Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Kingdom corporation tax

United Kingdom corporation tax
Self-nom. An article on a serious topic where Wikipedia currently has no FAs. I've reworked it extensively since its earlier nomination. I think it's now at FA status, jguk 18:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Support -- my concerns are taken care of. Comment -- 1) The first sentence is too long and should be simplified. Its winding for those like me not used to such jargon and should be split into two sentences. 2) mention something about how the tax is levied as opposed to VAT in the lead-in. This would help people like me (I know, you already told me :)) understand how this is applied.  3) I suggest that the history section be demoted so that I get to read more about the article instead of scrolling through the history.  == 18:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Now split into two. 2) I've added a bit under "assessment". Would it just be better to define "profits" though? 3) Demoted, jguk 18:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) You could mention something like: "Unlike the VAT, which is levied on the sale of goods, the Corporate Tax is levied on the net profits of the company. (Stupid readers like me would understand what sort of tax this is all about.) == 19:52, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * 2) I've amended the text along the lines you suggest in the "assessment" section, jguk 20:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Supported it last time and it's better since then. Dbiv 23:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Support - excellent bit of work. violet/riga (t) 14:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. Needs some minor copyediting (garbled text in "Relief for expenses" section, split of opening sentence mentioned above has left the "either" without an "or"). British English is of course correct, but I would recommend appropriate wikification when introducing British terms that are unfamiliar for US readers (e.g., accountancy, life assurance). A fair amount of specialized terminology may be comprehensible to an accountant, but this cannot be assumed for the general reader. Wikification would also help with this, and I took a brief stab at some of it. I recognize that the field overall is not covered in great detail, so I don't care if the links are red or blue. --Michael Snow 18:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I've altered the "relief for expenses" section and amended the first two sentences. I've wikified "life assurance" and "accountancy", both of which already have their own articles. I'm happy to wikify more words, but as I'm only familiar with UK English, you'll have to forgive me in that I do not know where US English uses different words. If you let me know, I'll happily wikify/explain them. The same goes for specialist terminology - it's more a case that I don't know what you don't know - but if you let me know, I'll tweak the article as appropriate. You are right, this is a poorly developed area of Wikipedia - it'd be good to get it represented by at least one featured article, and hopefully it will expand in due course, jguk 19:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That's all the specific British English I noticed. On specialist terminology, I've added a few links where I could find an article and recognize that it was generally on topic. Some examples of cases where I was hesitant, not knowing how best to go about it, mostly from the History section:
 * The introduction talks about capital gains, chargeable gains, capital profits, and capital receipts all so closely together that I wasn't sure what the respective significance of each term is, or how they are to be distinguished. "Capital gains tax" is already wikified, so I thought wikifying "capital gains" might be overkill, but the other terms are not necessarily transparent to the reader and the possible links don't elaborate adequately.
 * Toward the end of the section there's a reference to mark-to-market basis and realisation basis where I just have no idea what is meant, beyond my general understanding of the concept of basis.
 * I'd still encourage more wikification, even for financial terminology that may seem pretty basic, but if these specific points can be addressed I'm willing to support. --Michael Snow 20:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added a brief explanation of what "capital" is and removed some of the terms you refer to (which are more peripheral to the subject in hand).
 * I've explained what "mark-to-market" and "realisation" basis mean.
 * I've wikified more words. Many of these are to red links (however, that's more a testimony to this area of Wikipedia needing expansion rather than anything else), jguk 21:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice work, support. --Michael Snow 21:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak object . I find the tax avoidance part a little bit light; the intro part talks about "tax avoidance schemes marketed by the big accountancy and law firms and by banks" but this is not elaborated inside the article. Also, whether some of the schemes are "tax avoidance" or legitimate tax planning is debatable. Also, certain professions are not allowed to "market" schemes so the use of the term is not watertight. JuntungWu 12:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I've added to the section on "Avoidance" to explain what it is and who does it. Avoidance, by definition (and I have now added a definition to the article), is legitimate tax planning - so there is no debate on what is "avoidance" and what is legitimate tax planning: they are synonymous. I'm not aware of any professions who are not allowed to market tax avoidance schemes - if you have information to the contrary, please let me know, or, of course, feel free to be bold and add it to the article yourself:) jguk 17:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My comment was to do with prohibitions against "marketing" in general by certain professions. That's hair splitting so don't worry about it. Object withdrawn. JuntungWu 13:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Support, nicely-written article. Sunny Jim's owl eyebrows scared me, though, when I first clicked on ;) Mike H 13:38, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)