Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[DealorNoDeal]

joking aside I have asked this of CK many times. Surely if Boox clients joined with the same barrister that makes more sense.

They have very slightly different captures but only in wording.

Yep, there ought to be a cost saving having the same legal team represent both.

Or putting it another way, pooling resources, means you could fund a bigger army of lawyers to go up against HMRC.

[eek]

That is a sensible amount.

Some on here may not agree that CK are best to defend you. However, I do, purely because your interests are aligned. This is not like the tax avoidance scheme providers where it made no material difference to them whether cases were won or lost. CK have got a lot riding on this.

My concern wouldn't be the CK are / are not the best people to defend you but that the cases being picked are ones where the directors are happy to be preped to avoid themselves saying something incriminating that takes everyone down accidently.

[GregRickshaw]

I've gone through most of this thread and decided to put in my two cents.

First of all - to all CK clients - I strongly feel that we should contribute to the defence fund. CK are currently in the best position to defend our businesses and they still have a lot to lose (everything, actually). I realise that the 10% of liability contribution (which CK then rephrased to a 'maximum contribution') was insane, I told them I would contribute 1k and as many people in this thread said - if we all pay up that should be more then enough to cover at least the first tier.

Some of you asked about insurance policies for IR35 - mine was with Qdos, who obviously denied covering any liability or legal costs as MSC was not listed in their policy, however they then offered some legal advice (such as writing and sending the appeal for me and liaising with HMRC) for an extra fee. I was going to have their insurance policy reviewed by another lawyer when Qdos then said that actually they changed their mind and would be able to provide full legal protection for the duration of the investigation. Rumour has it that these insurance companies might be in trouble if HMRC win the case so it's in their interest to win this too.

You speak very wisely, everyone knew the costs weren't going to be 'free' I think many expected a contribution and this is why we have a joined up defence. I too hope everyone realises this and does contribute. CK do seem to be doing a great job so far better than we could do on our own I imagine. Although self representation is an option it's a last resort.

I have contributed and I'm no longer involved (fingers crossed) because I feel this has wider implications and because I still want to fight this. Besides HMRC still have my money!

[GregRickshaw]

My concern wouldn't be the CK are / are not the best people to defend you but that the cases being picked are ones where the directors are happy to be preped to avoid themselves saying something incriminating that takes everyone down accidently.

100%

[Thehunter157]

Has anyone reading this managed to get a reply from Boox in the last few weeks? They no longer have their phones manned and have blanked five emails and counting. I'm wondering if they are still trading, and was kind of curious as they are, like, my accountant at least at present.

[rdw1970]

Has anyone reading this managed to get a reply from Boox in the last few weeks? They no longer have their phones manned and have blanked five emails and counting. I'm wondering if they are still trading, and was kind of curious as they are, like, my accountant at least at present.

I'm a former Boox client and emailed them last month requesting some info and they responded after 1 week. They had previously ignored emails from me requesting an update on the situation.

[Anvipa]

I also have Tax Liability Cover. Back in March like you, they offered legal costs at a discounted rate. After seeing this post I contacted them again and I can confirm they have changed their stance.
So I won't be joining the DK group for now.

I would be happy to contribute 1k but I would like to have visibility for how the fundraising is going.

This is interesting. I wonder why the secrecy? CK are not shy to ask their clients to contribute a few thousand pounds towards the legal fees, but they don't want us to meet the team we are paying for? I personally don't believe CK's claim they could not contribute financially to this process. They are one of the most expensive providers on the market, while they pay their team peanuts (just have a look at their reviews on Glassdoor), so they must have been making substantial profits for many years. I guess their shareholders are greedy and if they can get away with passing on as much of the financial burden to their customers, they would. If they want us to contribute, there should be much more transparency, i.e. they should provide copies of contracts with their lawyers, their invoices (with breakdown of the work they've done). And there certainly should be no obstacles for meeting the lawyers if we wish to.

[jamesbrown]

I personally don't believe CK's claim they could not contribute financially to this process.

https://companycheck.co.uk/company/0...TED/financials

[Anvipa]

Thanks for sending the link to CK's financials. This data can also be found on Companies House website. I still don't believe them. Low direct costs and overheads Vs good revenue for many years- where did the money go?

[GregRickshaw]

This is interesting. I wonder why the secrecy? CK are not shy to ask their clients to contribute a few thousand pounds towards the legal fees, but they don't want us to meet the team we are paying for? I personally don't believe CK's claim they could not contribute financially to this process. They are one of the most expensive providers on the market, while they pay their team peanuts (just have a look at their reviews on Glassdoor), so they must have been making substantial profits for many years. I guess their shareholders are greedy and if they can get away with passing on as much of the financial burden to their customers, they would. If they want us to contribute, there should be much more transparency, i.e. they should provide copies of contracts with their lawyers, their invoices (with breakdown of the work they've done). And there certainly should be no obstacles for meeting the lawyers if we wish to.

A little bit harsh, whilst I agree on their denial of our requests to meet Osbournes directly, I don't agree they haven't contributed. They have done as much as they can without our help and what were you expecting seriously?

If there's a court case it needs crowd funding really and although their initial request was badly worded and clumsy they have since been very candid.

I would like to see their target and how much has been contributed and I would prefer the funds to have gone to Osbournes or a trust, but I am trusting them now.