Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[jamesbrown]

Can you refused to be chosen?

Absolutely.... if you accept the determination and pay it.

[GregRickshaw]

Absolutely.... if you accept the determination and pay it.

That's fairly obvious really.

You know what I was getting at I coupled my question with the CK announcement.

Seems you can't, with current parameters of not accepting being the running theme here.

[eek]

That's fairly obvious really.

You know what I was getting at I coupled my question with the CK announcement.

Seems you can't, with current parameters of not accepting being the running theme here.

I can't see how CK or anyone can intervene when the choice you have is go to court or pay up...

[GregRickshaw]

I can't see how CK or anyone can intervene when the choice you have is go to court or pay up...

I don't know really, hopefully they'll expand further on what they meant by that.

[jamesbrown]

That's fairly obvious really.

You know what I was getting at I coupled my question with the CK announcement.

Seems you can't, with current parameters of not accepting being the running theme here.

I am trying not to make any assumptions. For example, I would've thought it "fairly obvious" that you cannot pursue your case without being prepared to appear at FTT and beyond (that is what pursuing your case means). Either you pursue it or you give up.

[GregRickshaw]

Here's the reasoning (almost entirely verbatim; I just shortened 'BOOX' company name) from HMRC's letter regarding why BOOX satisfies the conditions (a), (c) and (d) of Section 61B (2):



As a reminder, here are the conditions from the legislation:

• (a) Benefits financially on an ongoing basis from the provision of the services of the individual
• (c) Influences or controls the way in which payments to the individual (or associates of the individual) are made
• (d) Influences or controls the company’s finances or any of its activities

I am trying not to make any assumptions. For example, I would've thought it "fairly obvious" that you cannot pursue your case without being prepared to appear at FTT and beyond (that is what pursuing your case means). Either you pursue it or you give up.

Fair shout.

Makes CK's announcement all the more puzzling then.

[eek]

Fair shout.

Makes CK's announcement all the more puzzling then.

It may simply be that given the choice of finding £x0,000 for an appeal people may prefer to just pay HMRC and avoid the grief.

[DealorNoDeal]

Fair shout.

Makes CK's announcement all the more puzzling then.

I suppose it may be in the Civil Procedure Rules that where there are lead cases these should be chosen by mutual agreement.

Have CK said how the litigation is going to be paid for?

[DealorNoDeal]

There is perhaps a tendency to think that HMRC are idiots.

They have tax barristers on the payroll all the time (not just when they're in court), so you are never only up against the "intellect" of HMRC staff.

[GregRickshaw]

I suppose it may be in the Civil Procedure Rules that where there are lead cases these should be chosen by mutual agreement.

Have CK said how the litigation is going to be paid for?

They haven't said how, but they have said categorically many times they won't be paying for lawyers for us. Which if you think about is a good thing.

How they can also intervene without seemingly being involved though is puzzling.