• 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
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by InformationDesigner View Post
    So because I'm one of life's happy little pedants, I responded to the response I got from CK to point out that I did not understand why contributions were not voluntary and whether they understood that their communication on this so far was causing concern because of the lack of detail, as plenty of people are happy to contribute to a fighting fund but they need to know exactly what they're getting.

    Here's a pertinent part of the response I got back:

    "We understand that not all clients are going to be in a position to contribute but please note that the amount specified on the email is just a suggestion so that all clients were provided with relative figures, they were not meant to be a demand or an all or nothing."

    Went back and checked the email. As far as I'm concerned, that email does not represent the above statement (and I've told them that). Don't see the word 'suggested', don't see the word 'voluntary', just the word 'recommended' doing a lot of heavy lifting. I communicate for a living and this email is just a masterclass in how not to do it.

    "You clearly feel that you cannot commit or make a decision until you have more information and I completely respect that and will be updating the portal with more information. Whilst we are doing that contributions are being made by people who are already happy to contribute and so we will continue to receive funds and also provide more information and for everyone's sake reach the target."

    Wild to me that people are apparently contributing without getting clear clarifications on a few points first and I love the implied guilt tripping here ('other people are doing as we asked but here you are asking for facts'), but OK.
    Ouch I hate that vernacular! "People are already happy to contribute...." That's an HMRC tactic "People are paying their bills on time ....."

    The announcement I saw there was no suggestion just a, 'if we get more we will refund'

    CK have made a huge mess of this 'appeal'. A fund is a good idea but this was all wrong.

    Comment


      OK, finally got acceptance from CK that the email was very poor communication:

      "I completely agree with you...and I have just got off the phone to head of communications to arrange the update regarding the FAQs to apologise for the wording and to clarify regarding the payments.

      We will arrange for this to go out today so that everyone is aware and hopefully relieves some of the stress. The wording would have been more appropriate to say we would not require any more than 10%."


      I have the same arguments with clients who are household names. Always amazes me that businesses write terrible, terrible comms without considering how the audience will read it and are then all surprised and defensive by the backlash.

      Comment


        Originally posted by InformationDesigner View Post
        OK, finally got acceptance from CK that the email was very poor communication:

        "I completely agree with you...and I have just got off the phone to head of communications to arrange the update regarding the FAQs to apologise for the wording and to clarify regarding the payments.

        We will arrange for this to go out today so that everyone is aware and hopefully relieves some of the stress. The wording would have been more appropriate to say we would not require any more than 10%."


        I have the same arguments with clients who are household names. Always amazes me that businesses write terrible, terrible comms without considering how the audience will read it and are then all surprised and defensive by the backlash.
        Still doesn't explain the figures and the amounts and what it is for?.

        I wouldn't trust them at all not any more.

        Comment


          Originally posted by GregRickshaw View Post

          Still doesn't explain the figures and the amounts and what it is for?.

          I wouldn't trust them at all not any more.
          No worries, an admittance of poor comms is not an 'okey dokey where's the cheque book' from me. They absolutely requested funds without clear explanation and now they have a big problem trust wise. I really just wanted to get that through to them.

          I asked for details and I'm still waiting on those details. I was told I'd get clarification on the portal. If it's not the detail I asked for or contains the assurances I need, I will not be contributing a thing.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
            Just a thought. What are the various people doing who (say that they) provide tax dispute cover to contractors? Have any of the various tax dispute cover providers initiated cover for these HMRC investigations? Or are they saying it's not covered? I haven't seen anything about that here since the very early days.

            If ever the tax dispute cover was needed, now is the time?
            I've actually emailed Trafalgar Insurance on this yesterday. I'm unclear whether the firm would have to keep insurance inforce even though the company is now closed - how can insurance be retained on a company that is no longer trading?! That on top of all investigations are always post dated - good test of insurance!
            Last edited by Bonerp; 3 November 2022, 15:43.

            Comment


              I wouldn't be surprised if many/most insurance providers have an exclusion for MSC investigations because the risk is so severe/structural. If you're an IPSE member, speak to them, but I suspect there won't be any legal help (advice, yes) until a legal process actually begins.

              Comment


                I guess this is aimed specifically at fellow Boox clients, has anyone found out a more accurate figure of what they would likely be owing after claiming back the corporation and dividend taxes etc? Is this something Boox are meant to be advising us on?

                I can't even reach Boox any more, their phone number is permanently going straight to the "high volume of calls please email" crap and I've not had an answer in 4 days to the email. I can't even see what interest I'm accruing because they are my tax agent and presumably have the log in. Very worried and confused and appreciate any advice here thanks!

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Bonerp View Post

                  I've actually emailed Trafalgar Insurance on this yesterday. I'm unclear whether the firm would have to keep insurance inforce even though the company is now closed - how can insurance be retained on a company that is no longer trading?! That on top of all investigations are always post dated - good test of insurance!
                  Hang on - your limited company was allowed to be closed by HMRC?
                  merely at clientco for the entertainment

                  Comment


                    Array
                    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
                    I wouldn't be surprised if many/most insurance providers have an exclusion for MSC investigations because the risk is so severe/structural. If you're an IPSE member, speak to them, but I suspect there won't be any legal help (advice, yes) until a legal process actually begins.
                    https://www.ipse.co.uk/member-benefi...sc-advice.html

                    At some point – it could be months after you receive the Reg 80 determination notice - HMRC will take a final decision on whether the accountant is an MSCP. If it decides it is an MSCP, IPSE members that wish to challenge HMRC determination can claim on the tax investigation insurance. A Markel Tax investigations specialist will be appointed. The fees will be covered subject to the terms of the insurance policy IPSE has with Markel – to defend the member’s position, where the member has a reasonable prospect of reducing the liability due to HMRC.

                    There is one further possible – but perhaps unlikely – scenario in which HMRC contact you to request documents under HMRC’s Information gathering powers prior to reaching a final decision. IPSE Plus members will also benefit from the tax investigations service if HMRC make such a request prior to an assessment being raised or a decision upon the MSC status being reached.

                    Comment


                      Hi, new contributor but old reader of the forum, caught in all this mess. I am not really willing to contribute to CK fund right now, not until some more details emerge. And even then, I just don't know how good idea it would be to keep them in the driving seat. I shall also wait for David Kirk to come back to us after speaking with CK and see what he thinks.

                      I also have insurance, but their stance was, before the summer at least, a wait and see the outcome of the test cases first, then reassess. Perhaps I'll ask if they would be willing to cover this contribution (don't think so, but asking is free).

                      ​​​​​I still hope reason will prevail in the end, but in the meantime it truly is all very stressful. Let's stay strong for now though!
                      ​​​​

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X