Originally posted by eek
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by eek View Post
We are in danger of going round in circles here. The fact is that CBS isn't a great example to see why CK is being targeted. We know CK did something wrong (in HMRC's eyes) but we haven't got a clue what it is.
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...manual/esm3520
Certainly one area that springs to mind is the third activity: distribution of profits. If the product used suggests £x can be distributed and that happens regularly then I could see why that might provoke interest. From what I can tell even freeagent provides this information.Comment
-
Originally posted by Chevalier View Post
I think there are clues from HMRC
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...manual/esm3520
Certainly one area that springs to mind is the third activity: distribution of profits. If the product used suggests £x can be distributed and that happens regularly then I could see why that might provoke interest. From what I can tell even freeagent provides this information.Comment
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
FA is just bookkeeping software; it doesn't impose anything on you.
So if a portal says £x is distributable and the shareholder takes £x regularly then I could certainly see why the question might be asked.
It also doesn’t necessarily mean advice hasn’t been taken….but that might be the crux of the investigations
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chevalier View Post
I wouldn’t say imposition is the sole test. The wording is “influence OR control”.
So if a portal says £x is distributable and the shareholder takes £x regularly then I could certainly see why the question might be asked.
It also doesn’t necessarily mean advice hasn’t been taken….but that might be the crux of the investigations
Comment
-
We pay our accountants for advice. Sometimes I act on my accountant's advice, sometimes I ignore it.
Acting on an accountant's advice != MSCComment
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
You're way off-piste here. It is a statement of the obvious that bookkeeping software will provide balance sheet information so that the responsible parties know the financial state of the company they are running and can decide on things like distributable reserves for dividend payments. Indeed, it is a requirement in law that a valid dividend, one that is not ultra vires, comes from distributable reserves.
Equal to? - not necessarily, other considerations apply eg cashflow/risk
Slavishly following a bit of software might put a contractor at risk without additional backup based upon what I’ve read.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chevalier View Post
Dividends out of distributable reserves? - absolutely!
Equal to? - not necessarily, other considerations apply eg cashflow/risk
Slavishly following a bit of software might put a contractor at risk without additional backup based upon what I’ve read.
If the distributable reserves are £500k, that is not an instruction to declare a £500k dividend.
Again, you're way off base. There are no assumptions or suggestions in FA (or similar tools, to my knowledge) about payroll or dividends that minimise tax or maximise tax or optimise against any other random objectives, tax or otherwise. That is not what bookkeeping software does.
On the other hand, an MSCP can certainly use a portal or accounting software to implement a strategy or product that applies to many clients, which would be a problem and is presumably the problem faced by some or all clients of CK.
These two things are apples and pears. It's the difference between a gun and shooting yourself in the foot.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
it really wouldn’t surprise me if HMRC’s current definition of an MSC is a custom portal providing instructions on what to do - and that the difference becomes something as stupid as a value being auto populated rather than entered manually.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Just out of interest for those affected, what are you doing about retaining CK?
Assuming this goes on now for a few years whilst we find out HMRC's stance, if you were to retain CK as your accountants and with them not actually knowing what they have done wrong, could you be impacted further for 2022/23 and 2024/25?Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Contractors, seen Halifax’s 18-month fixed rate remortgage? Dec 5 09:59
- Contractors, don’t be fooled by HMRC Spotlight 67 on MSCs Dec 4 09:20
- HMRC warns IT consultants and others of 12 ‘payroll entities’ Dec 3 09:15
- How you think you look on LinkedIn vs what recruiters see Dec 2 09:00
- Reports of umbrella companies’ death are greatly exaggerated Nov 28 10:11
- A new hiring fraud hinges on a limited company, a passport and ‘Ade’ Nov 27 09:21
- Is an unpaid umbrella company required to pay contractors? Nov 26 09:28
- The truth of umbrella company regulation is being misconstrued Nov 25 09:23
- Labour’s plan to regulate umbrella companies: a closer look Nov 21 09:24
- When HMRC misses an FTT deadline but still wins another CJRS case Nov 20 09:20
Comment