Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[GregRickshaw]

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?

You see this is my problem with a lot of the rhetoric here. CK/Boox might be guilty of being MSCP, how does that play out...?

As far as I know, CK are not going to court anytime soon, certainly not before us.

Letting the CK/Boox thing play out means the test cases, I haven't heard of any legal challenges by CK

So, if those test cases win (in our favour) then maybe HMRC will give up maybe not.

At no point though (or again so we have been told) will CK and Boox be in court and should they be found not guilty then we are in the clear - this scenario has not been painted anywhere be good if it was I guess. We have been told over and over again it's our fight not theirs. We have been told often though CK will NOT be paying for any lawyers etc., (which makes sense considering the direction thing).

Yes the figures are 'quite a lot' but but I have nothing to lose because in my mind I have paid it and fully expect never to see it again, which is why I am going at it the way I am. If it fails and I somehow have evidence used against me then 'meh'.

This is an individual thing and I have been charged as being an MSC so why would I not fight it individually? Why can't I meet with HMRC and their lawyers the same way anyone would in a legal challenge?

True the figures do seem to be the tip but also contain 'double taxation' amounts (which have been written about previously and how wrong the 'experts' got that part).

Let's just say though HMRC do eventually allow the claims for CT and Div tax etc, then the payments I have made on account will be a lot less.

I took the 17/18 original top level amount, multiplied by three and paid it on account, fully expecting (as CK have warned) the following two years to drop in

Maybe it will come to nothing? Better to do something than nothing. Up to others what they do I am certainly not giving any advice, just being open on what I am doing.

[jamesbrown]

If you had the money to pay an estimate of the PAYE plus NICs plus interest on those amounts for your entire period of exposure, fair enough. You are extremely unrepresentative in that regard, I would imagine.

Given that YourCo cannot be an MSC unless you have received payments from an MSCP that was "involved with" your company, it seems pretty obvious to me that, beyond some basic administration (submitting a valid/timely appeal, preparing your evidence etc.), you will need to await the outcome of the CK/Boox cases. I don't see any clarity in your response about what else you're going to do.

[GregRickshaw]

If you had the money to pay an estimate of the PAYE plus NICs plus interest on those amounts for your entire period of exposure, fair enough. You are extremely unrepresentative in that regard, I would imagine.

Given that YourCo cannot be an MSC unless you have received payments from an MSCP that was "involved with" your company, it seems pretty obvious to me that, beyond some basic administration (submitting a valid/timely appeal, preparing your evidence etc.), you will need to await the outcome of the CK/Boox cases. I don't see any clarity in your response about what else you're going to do.

I imagine so, but I had so much money in my business bank account when I stopped using my LTD Co, so I guess fortunate or unfortunate I don't know.

There is that caveat yes about the MCSP (without the P we cannot be MSC) but where is the action, what are CK doing. How will they be tried? We have been hit by everyone to say it's your case not theirs it's your LTD Co. etc.,

Why is nothing happening there? Why is everyone waiting for the individual cases to go court? It puzzles me if we are expecting CK or Boox to somehow get out of this before that? No idea.

I am not giving my full response on here for fear of being quoted or seen to be giving advice etc.,

Gathering and presenting evidence is just one part.

[jamesbrown]

That is just the nature of an HMRC investigation, I'm afraid. They can take years to resolve, particularly for complex cases like this one. They've done the minimum, a protective assessment via a Reg 80 determination with more to come for 18/19 and so on, and more to come for NICs. It will take a while to get to the FTTT with a few lead/test cases of MSCs with which CK/Boox were allegedly "involved". It's not as though you can push this any faster - your case will be stood over awaiting these test cases. It's really just a waiting game now, but preparing your evidence in case of an adverse decision in these lead cases is a good idea and you're doing that much.

[Guy Incognito]

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?

If you have managed to do some mental gymnastics to convince yourself of this then fair enough.

Everyone is in denial to some degree and in my experience the happiest people are the ones capable of convincing themselves they are ok.

Even if I end up not paying a penny I've invested a hell of a lot of time thinking and worrying about this, with no end in sight. There is no doubt it has impacted my family life.

I can't effectively plan for the future because of this.

I am severely limited in investment risk as I need to be sufficiently liquid whenever my case is no longer stood over.

There is a lot to lose and no shortcut to drawing a line under it.

[mudskipper]

it will help after CK and Boox are found guilty but wanted to get my evidence in and acknowledged, none of the so called

This is a moot point indeed and the one CK will be found guilty on.
...Individually HMRC's case is weak very weak, against CK it's strong.

If you want to sit back and wait until CK and Boox get found guilty (of which I am 100% confident they will be)

I honestly don't get you Greg. You know HMRC read these forums right?

The best possible outcome for you and others caught in this mess (and then anyone else using a contractor specialist accountant) are that CK and Boox are not found to be MSCPs. From everything that has been said, it seems far from certain that they will be found "guilty" - they're accountants that have maybe done more handholding than ideal, but a long way from the original concept of an MSCP.


By all means cover your bases if that's what you want to do, but do stop the "Even CK's clients think they're guilty" fodder for HMRC. They're not MSCPs, they're nowhere near the original meaning of it, and I sincerely hope that the courts take a sensible approach on this.

[GregRickshaw]

If you have managed to do some mental gymnastics to convince yourself of this then fair enough.

Everyone is in denial to some degree and in my experience the happiest people are the ones capable of convincing themselves they are ok.

Even if I end up not paying a penny I've invested a hell of a lot of time thinking and worrying about this, with no end in sight. There is no doubt it has impacted my family life.

I can't effectively plan for the future because of this.

I am severely limited in investment risk as I need to be sufficiently liquid whenever my case is no longer stood over.

There is a lot to lose and no shortcut to drawing a line under it.

Firstly really don't understand your first couple (and your last)paragraph, and this is my fear here of sharing too much and someone think I'm giving advice or have found some path to enlightenment or shortcut as you say. I haven't and I'm not pretending I have.

So what if I've convinced myself only of being pro-active and getting 'stuck in', I haven't convinced myself it's all going to go away, but I have convinced myself of I'm not sitting around doing nowt! And yes I'm happy doing that way. Maybe I should wallow in my own self pity and misery?

Not looking for a short cut but I am looking for a solution always and will continue to do so. So what if it fails? Can you seriously see us winning this based on CK and Boox being found not guilty, they can't be found guilty or not... they are not on trial anywhere or anytime soon.

So again it will move onto individuals and those individuals have to fight or give up.

I'm doing what makes me feel better, yes I'm in a fortunate position in some ways but that said I would rather not give all that money to HMRC as I do have plans for it eventually.

I'm furious this has affected you and your family the way it has and I'm really sorry to hear this.

Sometimes I wonder if there had been no appeal process and no tribunals etc., there would be a lot of people who may be a lot happier as at least they would have clarity and a TTP probably and six months nearer to having the debt gone.

Whatever you do I wish you luck.

If I do get a 'shortcut' or a long protracted solution, trust me I will be letting everyone know how.

[eek]

I honestly don't get you Greg. You know HMRC read these forums right?

The best possible outcome for you and others caught in this mess (and then anyone else using a contractor specialist accountant) are that CK and Boox are not found to be MSCPs. From everything that has been said, it seems far from certain that they will be found "guilty" - they're accountants that have maybe done more handholding than ideal, but a long way from the original concept of an MSCP.


By all means cover your bases if that's what you want to do, but do stop the "Even CK's clients think they're guilty" fodder for HMRC. They're not MSCPs, they're nowhere near the original meaning of it, and I sincerely hope that the courts take a sensible approach on this.

Just because there are accountants who did more for their clients - that doesn't mean HMRC are wrong in going after CK and Boox - under the law that exists post the CBS case it's (slightly, highly??) possible they fall inside it..

This to me has felt from day 1 like HMRC trying to extend things in an attempt to get to a particular end point - which I suspect is why CK was picked...

And if I am correct we aren't going to find out HMRC's actual gameplan until the first tribunals take place...

Edit - as Greg doesn't quite point at - it's the consequences of the areas focussed on in the CBS case that extended the remit of the MSC legislation to impact Boox and CK. Prior to the CBS case any court would have laughed out this case - but that case provided a number of tiny hooks on which the CK and Boox cases can be created.

[GregRickshaw]

I honestly don't get you Greg. You know HMRC read these forums right?

The best possible outcome for you and others caught in this mess (and then anyone else using a contractor specialist accountant) are that CK and Boox are not found to be MSCPs. From everything that has been said, it seems far from certain that they will be found "guilty" - they're accountants that have maybe done more handholding than ideal, but a long way from the original concept of an MSCP.


By all means cover your bases if that's what you want to do, but do stop the "Even CK's clients think they're guilty" fodder for HMRC. They're not MSCPs, they're nowhere near the original meaning of it, and I sincerely hope that the courts take a sensible approach on this.

Of course I know this and me saying what I think influences them how?

I'll just remind you of the rhetoric CK's clients got (not Boox). "After speaking with clients...." long before this post appeared, what does that mean do you think?

The last part "courts take a sensible...." that made me howl with laughter.

[nekro]

There is a lot to lose and no shortcut to drawing a line under it.

Exactly. At this stage I'm not going to waste too much time and energy trying to force this along faster than is possible.