Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corporation tax
Self-nomination. No comments from peer review, or from a shameless bit of advertising on Jimbo's talk page, though I did receive his best wishes for the article in return:) Would welcome all comments needed to make this a FA. jguk 16:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Object, I think the first thing you need to do is move it. I see that it started life as a stub about corporation tax in general, with the UK situation only an "example", but was shorn of non-UK material (admittedly there wasn't a lot of it) by you on December 4. I can't say I approve of narrowing a general subject in this way. Was there any particular reason why you took over the general article, rather than create a specific and appropriately named UK article? It's fine to have an article about ct in the UK, but not so fine to imply that being in the UK is part of the definition of ct. Heck, what am I saying, "imply"? Your first sentence defines the concept of ct as "a direct tax levied in the United Kingdom". That's not a correct definition.--Bishonen | Talk 21:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)- The reason all the old material disappeared is because it was either incorrect or of little value. Austria, Germany, France and the Netherlands have taxes with different names, which do not belong under "corporation tax" (I have moved the older article to corporate tax). Admittedly some other territories, such as Ireland, also have a tax called "Corporation tax", which don't yet have an article. I would have no objection to renaming the article UK Corporation tax, however, if that were the general consensus. Do you have any objections other than the name (which can be easily dealt with)? jguk 15:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'd be interested to see more practical info in the reference section about how to access your refs. Are those acts and documents available online thorugh the Inland Revenue website (or otherwise)? I wasn't able to get anywhere on that website itself--admittedly that could be me (it happens to me at lot). But it seems to be necessary to register and then await some sort of code sent by snailmail. It looked to me like this cumbersome registration process would only work for UK residents ("The Government Gateway uses the postal address registered on the Inland Revenue systems to send you confirmation of your User ID and your service Activation PIN"), and without registration there was nothing doing. Could you explain to me if I just got lost, and there's a better way? If the site is only accessible to UK residents, and the other references are only available through the site, you would need to acknowledge the fact and add some refs for international readers, naturally. But I'm very willing to believe the problem comes from my limited Internet skills, please clear it up for me.--Bishonen | Talk 16:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)- I've improved the links (so that where something is available online, there is now a link to it). I've changed the link to the Inland Revenue website too: it now points directly to the corporation tax section. I think you must have been clicking on the bit to register to pay corporation tax (which is very decent of you, but may not be necessary:). ) jguk 17:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- But I wanna! Sheesh. OK, now they're lovely references, thanks. I'll leave the objection about the name, to tip other people off to think about it, but I'll remove it later if nobody else sees a problem there.--Bishonen | Talk 17:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I've moved it to United Kingdom corporation tax (with Corporation tax redirecting there), jguk 18:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- But I wanna! Sheesh. OK, now they're lovely references, thanks. I'll leave the objection about the name, to tip other people off to think about it, but I'll remove it later if nobody else sees a problem there.--Bishonen | Talk 17:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I've improved the links (so that where something is available online, there is now a link to it). I've changed the link to the Inland Revenue website too: it now points directly to the corporation tax section. I think you must have been clicking on the bit to register to pay corporation tax (which is very decent of you, but may not be necessary:). ) jguk 17:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The reason all the old material disappeared is because it was either incorrect or of little value. Austria, Germany, France and the Netherlands have taxes with different names, which do not belong under "corporation tax" (I have moved the older article to corporate tax). Admittedly some other territories, such as Ireland, also have a tax called "Corporation tax", which don't yet have an article. I would have no objection to renaming the article UK Corporation tax, however, if that were the general consensus. Do you have any objections other than the name (which can be easily dealt with)? jguk 15:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. It's actually interesting up to the detailed schedules ;-) - David Gerard 14:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I think it should be mentioned somewhere that for a long time, the small companies rate of Corporation tax was kept in line with the base rate of income tax. Otherside, support. Dbiv 15:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I've added a new subsection to the history bit that covers rates, including the pegging of the small companies' rate to the basic rate of income tax, jguk 21:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The redirect at Corporation tax needs to be taken care of--Jiang 03:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I thought I had dealt with it. Maybe you could comment on the talk page if you think more needs doing, jguk 21:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- it's still a redirect, which defeats the purpose of the move --Jiang 00:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- {{sofixit}}. This is about United Kingdom corporation tax, not Corporation tax. James F. (talk) 10:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- As this is unrelated to the content of this article, I've replied on Talk:Corporation tax jguk 12:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- {{sofixit}}. This is about United Kingdom corporation tax, not Corporation tax. James F. (talk) 10:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- it's still a redirect, which defeats the purpose of the move --Jiang 00:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I thought I had dealt with it. Maybe you could comment on the talk page if you think more needs doing, jguk 21:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Object for now - an excellent start, but (from a quick review) there are some significant holes: (i) nothing about loss relief (particularly group relief); (ii) nothing about the expanding effect of recent ECJ judgments in recent years (e.g. amendments to group relief in response to ICI v. Colmer; Hoechst and Metallgesellschaft finding that ACT was discriminatory soon after it was abolished; and amendments to thin capitalisation and transfer pricing in response to Bosal Holdings and Lankhorst-Hohorst) and the potential ramifications of upcoming judgments (particularly the Marks & Spencer cross border loss relief case); (iii) example calculations would be helpful to explain how the marginal rate regimes work to effectively "catch up" on the corporation tax due; (iv) nothing on the new rate for non-corporate distributions (under which small companies effectively pay 19% on profits distributed to individuals, reducing the tax advantage of trading through a small company); and (v) the electronic references are fine, but surely there should be some paper references - there are dozens sitting only a few feet from me right now.
- I've been away over the holiday period, and would really like to give the article a proper review when I have time over the next couple of days. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- (i) I've added something on group relief (please feel free to simplify/tweak). Loss relief more generally is too complicated for a short article - I've added a link to a more comprehensive article, which can be written up later. (ii) I've added a section on ECJ judgments (iii) Don't know what you mean here by "effectively "catch[ing] up" on the corporation tax due" - though I'm seeing if I can add an example computation in (iv) have now made a reference to this under "Rates" (v) There's so much on the net in the world of tax, I haven't found anything I can only source for which I can't give an online reference - and most people find these more useful. I could refer to Simon's, but those who would read it are already aware of it. (vi) Let me know the outcome of your review - or just make the changes to the article yourself (it could do with more active contributors to it), jguk 21:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)