to register as a charity with them.

    http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Publications/cc21.aspx#32

    If they say "no" then we have the same problem we have now. But if they say "yes" then it would mean that they could not use their old excuse any more and that they have chosen not to register.

    Could somebody take this up as a project?
  2. RolandRB Member

    The main stuff is here:

    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/50365/response/133902/attach/html/4/20101216 FOI Response Appendix A.pdf.html

    What became of this?
    Email from Charity Commission to Camden Council dated 03/11/2009
    .......
    If there is evidence that the organisation were claiming to be a Charity regulated by the
    laws of England and Wales the compliance division would consider the evidence further,
    or if the organisation were required to register but was refusing to do so the compliance
    team would engage with them. Neither of these would be matters for the registration
    division.
    I hope this information assists you.
    Email from Camden Council to Charity Commission dated 03/11/2009
    Thank you very much for your response which is very helpful. The Church of Scientology
    are indeed claiming in their correspondence to us that they are a Charity regulated by the
    laws of England and Wales (despite being incorporated abroad originally), and are using
    this to justify the assertion that they should be granted mandatory rate relief as a charity
    by the London Borough of Camden. With that in mind would you be able to give me the
    contact details of a senior advisor within the compliance division?
    I look forward to hearing from you, and thank you again.
    Email from Charity Commission to Camden Council dated 03/11/2009
    If you forward your concerns in writing to the address below I will ensure that they are
    aware that you will be contacting them;
    Jacqui Seatle Assessment and Intelligence Manager
    Charity Commission Direct
    PO Box 1227,
    Liverpool L69 3UG
  3. RolandRB Member

    ^^^
    WT - have you got this covered?

    Yes, you have.

    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/enquiries_from_local_authorities

    But we never found out if COSRECI was governed by English law which is the one thing we need to know.

    The must have sent a response to Camden Council though. They will have been told one way or the other and I think they were from the following because the letter dated 4th November 2009 will be the one sent to .....

    Jacqui Seatle Assessment and Intelligence Manager
    Charity Commission Direct

    Email from Charity Commission dated 24/11/2009
    Please find enclosed a response to your letter dated 4th November 2009.
    Email from Camden Council to Charity Commission dated 24/11/2009
    Thank you for your letter, the contents of which are extremely helpful.

    I just fired off a new one to see if we can get this one piece of information.
    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/decision_on_status_of_cosreci_in/new
  4. RolandRB Member

    1Meaning of “charity”E+W+S+N.I.

    This section has no associated Explanatory Notes

    (1)For the purposes of the law of England and Wales, “charity” means an institution which—

    (a)is established for charitable purposes only, and

    (b)falls to be subject to the control of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction with respect to charities.

    The above is from the Charities Act 2006.

    From the information in the first post then if they satisfy the second condition then they have to register with the Charity Commission for England and Wales and of course, they will be turned down.

    On the other hand, if they do not satisfy the second condition then they are not a charity by definition so they can't be given mandatory rates relief.
  5. RolandRB Member

    Trying to get useful information out of government and quasi government organisations is like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone. It is most definitely in the public interest to know whether COSRECI is falls under the English courts. If it does then they should have registered with the charities commission and chose not to do so so not eligible for mandatory relief and if it falls outside English law then they are not a charity according to English law and so not eligible for mandatory rates relief.
  6. It would not be eligible for registration as a UK charity.

    We have this in a letter from the Charity Commission to (I think) one of the local authorities involved (possibly Camden?), which says that the Charity Commission considers that its 1999 decision on Church of Scientology (UK) Ltd applies also to Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc (COSREC).

    The letter is hiding in the depths of WDTK somewhere.
  7. RolandRB Member

    This is a different issue. I want to know if they are eligible to even apply since they are registered in South Australia and so maybe do not fall under the jurisdiction of English courts.
  8. Considering they started with COS(UK) Ltd, they don't really have that excuse.

    And if (as SciRep Massimo said to the City of London) it's true that the decision is faulty because "the Charity Commissioners don't know anything about religion" then their decision would be vulnerable on Judicial Review - a route which Scientology has chosen not to take (because they'd lose).
  9. TinyDancer Member

    The section has explanatory notes here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/50/notes/division/4/1/1

    "Section 1(1)(b) excludes institutions outside England and Wales from the scope of charity as defined by the Act since the jurisdiction of the High Court extends only to England and Wales."

    I expect that, due to its registration as a foreign company, COSRECI does fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. RolandRB Member

    In which case it is not a charity under English law and not entitled to mandatory non-domestic rates relief.

    The point is that they are insisting that they are "established for charitable purpose" and insisting the English courts have power over them (needed in the definition of "established") but claiming they do not have to register as they are a foriegn charity. UK charities that earn the amount they earn are required by law to register. They should either be made to apply for registration (and get turned down) as an English charity or they are not a charity by definition and therefore not entitled to mandatory rates relief.

    Camden wrote to the CC but the answer they were seeking got lost or at least we don't have it.
  11. AIN Member

    Maybe we should go about this the other way. Ask the Aussie government if it has juristidiction.
  12. RolandRB Member

    Excellent idea!!

    Who can do this?

    If we can get this clarified then they just lost their rates relief in England.
  13. AIN Member

    Senator Xeno perhaps?
  14. why?
  15. AIN Member

    Yes, I blanked on his name.
    In short, if they don't fall under British juristidiction, they can't be considered a charity.
  16. Counsel to City of London gave the legal opinion that foreign charities would be eligible for rates relief.

    COSREC is, of course, not an Australian charity. It claims to be 'for charitable purposes'. But these claims are untested in Australia.

    If Xenophon gets his way then Australia will establish a charity commission, the new AU charity commission will declare that Scientology is not a charity, and UK Scientology will transfer its activities to a new 'flag of convenience' jurisdiction.

    Perhaps Bolivia this time.
  17. RolandRB Member

    Because if they are not subject to the English courts then they are not a "charity" according to the English law definition and therefore not entitled to mandatory rates relief.

    But if they are subject to the English courts then they have a legal duty to apply for registration which will then get turned down and as a result of being turned down then they are not eligible for mandatory rates relief.

    Both ways they lose.
  18. RolandRB Member

    Bulgaria might be better. Bribe people there and use EU law to demand rates relief in England.
  19. RolandRB Member

    They might be under EU law but then South Australia is not in the EU. But if the law says that they are not a charity then they must not be given mandatory rates relief by law and the CoLCorp has to comply. The CoLCorp would argue that the law is written that way and they were following the law and had no choice and so they would win. COSRECI would then have to take the UK government to court to get it reversed and then the government has to pay if they lose, not the CoLCorp.

    But if it is decided that they are an English charity then COSRECI has got to get over the hurdle of applying to the CC and being turned down and then they would have to reapply for rates relief to the CoLCorp on the basis that they are an English charity that was turned down by the CC and the CoLCorp would be in their rights to refuse them on that basis. COSRECI might take them to court then but the focus would be on the UK government. And bear in mind that they were refused it in Camden and Mid-Sussex.
  20. Anonymous Member

    That's not my understanding of the Local Government Finance Act.

    God, it's thrilling here on the Internet, isn't it. I never remember reading any science fiction stories which featured detailed debate of the LGFA.

    Anyway...

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/41/part/III

    so okay but hang on, I'm fairly sure it used to say something like this

    http://www.winchester.gov.uk/General.asp?id=SX9452-A781A8A1

    i.e. 'charitable purposes' but not necessarily a registered charity.

    Has it been amended when we weren't looking?
  21. Anonymous Member

  22. RolandRB Member

    They might have "principal regulators".
    http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Start_up_a_charity/Do_I_need_to_register/regreq.aspx

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmgeneral/deleg11/110711/110711s01.htm

    Maybe David Miscavige is a "principal regulator" coz he sure kicks ass and when he wants to spend some time down the casinos then he seems to find the money from somewhere to play with.
  23. RolandRB Member

    Yes. The Charities Act 2006 changed the legal definition of "charity" (actually just clarified it due to Dreyfus) in that the charity had to be subject to the English courts.
  24. This bit presumably?

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/50/section/1
  25. RolandRB Member

  26. But DCLG's view is that section 67(10) of LGFA 'contains the definition of a charity for the purposes of that Act'.
    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/45806/response/119088/attach/2/Document.pdf

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/41/section/67

    Would that it were otherwise.
  27. RolandRB Member

    I pointed out to Mr McDonald plus the person he sent the letter to his error in that "established for charitable purposes" changed its meaning with the Dreyfus case in that from that judgement onwards it meant also that it had to be under the jurisdiction of the English courts. The judgment was in 1954 so was already in effect when the LGFA went into the statute books.
  28. Got link to Dreyfus? I'm guessing not Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation v IRC [1956] AC 39
  29. RolandRB Member

    yes, that one.
  30. Dreyfus superceded by Hein Persche v Finanzamt Ludenscheid ECJ
    http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm11112.htm
  31. RolandRB Member

    It would be but that act applies to central government and not local government. They work off two definitions - one for central government and one for local government. Which is mad when you consider that local government sends all the non-domestic rates to central government.
  32. RolandRB Member

    Don't mix up the Finance Acts with the Local Government Finance Acts because they use two different definitions of a "charity". Finance Acts use one definition. Local Government Finance Acts use another.
  33. Explanatory notes

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/13/notes/division/1/30

  34. You're saying Hein Persche v Finanzamt Ludenscheid ECJ doesn't supercede Dreyfus for the purpose of the LGFA?

    doxes pls? y not?
  35. RolandRB Member

    Correct. Finance Acts do not affect Local Government Finance Acts although an "Act" can affect both. But Finance Acts can refine definitions from Acts as can Local Government Finance Acts. That's just the way it works in the UK.
  36. But I'm saying, not the Finance Act, but the Persche case law in ECJ.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins