Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[GregRickshaw]

Hours and hours of reading legal documents and a good chance I don't correctly follow protocols etc. and just lose because I don't know how to play the game.

So it won't just be giving evidence back to HMRC on each point charged?

I imagine there is some kind of cost incurred from getting there?

I wonder about the game playing though as I would just be standing there telling them my side, not sure how much more a lawyer could dress it up for me. I have been caught on three points (two of which I can prove I was not an MSC) the third - the infamous fee though I feel I would fall down on the legalise behind why this may not apply.

Just a thought. I'm actually quite keen to be one of the cases to go forward, I have let CK know this. Every since I create a dossier with all my details.

[mogga71]

So it won't just be giving evidence back to HMRC on each point charged?

I imagine there is some kind of cost incurred from getting there?

I wonder about the game playing though as I would just be standing there telling them my side, not sure how much more a lawyer could dress it up for me. I have been caught on three points (two of which I can prove I was not an MSC) the third - the infamous fee though I feel I would fall down on the legalise behind why this may not apply.

Just a thought. I'm actually quite keen to be one of the cases to go forward, I have let CK know this. Every since I create a dossier with all my details.

Come on ... this monthly fee thing is total nonsense. Even before the advent of the 'real' internet in the early 90s I was paying my high street accountant a monthly fee and he had option of a dormant Company rate.

TBH it's nothing but utter and total robbery if the HMRC get through on that one. We are all used to them them doing utterly desperate and despicable things but that would be the worst ever.

[DealorNoDeal]

Come on ... this monthly fee thing is total nonsense. Even before the advent of the 'real' internet in the early 90s I was paying my high street accountant a monthly fee and he had option of a dormant Company rate.

TBH it's nothing but utter and total robbery if the HMRC get through on that one. We are all used to them them doing utterly desperate and despicable things but that would be the worst ever.

Indeed.

As I recall, CBS clients paid a variable fee which was a % of the amount invoiced every month*. There's a world of difference between that and a flat rate monthly fee.

* which is why I keep calling CBS out as an MSC tax avoidance scheme

[jamesbrown]

Indeed.

As I recall, CBS clients paid a variable fee which was a % of the amount invoiced every month*. There's a world of difference between that and a flat rate monthly fee.

* which is why I keep calling CBS out as an MSC tax avoidance scheme

What matters is the words in the legislation and, to the extent it differs, what Parliament intended those words to mean.

The words in the legislation talk about a benefit linked to the services provided by the MSC.

It's almost certainly true that a reduced fee when the MSC is providing no services meets this language in the most elementary way.

So then it comes down to what a tribunal judge believes was the intention of Parliament. Personally, I think they will judge that the intention was to catch something more contrived or uncommercial, like a % fee, as in the case of CBS, and not something that has a commercial justification from the POV of the alleged MSCP, such as a dormant company rate.

Still, no one here can be absolutely sure about that.

[jamesbrown]

I wouldn't be worried about the annual/monthly fee on its own, though, which is clearly not linked to the services provided by the MSC. The dormant company rate, OTOH, is TBD, although it would be an aggressive interpretation.

[Guy Incognito]

I have been caught on three points (two of which I can prove I was not an MSC)

In the tribunal they can come up with new allegations. Perhaps something in the evidence we provide gets twisted by a savvy lawyer? They hit you with it and you flounder, who knows?

You only need to see that there are special FTT rules for MPs expenses to see how corrupt the system is!

[GregRickshaw]

In the tribunal they can come up with new allegations. Perhaps something in the evidence we provide gets twisted by a savvy lawyer? They hit you with it and you flounder, who knows?

You only need to see that there are special FTT rules for MPs expenses to see how corrupt the system is!

Can they come up with new allegations other than the ones charged on? They can come up with tricks and twists but surely a prosecutor is not allowed to bring things to court/appeal which the defence has no idea about?

Corrupt system 100% with you there.

[GregRickshaw]

Come on ... this monthly fee thing is total nonsense. Even before the advent of the 'real' internet in the early 90s I was paying my high street accountant a monthly fee and he had option of a dormant Company rate.

TBH it's nothing but utter and total robbery if the HMRC get through on that one. We are all used to them them doing utterly desperate and despicable things but that would be the worst ever.

My late father too paid a monthly fee to his book-keeper/accountant, even though we only saw him four times a year! From memory it was a benefit to spread the 'cost' over the year.

It is an attempt at robbery for sure but why have they held it up as a 'capture'? The packaged product thing muddies the water I think.

[Fred Bloggs]

My late father too paid a monthly fee to his book-keeper/accountant, even though we only saw him four times a year! From memory it was a benefit to spread the 'cost' over the year.

It is an attempt at robbery for sure but why have they held it up as a 'capture'? The packaged product thing muddies the water I think.

And I should think that's going to be exactly where Hector looks first. Makes total sense. A self selecting bunch of limted companies where the owner wanted the full hand holding service. So easy to determine that, just run a query on who paid for the hands off solution and who didn't.

Those who just had vanilla book keeping will fall out of the equation.

[eek]

I wouldn't be worried about the annual/monthly fee on its own, though, which is clearly not linked to the services provided by the MSC. The dormant company rate, OTOH, is TBD, although it would be an aggressive interpretation.

If you look at the checklist for "Involved" that QDOS put up at MSC Legislation - Managed Service Company - Qdos (qdoscommercialservices.com) the only 2 items HMRC have are

1) A standardised solution (well it's accountancy - the whole point is to standardise it to minimise costs and maximise profit).
5) Charging fees based on the number of invoices raised. A reduced fee when zero invoices is paid is all that HMRC has there.