HMRC guidlines on ex MSC's

[Lewis]

Simon - you said previously that the Revenue would allow accountants to apply for some form of clearance so that they could show that they were not MSC providers. Is this facility actually going to be available?

Thank god! Please yes yes yes!

[simondolan]

Simon - you said previously that the Revenue would allow accountants to apply for some form of clearance so that they could show that they were not MSC providers. Is this facility actually going to be available?

No, I said that I had received clarification from them that we would not be caught. I am sure that other firms of accountants will do the same.

[Ardesco]

Simon - you said previously that the Revenue would allow accountants to apply for some form of clearance so that they could show that they were not MSC providers. Is this facility actually going to be available?

You still aren't getting the whole "HMRC like FUD" thing are you?

[simondolan]

The Revenue are trying to make a distinction between genuine firms of accountants, and organisations that happen to have a qualified accountant in their ranks. The difference between for example a firm of accountants that have been trading for 15 years by providing accountancy services for clients, and an organisation that until 6 months ago was trading as a composite company and then simply renamed themselves as accountants.

This is apparent from the legislation and from conversations I have had with the Revenue.

You must also consider that not only would a Company have to fall under the definition of an MSC it would also have to have influence and control over the Company. Providing advice to a client does not amount to influence or control (as has been verified in the legislation), provided that the client has free choice over whether to accept that advice or not.


Whether the legislation would be successful in bringing a case against ex MSC providers who have rebadged themselves is a moot point. It is fairly obvious who the main Company is that the Revenue are trying to catch here.

The most pertinent point to come from this is as I mentioned in my previous post. Genuine firms of accountants will not be caught nor targetted.

What is your take on this? ...



There is no definition of a "corporate solution" anywhere. Would they try and claim that setting up a Ltd co. and doing everything to run it smoothly for a contractor that knows little about companies is a "corporate solution"? I could see some weight in that argument.

Also back to my original question. What differentiates an ex-MSC which is now providing accountancy services (and is qualified) from a true contractor-accountant. I can see nothing that would catch an ex-MSC that couldn't also be applied to other contractor-accountants. Can you?

I assume the quote above is the one to catch the ex-MSCs but without a definition for "corporate solution" it's not very helpful!

[Lewis]

The Revenue are trying to make a distinction between genuine firms of accountants, and organisations that happen to have a qualified accountant in their ranks. The difference between for example a firm of accountants that have been trading for 15 years by providing accountancy services for clients, and an organisation that until 6 months ago was trading as a composite company and then simply renamed themselves as accountants.

This is apparent from the legislation and from conversations I have had with the Revenue.

That's exactly the distinction I am looking for. So where in you opinion is it apparent from the legislation that a organisation that is 6 months old is caught but one that is 15 years old isn't? Let's assume they both provide the same accountancy services, no more, no less.

[simondolan]

That's exactly the distinction I am looking for. So where in you opinion is it apparent from the legislation that a organisation that is 6 months old is caught but one that is 15 years old isn't? Let's assume they both provide the same accountancy services, no more, no less.

I think the point is that they don't provide the same service, or anything like.

Patently if two qualified firms were providing identical services to clients, and did not have a history as an MSC then they would be treated in the same way.

[Lewis]

I think the point is that they don't provide the same service, or anything like.

Ok then this is where I am getting confused. I thought the ex-MSCs who were rebranding as "accountants" where genuinely offering accountancy services. What is the difference then?

I looked at the Brooksons and 1st Contact web sites and they look to me to be providing just the same as other contractor-accountants. Aren't they ex-MSCs?

Patently if two qualified firms were providing identical services to clients, and did not have a history as an MSC then they would be treated in the same way.

Where does the legislation treat ex-MSCs differently? Don't mean to be difficult but I just can't see any specific wording.