Stirrings in the Blondosphere
While checking to see whether Respublica Policy Limited (company number 06974842) had filed its Companies House return yet (nope), I noticed that Respublica Public Policy Limited had somehow disappeared from the WebCheck register. How odd. Readers may recall that RPL is a company limited by shares, RPPL is a company limited by guarantee, and that "Res Publica"[1], Philip Blond's thinktank, is according to its website "a trading name" for both companies. I did not understand at the time why a thinktank would have two legal entities behind it and still don't, beyond my speculation that RPL might be there for things like conferences and publishing which could reasonably be expected to make a profit.
Anyway, from now on I'm definitely going to be noting numbers as well as names of thinktank entities. Checking through "former names" on the CH search reveals that RPPL is number 07081565, and changed its name yesterday to "The Respublica Trust". The website has not been updated yet to reflect this.
I think that what might have gone on here is that "Trust" is a reserved word in company names, and "Respublica Public Policy Limited" might have been a placeholder name while they convinced CH that this half of the thinktank was entitled to use it. But this does mean that Respublica has had the lawyers in and has been dealing with CH, making it that crucial little bit more irritating that RPL is still overdue on its return.
[1] There used to be a company called "Res Publica Limited", which does not appear to be related to the thinktank, and which was dissolved in August of this year.
I did not understand at the time why a thinktank would have two legal entities behind it and still don't, beyond my speculation that RPL might be there for things like conferences and publishing which could reasonably be expected to make a profit.
ReplyDeleteI'd guess it's for VAT purposes. As charities can't recover VAT ( as they make exempt supplies), it's common to have a separate trading entity that sells merchandising, organises conferences etc., recovers the input VAT thereon, and donates the profi- surplus to the charity.
Ahhh plausible. Although neither RPL nor TRT are registered charities, presumably the supply of Blond's opinions to a grateful nation is exempt in most circumstances.
ReplyDeleteBut this makes it a bit more imperative that RPL isn't sloppy about its accounting, because it's going to be claiming VAT refunds. The accounts aren't due for aaages, but the failure to file the return is a bit of a flag.
It's doubtful that the supply of opinions to a grateful nation would count as a business for VAT purposes (on similar logic as to why charities can't recover VAT) so the VAT principle should be the same.
ReplyDeleteUnlike direct tax compliance, VAT is fairly decoupled from the Companies House filing regime, so it's best not to assume failings in one necessarily mean failings elsewhere (given that VAT is the most strictly enforced compliance regime[1]).
ReplyDelete[1] Mainly because, as the enormous sums lost through MTIC fraud show, it's the easiest tax to fiddle.