Editing Cambridge University Press (section)

===Tax exemption controversy===
In May 1940, CUP applied to the Inland Revenue for the exemption of its printing and publishing profits from taxation, equivalent to charitable status. After a November 1940 Inland Revenue hearing, CUP's application was refused "on the ground that, since the Press was printing and publishing for the outside world and not simply for the internal use of the University, the Press's trade went beyond the purpose and objects of the University and (in terms of the Act) was not exercised in the course of the actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the University".<ref>M. H. Black (1984), [http://www.akmedea.com/MHB-267.jpg ''Cambridge University Press 1584–1984''], Cambridge University Press, p. 267</ref> In November 1975, with CUP facing financial collapse,<ref>M. H. Black (1984), [http://www.akmedea.com/MHB-249.jpg ''Cambridge University Press 1584–1984''], Cambridge University Press, pp. 248–49</ref> CUP's chief executive Geoffrey Cass wrote a 60-page "preliminary letter" to the Inland Revenue again seeking tax-exemption. A year later Cass's application was granted in a letter from the Inland Revenue, though the decision was not made public.<ref>G Bridden (9 November 1976), [http://www.akmedea.com/MHB-267.jpg letter to Geoffrey Cass]</ref><ref>M. H. Black (1984), [http://www.akmedea.com/MHB-283.jpg ''Cambridge University Press 1584–1984''], Cambridge University Press, p. 282</ref> After consulting CUP, Cambridge's 'sister' press, the giant [[Oxford University Press]] presented their own submission and received similar exemption. In 2003 OUP's tax exemption was publicly attacked by Joel Rickett of [[The Bookseller]] in ''[[The Guardian]]''.<ref>Rickety, Joel (30 August 2003). [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/aug/30/featuresreviews.guardianreview21 "Latest news from the world of publishing"]. ''The Guardian''.</ref> In 2007, with the new 'public benefit' requirement of the revised Charities Act, the issue was re-examined<ref>Jessica Shepherd (17 April 2007). [https://www.theguardian.com/education/2007/apr/17/administration.highereducation "Freedom of the presses"]. ''The Guardian''.</ref> with particular reference to the OUP.<ref>Tom Tivnan (2007). [http://www.akmedea.com/bkslr5.jpg "Charities review could hit publishers"]. ''The Bookseller''.</ref> In 2008 CUP's and OUP's privilege was attacked by rival publishers.<ref>Philip Jones (24 April 2008). [https://www.thebookseller.com/news/rivals-attack-oup-and-cup "Rivals attack OUP and CUP"]. ''The Bookseller''.</ref><ref>Chris Koenig (16 May 2008). [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/2276814.oup-status-attacked/ "OUP status attacked"]. ''Oxford Mail''</ref> In 2009 ''The Guardian'' invited author [[Andrew Malcolm (author)|Andrew Malcolm]] to write an article on the subject.<ref>Andrew Malcolm (15 April 2009), [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/apr/15/cambridge-univsersity-press-oxford "The Oxford presses aren't charities but are given unfair tax breaks"]. ''The Guardian''.</ref>

In 2007, from the National Archives at Kew, Malcolm obtained scans of CUP's unsuccessful applications for tax-exemption made in the 1940s and 1950s and their later successful applications in the 1970s. He then indexed and posted these on the Akmedea website.<ref>[https://www.akmedea.com/1940indx.html 'CUP'S and OUP'S claims for tax-exemption, 1940–1950", Index of scans on the Akmedea website]</ref><ref>[https://www.akmedea.com/75aindex.html 'CUP's and OUP's tax-exemption applications, 1975–78', Index of scans on the Akmedea website]</ref> Late in 2020, the papers held at Kew were withdrawn from public access and ruled closed for 50 years until 1 January 2029.<ref>[https://www.akmedea.com/scrnsht3.jpg Catalogue entry in the National Archives at Kew, a screenshot on the Akmedea website]</ref> This rendered the scans on the website their only public source.

In 2021, the documents were cited in a discussion on the formation of [[Cambridge University Press & Assessment]] reported in the [[Cambridge University Reporter]]. D.D.K.Chow of Trinity College, expressed concerns about the lack of academic leadership of the new body:{{Quotation|text="For 323 years, the Press has been tightly controlled under the University's academic leadership through the Press Syndicate (formerly Curators)...However, the Council's report proposes a Press and Assessment Syndicate, without such academic leadership....The proposed change in composition of the Syndicate...is in stark contrast to the arguments used by the Press to obtain its current tax exemption. In a landmark letter to the Inland Revenue in 1975, Sir Geoffrey Cass, then Chief Executive of the Press, wrote: "The Press of Cambridge University is actually no more than a department of the University, with no independent status of its own, governed by academic senior members of the University" and that it was not "an almost semi-independent 'international publisher'....Without adequate academic leadership, it would be all too easy for commercial concerns to override academic values, removing public benefit....If the Regent House does zippo to provide leadership on the Press and Assessment Syndicate, treating Cambridge University Press and Cambridge Assessment as cash cows, there is little reason for the University to continue owning them."<ref name="Chow" />}}