The Teacher's Tale

This is Christopher Chadwick, who was employed as an English teacher in Poland for a period of four and a half years, until his dismissal in September 2005, of which he had been informed in May. It was the end of his contract but, as Christopher quickly established, non-renewal of a contract of more than one year is regarded as dismissal in English law, and he of course asked to know what the reasons for his dismissal were (suspecting that, whatever the reasons given, it was probably because he had acted as staff representative and queried his tax status). He was not convinced by the answers he got, and in any case the British Council had not followed the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedure outlined in Schedule 2 to the Employment Act 2002.

So Christopher, whose contract with the BC was specifically governed by English law, filed for unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal. The British Council defended its position on the basis that the relevant legislation did not apply outside the UK, and the tribunal Chairman eventually ruled that Christopher was employed by a separate entity in Poland. In December 2005, therefore, Christopher issued a complaint through the Polish courts, where the British Council’s defence was that they had no separate presence in Poland and consequently no legal capacity. Neat or what?

Nevertheless, in November 2007, to the dismay of our very own “cultural relations” agency, a Polish judge ruled that the British Council presence in Poland does have the status of an employer and so falls within the jurisdiction of the Polish courts. The British Council has appealed against the decision.

Of course this sort of doublethink is the British Council’s stock-in-trade.  The British Council offers exclusively-priced language courses, yet Poland is not the only country in which it has yet to pay tax on its commercial profits.  Until Christopher’s case forced its hand, the organisation was not even registered as a business.

The British Council has a British “Minister for Cultural Affairs” in India, the PM and Foreign Secretary batting for it in Russia, and a grant of over half a million a day from the FCO. It enjoys diplomatic immunity and the facility to operate out of Embassy buildings, simultaneously profiting from cosy deals with government (including contracts not even offered to other bodies). Despite all this, the British Council, in order to comply with charity law, publicly maintains the absurd pretence that it is independent of government.

Today’s Moscow Times has had another bash at defining the organisation:

The British Council is technically a nongovernmental organization, but it acts as the cultural department of the British Embassy. The ministry contends that it acts as a for-profit organization.
Kathryn Board, head of the British Council's overseas network, said the organization complied with Russian law, a 1994 Britain-Russia agreement and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

You see the mess? Non-governmental, British Embassy department, profit-making consular relations? And the Russians even forgot to mention the “charity” fantasy.

So while its “Minister for Cultural Affairs” in India closes libraries against the wishes of locals, while offices in Africa lay off staff because of a “step-change in brand positioning”, while the Foreign Secretary, PM and Ambassador in Moscow all imperiously insist that the Russians keep the remaining British Council offices open (those left, that is, after the BC’s own multiple closure of offices), while the British Council nets for itself a lucrative contract with the Libyans, having used taxpayers’ money to fund free places for key influencers at their language centre in Tripoli, while it struggles with the fundamentals of corporate ethics, this slippery organisation treats Britain’s English language teachers as cattle.

The British Council is bad news, and overdue for – at the very least - radical reform.

Comments

[Jane]

Just to let everyone not involved with the BC know what is in a typical employment contract with regard to tax. I have had 2 contracts and only the name of the country is different on each.

Appendix
Income tax
"Your salary and all allowances are assessed as inclusive of any local taxes of whatever kind that may be levied by the Government of (name of country). At present the position is that no local tax is payable on your salary in (name of country). If the host country requires you to pay income tax you must do so, and you should inform the Council. The Council will not adjust your salary and allowances to take account of any such taxes.

Any UK Income Tax charged will be your sole responsibility and will not attract compensation or extra payment from the Council".

and in the main contract pages:
"Overriding Conditions
This Agreement shall be governed by the law of England and Wales".

So, as far as tax is concerned, what other employer puts the onus on the employee to check whether tax is payable or not?

[Jane]

PS
I think that teachers in Vietnam have to pay tax, but I'm really not sure. It would be interesting to know which countries do tax British Council teachers.

[Chris]

For any teacher genuinely concerned about their potential tax liability, one answer could be to employ a local accountant and go freelance. That would put you in charge of your own tax affairs, which is a good deal safer than letting the British Council deal with them for you.

You may of course follow their own worthy example and fly by the seat of your pants. (That is, as I was told, entirely justified by "custom and practice"). Just be prepared to flee the country when the authorities finally catch up with you. I know from experience the British Council won't protect you!