A political party gets the Fair Tax Mark?

The Co-operative Party has received a clean bill of health in its tax affairs, becoming the first political party in the UK to be awarded the Fair Tax mark for tax transparency.


It has for some time been agreed with HM Revenue & Customs that the
Party is taxed in accordance with ‘the mutuality principle’. What this, in effect,
means is that the Party is seen as the representative of its members in
undertaking activity on their behalf. The tax consequence is that the income
received from members, including for supplying services to them, is not
considered taxable. Nor is any tax relief given on any spending undertaken
to supply this activity. The result is that much of the activity of the Party is
outside the scope of corporation tax.

So it’s taxed as with an LLP, it’s tax transparent and, err, doesn’t pay tax?


Corporation tax 9 (75)

err, yes, that’s 75.00 GBP. Presumably the tax on the 375.00 GBP of interest received.

Ritchie must be so proud of landing this client.

29 thoughts on “A political party gets the Fair Tax Mark?”

  1. It is also effectively a branch of the Labour Party. From bitter experience of working for the Co-operative Bank, I would not trust this lot to sit the right way on a lavatory and were they to tell me the sky was blue I would get a second opinion.

  2. I used my Co-Op membership (the food retailer, not the party) to vote that the Co-Op should delink from the Co-Op Party and fund any organisation that persues policies the Co-Op believes in, not just pick one that it hopes will persue policies it beleives in.

  3. It’s not tax transparent like an LLP, it’s taxed as a corporation.

    The thing that gets it out of (most of) the CT bill is that it’s not carrying on a taxable business: it’s just spending the money that party members put in the pot, on their behalf.

  4. so an organisational structure that minimises the entities exposure to tax liability isn’t an impediment to receiving a fair tax mark
    Have to wonder though what the point is giving it to what is effectively a tax exempt organisation.

  5. “Have to wonder though what the point is giving it to what is effectively a tax exempt organisation.”

    Because they are absolutely desperate to get people signed up. 11 months of the 3 year business plan left and 17 out of the 350 target companies signed up.

  6. I wonder if Tax Research LLP has tried to obtain the ‘accreditation’? It’s not on the list…

  7. It’s not the structure that reduces the liability, it’s the fact that it’s not doing anything taxable, except receiving a little bit of bank interest.

  8. …and no onward chain, so Ritchie has enough liquid cash to buy another property without selling this one (which itself was bought without mortgage).

    Yes, Ritchie is 1%-er.

  9. I’m wondering if the Co-operative Party is covered by the principle of mutuality or is instead engaged in mutual trading. I’m wondering even more if the director of the Fair Tax Mark and Tax Research UK is even aware of a difference.

  10. “so Ritchie has enough liquid cash to buy another property without selling this one”

    Well not necessarily. Sell-rent-buy is a smart option for those able to stomach moving twice. It helps get a better deal on both sides.

    That’s not to say he’s not the 1% though. Of course he is. Possibly by both income AND net wealth. But we knew that anyway.

    (I might ordinarily think it a bit off to go linking to that listing… but as, I think, we’re pretty sure that he was behind dobbing a critical blogger in to said blogger’s employer… everything is fair game)

  11. The Thought Gang

    Yes indeed he was. Though he denied it passionately, he had been complaining about this blogger publicly for some time and using the blogger’s professional membership and employment as the stick. The message was being sent out. He also somehow managed to announce it even before the blogger did.

    So he is definitely fair game. Except of course double standards help him not to see it that way.

  12. He puts his address on his website, so it’s not giving any personal details away.

    But 7 bedrooms (including the annex); it’s hardly living simply and keeping a low carbon footprint, is it?

  13. “Socially … we see benefits from a move”

    He’s fallen out with all his old neighbours so wants to try a new set?

  14. Wonder what percentage he claimed was business use to get expenses for income tax, and what percentage he’ll admit to for capital gains tax on the sale?

  15. @Richard,

    0%. He claimed that the “office” was a “shed” and stored gardening tools and a model railways so was just a home office.

    I did manage to get him to get his local council to charge band A council tax on the annexe though (previously nothing), so I am a good tax campaigner myself!

  16. I can’t download the floorplans, but I assume the last 2 photos on the estate agents’ website are the annex. It looks like a dedicated office to me, no evidence of train sets and gardening tools there.

    I wonder why he is moving. Ely is a bit closer to London if he is hoping for a job there, or maybe the schools are better?

  17. I notice the house benefits from income from solar panelling, a quires when the higher feed -in tariffs were available. The man who denounces ‘corporate subsidies’ and of calls tax relief on pension contributions a subsidy has no problem with subsidy.

    And if course the huge tax – free capital gain he is about to enjoy in the house, that’s not a subsidy, although ISAs definitely are.

  18. Noel Scoper said:
    “0%. He claimed that the “office” was a “shed” and stored gardening tools and a model railways so was just a home office.”

    Aye, but I bet he was claiming a proportion of the property costs as a business expense for income tax. And for the LLP.

    Perfectly legal of course; different definitions for income tax and CGT. But since when was legality an excuse Murphy accepted for tax planning?

  19. BF

    is the full domain name

    Yes, that’s right.

    Just google “taxbolloxresearch” and it’s the first link that comes up…

  20. Perhaps the Old Orchard should be bought by some charitable trust somewhere for the nation? A great man once lived there.

    Would also not surprise me if one day Norfolk CC affixed a blue plaque to its wall.

Leave a Reply

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