Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[eek]

I know it's been asked before, but would you mind sharing what sort of evidence you're putting forward? I've been sitting on the fence about providing anything yet due to the technicalities, so would be much appreciated if you wouldn't mind!

Anything and everything that demonstrates you did things yourself and you did things your way rather than letting CK do things for you...

See also https://forums.contractoruk.com/acco...ml#post2932608

[Guy Incognito]

Not sure what the value of a sit down is?

They haven't done anything different to if you had sent it in a letter?

[DealorNoDeal]

Thinking aloud here...

If HMRC win a case against CK, could they issue Follower Notices to all the other CK clients whose appeals are stood over? (FNs are normally used with schemes but I wouldn't put it past HMRC to use them in other situations.)

FNs are nasty:
1) they allow HMRC to immediately collect the tax & nics through APNs
2) they carry up to a 50% penalty if you continue with your appeal and don't settle

Obviously, if you go on to win your individual appeal, you would get the tax+nics+penalty refunded but they certainly up the ante.

[GregRickshaw]

Not sure what the value of a sit down is?

They haven't done anything different to if you had sent it in a letter?

Seriously? I really don't want to respond to this because it's a ridiculous thing to say. If you can't see the value doesn't matter others and I may, I suspect DA but anyway.

IMHO you are no longer a faceless/email/letter which can be ignored/filed never seen again, you have no idea if anyone even read your letter email.

It's all about being an individual here simple as that, maybe it will do nothing at all. What it 100% has done is give me a dialogue with them that's it really. It's the start of my appeal.

[GregRickshaw]

Thinking aloud here...

If HMRC win a case against CK, could they issue Follower Notices to all the other CK clients whose appeals are stood over? (FNs are normally used with schemes but I wouldn't put it past HMRC to use them in other situations.)

FNs are nasty:
1) they allow HMRC to immediately collect the tax & nics through APNs
2) they carry up to a 50% penalty if you continue with your appeal and don't settle

Obviously, if you go on to win your individual appeal, you would get the tax+nics+penalty refunded but they certainly up the ante.

I need to check but I'm sure there was mention of FNs very early on in the FAQ on the CK Portal and at the time HMRC has responded with a no they won't be used. Will have to check back.

Do I trust HMRC to not use them or change everything right up until tribunal (even during) of course not.

I have paid on account anyway

[CA100]

For what it's worth the advice I received was not to submit evidence until required to do so, i.e. don't submit any during the appeal stage.

I know the advice from the "experts" has been pretty contradictory so far as this is a new situation and everyone is feeling their way. However, I think this does make sense, for the following reason: HMRC don't know anything except what you or Boox/CK choose to tell them. Any information or evidence you provide gives them more information they can potentially use against you.

Obviously you would select evidence which supports your case not their's, but the risk is tax cases are complex and don't correspond to your common sense understanding of the law. If the common sense understanding applied HMRC would not be pursuing this in the first place. So this case turns on technicalities and obtuse legal arguments not obvious to non-tax lawyers. Therefore if you give HMRC more information before you need to and without legal advice, you risk accidentally giving them something they can use against you.

[GregRickshaw]

For what it's worth the advice I received was not to submit evidence until required to do so, i.e. don't submit any during the appeal stage.

I know the advice from the "experts" has been pretty contradictory so far as this is a new situation and everyone is feeling their way. However, I think this does make sense, for the following reason: HMRC don't know anything except what you or Boox/CK choose to tell them. Any information or evidence you provide gives them more information they can potentially use against you.

Obviously you would select evidence which supports your case not their's, but the risk is tax cases are complex and don't correspond to your common sense understanding of the law. If the common sense understanding applied HMRC would not be pursuing this in the first place. So this case turns on technicalities and obtuse legal arguments not obvious to non-tax lawyers. Therefore if you give HMRC more information before you need to and without legal advice, you risk accidentally giving them something they can use against you.

The advice from these so called experts (one who claims to have 10+ years of MSC experience yet not a single plan or evidence to show they won anything) is mixed unfortunately, which is why we can pretty much state..

There are no experts in this field. HMRC are interested only in catching these top two accountants or more likely making everyone scared to death and flying right into the arms of Umbrellas and PAYE systems.

If you want to sit back and wait until CK and Boox get found guilty (of which I am 100% confident they will be), and then try to fight your battle AFTER being found to be an MSC that's up to the individual.

[DealorNoDeal]

If you want to sit back and wait until CK and Boox get found guilty (of which I am 100% confident they will be), and then try to fight your battle AFTER being found to be an MSC that's up to the individual.

Yes but, if your appeal is stood over, then that's exactly what you are doing.

The only alternative to this, would be to start pushing now for your individual appeal to go to the FTTT. Which would be very expensive if you want top notch representation, or potentially very risky if you represent yourself.

[GregRickshaw]

Yes but, if your appeal is stood over, then that's exactly what you are doing.

The only alternative to this, would be to start pushing now for your individual appeal to go to the FTTT. Which would be very expensive if you want top notch representation, or potentially very risky if you represent yourself.

Well we'll see but there are other alternatives is all I am saying.

What do I have to lose anyway? I have paid all I have been charged with on account. So I have nothing to lose, I've written the money off anyway, so why not try. If I get a refund brilliant if not so what? These are individual cases, I think we should probably forget CK and Boox's involvement, they just got us into this.

Though just for reference WTT also stated early on their webinar, there were chances of cases being thrown out, they said 6 months, whilst I don't really trust anything they say they clearly thought (at the time) there would be cases which would not got to FTTT. Another specialist with rubbish advice.

[jamesbrown]

What do I have to lose anyway? I have paid all I have been charged with on account.

Presumably, quite a lot if they've only issued a Reg 80 for PAYE taxes owed (allegedly) in 17/18. There will be other years for most people, plus the claim for NICs is still to come (6 years for a protective claim rather than 4). I'm not saying you're wrong to make a POA, but the amount in the Reg 80 is just the tip of the iceberg.

Beyond gathering evidence and preparing, I don't think there's much you can realistically do until the situation plays out with CK/Boox. Otherwise, what?