But in reality I'd likely have a lot less than 100 registrations a month. Maybe 30.Didn't realise that. When I've run a small business before/freelance work, your purchases and costs offset your profits. If it costs say £600 a year for server costs, email and software (including stock photos sometimes), and say £420 a year for age verification (35p per registration x 100 registrations a month). And you charge £1 per registration, giving an income of £1200 a year, Then costs are £1020 and income is £1200. So yes an income of £180 a year would be taxable. Any donations would also be classed as income if running it as a "business". In which case it might be simpler to charge 50p per registration
UK Online Safety Regulations and impact on Forums
- Thread starter lazy llama
- Start date
-
- Tags
- regulation
JamesBrown
Well-known member
Maybe not. But let's see how many growing, successful forums shut up shop. I haven't seen any yet. Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't any.
Meanwhile, If you hear of a growing, successful forum who throws in the towel because of this act, do let me know, so I can start a forum in it's place.
It will depend on the individual / their circumstances as to what tax brackets and rules they fall into.
Generally, for most people the trading allowance will give them the full tax relief on the first £1000 net profit if they are otherwise employed via PAYE. If you are self-employed then it will be deduced from your full self-employed income as well as the forum etc.
Yay UK tax rules.
Mr Lucky
Well-known member
HMRC say gross profit though, not gross income. My understanding is they are different.
BTW my link above in post #792 is from the hmrc forum, I hope they did a risk assessment.
Mr Lucky
Well-known member
Or just offer them a fiver for the database (and licence)
I think that comment goes for why some people decide to close a forum due to the OSA and others don't also @JamesBrown . Everyone's life is different. If you have a forum that has been set up for ages and ticking over nicely and minimal effort, then the OSA compliance might just be a step too far for some people in terms of time and costs and the added responsibility.
I am sure larger, profit-making forums will work something out. And others are heavily invested even if not profit-making. Everyone is different. I'm getting older and there are other things going on in the world and life. That doesn't mean I happily gave up the forum - I didn't want to, but made a decision based on what I could manage. However, I'm still looking into things. There may be others that start up again once they've gathered some resources and additional help perhaps.
If I don't get it going again I might sell the domain name - if anyone actually wanted to buy it. But my gut won't let me do that right now! It's mine!
Tbh I'd never heard of the trading allowance before. Just did a basic self-employment tax return. My forum was non profit making so wasn't relevant previously. I did wonder if donations should have been declared though. They were about £200 a year but I thought outgoings offset them. They were donations towards running costs and no profit involved.
I know about it now though! The trading allowance. And yes on gross income, not gross profit, as you say @Mr Lucky. Even so, if gross income was £1200 and the trading allowance is £1000 then the extra £200, even if declared, would be offset by costs. Profit and loss account. The trading allowance is just a bonus.
Mr Lucky
Well-known member
I still think it is gross profit as stated on the hmrc forum
Oh sorry, misread that then. So gross profit, not gross income - thanks.
It does say you can't claim any costs or allowances if you use the £1000 trading allowance. However they may not be much point using the £1000 trading allowance if you have high costs and low income and just treat it as a standard self assessment tax return. You can do either or by the sound of it.
wedgar
Well-known member
I have an accounting practice in the US. Haven’t any idea of UK tax laws. But figured there could be extra bookkeeping for the ID checks…
Well, Mr Anon, the info came via a trusted person on a closed industry forum. I have relayed the specific details that I am comfortable sharing considering that.
Either way, lets take your apparent view 'failing' websites are inconsequential to close, I personally think its a great loss if a decade or two of material is lost because of a bad law.
Mr Lucky
Well-known member
Closing a forum never needs to mean losing all the info as you can always keep the site open but read only. That way it is no longer subject to OSA but still has the value of the historic information archived until the end of time or until the apocalypse, whichever comes sooner.
I thought that too, but to do so would mean ensuring no clickable links could be clicked on in any post. I kept my home page online and removed all clickable hyperlinks - I just typed the web address instead, so it could be copied but not clicked on.
With no user to user interaction and no clickable links, it doesn't come under the remit of the OSA. I believe if it has clickable links it still has to comply with the OSA even if read-only (because it isn't just read-only if it has interactive links).
This includes no sharing links or other links that lead outside the site.
Minimal if it's a non profit making site generally
chillibear
Well-known member
For the curious they ended up fining them £1,050,000 for failing to provide accurate information in the end. Does make one wonder about the liability mentioned earlier. Ofcom felt they should have detected the inaccurate information (it took them 16 months before it became apparent), but it's not clear how it became apparent or indeed if it was possible for them to know it was inaccurate before they "found out", I think possibly they could have - reading between the lines (since they then adjusted the age level). That would have been quite interesting to know a bit more of the detail.Obviously this is a high risk site but some info about accepted age verification software. Ofcom investigating them. I'm still hoping something makes it easier to run my sites again in future and possibly start up again. What we need is some bright opensource geek to make free ofcom approved age verification software IMO! Quickly!
It does suggest Ofcom are only going to go after the serious stuff - unless someone makes a complaint possibly.
Ofcom investigates OnlyFans’ age verification measures
Ofcom has today opened an investigation into whether OnlyFans is doing enough to prevent children accessing pornography on its site.www.ofcom.org.uk
OnlyFans: government-approved ID tech at heart of Ofcom investigation
An investigation has been launched into the age verification practices of OnlyFans, handled by government-approved digital ID startup Yoti.www.uktech.news
I don't think a webpage with hyperlinks falls under the remit of the OSA. Otherwise literally every website hosted in the UK and every website accessed by a "significant" number of UK citizens would be cover, no matter if that was Amazon or Wikipedia, a random blog, someone's homepage about their cat. Odds are there will be a hyperlink on that page somewhere. So as far as I can see a "dead" forum where all user-interaction has been removed (and I suppose ideally user login) wouldn't count since there could be no user to user interaction. However I am not a lawyer so may well be wrong.
Well it came up when I did an Ofcom checker thing. The questions - do you have this this or this? And one question was hyperlinks that lead elsewhere. I said "no" to user to user interaction (for a read only page) and it came up with other questions. If I put yes to hyperlinks it came under the act. If I put no to hyperlinks it didn't come under the act.
I'm trying to find it again now. There seems to be more than one checker.
I'm trying to find it again now. There seems to be more than one checker.
Last edited:
A million! For having a user age of 22 was it? When they thought they had set it for 25. Yet the Age Id from some services says it may not be exact. If you put in 25 it may come up with 22 sometimes - so they recommended putting in a higher age than you want. (Don't have the link now). What is wrong with 22? So basically they've been fined for inaccurate records even though they had age ID for over 18?