Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[Hareforthebear]

I think it's absurd too but is the one point that is worrying people the most as Hector could argue this point in their favour.

The other 2 conditions Hector believes were met were Boox's product was designed for customers to follow the low salary/high dividend model and advising customers on the best way to pay themselves. Touched on this in my last post, as chartered accountants Boox are allowed to advise their clients on the most tax efficient way to pay themselves. Again this had to be agreed with the client and was not set by default.

Their last point was slightly vaguer - influences or controls the company finances or any of its activities. A couple of the webinars suggested this was to do with banking. Boox had no access to my business bank account and I made all of the payments myself from mobile/online banking - not via Boox's portal. I understand there are (or were) some accountants out there who made all the Tax payments from the client's business account on their behalf!

They’re basically saying:

condition a is met because they were paid.

condition c is met because they advised around tax efficiency and therefore influenced.

condition d is met because condition c is met. AND you used their portal therefore they have an element of control of your business.

I really don’t see how using the portal amounts to control. Unless they’re saying because boox software is completing the calculations then it means they have control. But isn’t that what an accountant should do?? If it were done in a spreadsheet provided then how is that different.

[eek]

They’re basically saying:

condition a is met because they were paid.

condition c is met because they advised around tax efficiency and therefore influenced.

condition d is met because condition c is met. AND you used their portal therefore they have an element of control of your business.

I really don’t see how using the portal amounts to control. Unless they’re saying because boox software is completing the calculations then it means they have control. But isn’t that what an accountant should do?? If it were done in a spreadsheet provided then how is that different.

We are back to my original comment - the portal may well have had a default salary value contained within it (or suggested in the text alongside it).

That may be enough to meet "influences or controls the company finances"

And yes quite often cases like this are decided on similar seemingly very minor details...

[malvolio]

Thanks just read up on him. Sounds like a real charmer.

He's still out there. Found out a while back that my then accountants had engaged him. I left them the next day...

[Hareforthebear]

We are back to my original comment - the portal may well have had a default salary value contained within it (or suggested in the text alongside it).

That may be enough to meet "influences or controls the company finances"

And yes quite often cases like this are decided on similar seemingly very minor details...

If it was a default value then yeah sure I could see that. But if the value was agreed and determined by the director then don’t see the relevance of this being in the portal which is essentially a glorified spreadsheet.

[eek]

If it was a default value then yeah sure I could see that. But if the value was agreed and determined by the director then don’t see the relevance of this being in the portal which is essentially a glorified spreadsheet.

Can you demonstrate that it was agreed and determined by the director - I bet you don't have any evidence going back 4 years to prove that.

[DealorNoDeal]

It also makes zero sense because the MSC legislation is focussed on the MSCP profiteering from the work the client does.

Which was why I picked up on the fact CK offered discounted rate when the company wasn't being used far earlier in this thread (i.e. you are working, you pay CK more -> CK profit when from the work you do == falls within the definition of an MSCP)..

But wouldn't there be less work for CK to do when the company wasn't being used? For example, if the company wasn't used for months on end, wouldn't it be a bit rich for them to keep charging the same monthly fee?

----------

It's clear CBS and CK/Boox were worlds apart. I know CBS created all the "sham" companies, and managed them. Does anyone know if they invoiced the clients? Did they charge a fee which was a % of the amount invoiced?

[mudskipper]

Individually HMRC's case is weak very weak, against CK it's strong.

I don't think HMRC have a strong case against CK - I guess time will tell...

[eek]

I don't think HMRC have a strong case against CK - I guess time will tell...

Your opinion is very different to the multiple experts I've spoken to about this case - they all think HMRC have a fairly decent chance because of the way the CBS judgment opened up whole new areas to attack

* Was chatting with them as I suspect I know the end point HMRC is aiming for and they agreed with me that I'm probably correct there,.

[Hareforthebear]

Can you demonstrate that it was agreed and determined by the director - I bet you don't have any evidence going back 4 years to prove that.

Of course I can. Emails. And boox have transcripts of client interactions as far as I understand.

[eek]

Of course I can. Emails. And boox have transcripts of client interactions as far as I understand.

Then I suspect you are the exception to the rule...