Another company gains the Mark of Fair Tax!

Silveta Ltd.

I think a hearty round of applause is due here.

24 thoughts on “Another company gains the Mark of Fair Tax!”

  1. How many companies are going to shell out the £200+ fee? I expect RM will hand out a few freebies to get the ball rolling, but will there be any actual paying customers?

  2. Bloke – Yes I’m aware of that, but I meant the real RM. Do Tim’s readers think companies will actually buy into this, or will they just ignore it?

  3. @Andrew M ‘Bloke – Yes I’m aware of that, but I meant the real RM. Do Tim’s readers think companies will actually buy into this, or will they just ignore it?’

    When the mob are staging sit-ins and smashing up premises, a small amount of protection money can seem like good value.

  4. From the Fair Tax Scorecard:

    3. Is there clear reference to a trading address (as opposed to a registered office, or a statement that they are the same) in the accounts?

    4. Is it clear who the ultimate beneficial owners of all shareholdings of more than 10% in the company are, either from statements in the accounts or at Companies House?
    Note: disclosure of beneficial ownership of shareholdings will be a legal requirement at some time during 2014 and the criteria to be used in law are to be applied here, with judgment being exercised in the meantime.

    From the terms and conditions on the Fair Tax website: http://www.fairtaxmark.net/t-cs/

    The term “the Fair Tax Mark” or “us” or “we” refers to the owner of the website whose registered office is Unit 21, 41 Old Birley Street, Manchester, M15 5RF, UK. Company Number: [in process]. The term “you” refers to the user or viewer of our website.

    There is a registered but not a trading office of some unknown person without a company number. All you need to know is it is ‘us’ or ‘we’.

    Too funny. Satire is dead.

  5. Company Number: [in process]

    It took me less than 4 hours to register a company on 7 Jan this year (that’s to receiving the email from Companies House with the Company Registered Number.) First time I’ve done it too. It is neither a hard nor a lengthy process.

  6. …and as pointed out elsewhere here, on the contact page:

    Telephone: 0161 226 2929
    Fax: 0161 226 6277
    Post: Fair Tax Mark c/o ECRA publishing Ltd Unit 21, 41 Old Birley Street, Manchester, M15 5RF, UK

    Companies House says the company is closed:

    Name & Registered Office:
    ECRA PUBLISHING LIMITED
    UNIT 21
    41 OLD BIRLEY STREET
    MANCHESTER
    M15 5RF
    Company No. 02329353

    Status: Converted / Closed 28/10/2008
    Date of Incorporation: 19/12/1988

    Country of Origin: United Kingdom
    Company Type: Converted/Closed
    Nature of Business (SIC):
    2213 – Publish journals & periodicals
    7240 – Data base activities
    Accounting Reference Date: 31/03
    Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/03/2007 (TOTAL EXEMPTION FULL)
    Next Accounts Due:
    Last Return Made Up To: 14/07/2008
    Next Return Due:

    Ritchie says 500,000 companies disappear without paying tax, seems this one is trading when closed!

  7. Noel/SE, I write public sector tenders for a living and issues of fairness, equal treatment, transparency are never far from our minds. (You might scoff, but we do try our best, at least in the engine room).

    I don’t think Murphy would understand any of these concepts if it bit him in the arse.

    It just seems he and his mates are handing out a standard to their mates but not to their panto villains. In return for cash. And that’s it. Murphy Richards has nailed it.

    The criteria seem subjective in some parts. Who decides whether they have been met? It seems too easy to pass one of your mates, reject one of your panto villains.

    How are assessors hired? Is there a published criteria, which is properly enforced? Could Worstall get a job there? If Murphy’s personal animosity is enough to keep him out, then it is indeed a job for his mates.

    How are assessors supervised to ensure competence, independence, probity (i.e. they are not getting bungs)?

    How is work allocated between assessors to ensure those who toe the line can’t be rewarded with more work?

    Is there an independent appeals process if an applicant feels it was wrongly denied the mark? Is there a commitment for Fair Tax Mark to openly publish its own mistakes if an appeal is upheld?

    Tim Hunt (on their ‘team’) has a clear bee in his bonnet about Amazon. With him involved, Amazon cannot hope for fair treatment in this. Why should any other applicant expect fair treatment?

  8. Surreptitious Evil
    February 21, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    Company Number: [in process]

    It took me less than 4 hours to register a company on 7 Jan this year (that’s to receiving the email from Companies House with the Company Registered Number.) First time I’ve done it too. It is neither a hard nor a lengthy process.

    Give him he a chance he only register the domain on 4 Jan 2013 and he’s a very busy man with the the world to save. Anyway, registering companies is the first step towards tax avoidance and we wouldn’t want him to risk that slippery slope would we?

  9. Absolutely excellent. I take my hat off to Murphy Richards.

    Ritchie must be foaming at the mouth.

    But what would be new?

  10. From the Fair Tax site:

    Richard Murphy – Technical Director / Founder
    Richard Murphy is a chartered accountant and economist. A graduate in economics and accountancy from Southampton University, he was articled to Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co in London. He subsequently founded a firm of accountants in London. In parallel with his practice career, Richard was chairman, chief executive or finance director of more than ten SMEs.

    So they are happy to be liars too. I thought Muprhy said he dropped out of economics and he makes great play that he isn’t an economist as they all know nothing about real life – unlike accountants.

  11. @SMBL

    I don’t think he left, I think he just says he decided that what he was being taught was a neoliberal view of the world or something. Mind you, he said that about his A-levels as well so he seems not to be too sure.

    Of course the funny one is this:

    “In parallel with his practice career, Richard was chairman, chief executive or finance director of more than ten SMEs.”

    – the accountancy firm was sold when taper relief meant CGT was effectively 10%, something he campaigns against now.
    – the accountancy firm was sold because the partners had developed different interests (not his divorce from one of those partners of course!)

    The 10 SMEs includes:
    – the Trivial Pursuit selling operation that licensed its IP from Barbados – he says he is now ashamed of this and this taught him something
    – the Irish company that was set up for tax avoidance – he says he is now ashamed of this and this taught him something
    – a tech company set up by the same guy as the Trivial Pursuit operation, later sold for £28m to Yahoo. Except of course Ritchie was just the accountant, left 6 years before when turnover was less than £200K
    – ran some family owned companies during their divorces, as he was their accountant
    – a dance school converted into a charity

    Ritchie just hangs on to the work of others and doesn’t risk any of his own capital. Not really an entrepreneur then.

  12. “In parallel with his practice career, Richard was chairman, chief executive or finance director of more than ten SMEs.”

    So an accountant whose experience extends to advising actors and who has only worked in a few SMEs is now going to “approve” the tax position of companies with turnovers in the billions, tens of thousands of employees etc.

    Is this just a teeny, tiny bit out of his area of “expertise”?

    I changed a wheel on my car a few years ago – do you think Rolls Royce will object if I “approve” their jet engine manufacturing?

  13. And further, these companies will have finance teams with literally hundreds of people, as well as external advisors.

    The companies that audit them will have audit teams with a few dozen people in them, and access to the full underlying figures.

    Yet Ritchie and his three “campaigning” mates aim to grant these fair tax mark indulgences to how many companies a year?

  14. We can predict that with 100% accuracy, the number will be exactly the same as the number of companies who pay for the mark.

  15. We can predict that with 100% accuracy, the number will be exactly the same as the number of companies who pay for the mark.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *