TECHNICAL DIVISION (Somerset House)

Reference PS 1199/50

1. Mr Webb

You may wish to see this in view of the large amounts of tax involved - [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]* for open accounting periods 1970-1973 inclusive (1974 and 1975 covered by stock relief: no information for later years).

2. Mr Wilkinson T3/4

I do not think there is any great distinction to be drawn between the relationships at Cambridge University and its Press on one hand, and Oxford University and its Press on the other. While Oxford Delegates do not maintain so close a contact with all the activities of their Press as do their opposite members at Cambridge I would find it very difficult to argue that they do not have control over it even though in some areas control may be exercised by the laying down of guide lines rather than by personal involvement in activities.

On the question of the poise of the OUP I agree with Miss McRobert and the author of the very helpful report of 25 June, that it lies at present towards the publication of acceptable "educational" works, and that non "educational" publishing and printing can be regarded as incidental. I would not think it necessary to carry out reviews at all frequently of the publication lists to test for any movement in the poise.

I agree that we should allow charitable exemption here.

E A Rapsey
12 September 1978

HANDWRITTEN ADDITION, author unclear I agree. (I do not see it how we can distinguish the two cases. I note that in 1950 I deleted from a draft of a letter on OUP the phrase "on the information available the Press seems to be almost exactly on the same footing as the Cambridge University Press" - but this deletion was prompted by confidentiality not substance. (XPS 1199/50 attached)).

COMMENT. This is surely a most magnificent Freudian exhibit. First, it having been agreed by everyone involved that OUP's claim to quasi-charity status crucially depends upon its publishing 'poise', we find Rapsey here actually uttering the anti-caveat "I would not think it necessary to carry out reviews at all frequently." Second, we have an another official's puzzling (guilty?) non-sequitur addition. I cannot, incidentally, find any such deleted phrase in the papers from 1950, when the tone was uniformly adamant that neither CUP nor OUP qualify for tax exemption for the simple reason that open-market book-trading is not a charitable purpose recognised by the law. (See 1940s index). - A. M.

* Amount redacted by the Inland Revenue in 2009 under FoI exemption (s)41. Closed until 2019. Click for the collated Redaction puzzle-file, with scans.