Originally posted by jamesbrown
View Post
- 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
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by mogga71 View Post
Am I missing something here? How can it mention payments made on winding up? We now know that any closed companies are out of scope for the MSCP investigations ... don't we?Comment
-
Hi, new here. I was with Boox and received my notification last week for years 2018/19 and 2019/20. Came as a bit of a shock and I’ve been trying to get my head round this situation since. I found this thread and must say there are some excellent contributions which really helped me get up to speed.
One question I have, when I took Boox on as my accountant, I signed a HMRC form 64-8 which authorized Boox to act as my agent. The form gives options for CT, VAT, PAYE. The HMRC website states
‘Use the 'Authorising your agent (64-8)' form to tell HMRC that you give authorisation for someone to act on your behalf for individual or business tax affairs’
Their own rules allow for an accountant to be directly involved in the tax affairs of a business and to be the point of contact for the HMRC.
Does this not undermine their case?Comment
-
Originally posted by Bruce88 View PostDoes this not undermine their case?
Comment
-
OK, thanks for the response. I know it will come down to what can be proven by the letter of the law, but it seems like a ridiculous 'splitting of hairs'. If the HMRC recognises that a business requires an 'agent' to take care of its affairs, they can't be anything but involved in your business! And an agent will represent the best interests of the business. Surely the acid test is 'control' of a business not 'involvement'. Trying to differentiate between 'involvement' and 'providing a service' is again splitting hairs in my opinion.Comment
-
Originally posted by Bruce88 View PostOK, thanks for the response. I know it will come down to what can be proven by the letter of the law, but it seems like a ridiculous 'splitting of hairs'. If the HMRC recognises that a business requires an 'agent' to take care of its affairs, they can't be anything but involved in your business! And an agent will represent the best interests of the business. Surely the acid test is 'control' of a business not 'involvement'. Trying to differentiate between 'involvement' and 'providing a service' is again splitting hairs in my opinion.
Bottom line, if you can evidence control by deciding on salary and dividend levels and making day-to-day decisions and not doing anything obviously stupid (like getting IR35 etc. insurance via your accountant), then the provider was probably not "involved with" YourCo.
Whether you call it splitting hairs or not is a matter of perspective, I suppose, but there's an awful lot of "splitting hairs" throughout our tax legislation, Ch. 8 and Ch. 10 included! To a large extent, it's an artifact of our common law system because "hair splitting" is the BAU of upper tier tribunals and courts who make case law.Comment
-
Did anyone here get contacted by <mod snip> (HMRC) in June 2019 asking them for a F2F or telephone interview about their relationship with Boox? I did, but I declined an interview. I was advised to complete a list of questions instead which I received via post.Comment
-
-
Originally posted by nekro View PostDid anyone here get contacted by <mod snip> (HMRC) in June 2019 asking them for a F2F or telephone interview about their relationship with Boox? I did, but I declined an interview. I was advised to complete a list of questions instead which I received via post.
Those who were/are with CK will remember the words in the determination letters well... "after speaking with clients.."
Comment
-
Just looking for a bit of guidance on the initial appeal, if someone could help?
I received my notification letter from the HMRC dated 22nd November, but I haven't yet received my determination of tax owed. In the meantime, I am drafting my appeal and gathering relevant evidence that I operated as an independent PSC. I haven't had a chance to see any template appeals yet. Just wondering what level of detail to go into on the first appeal? Is better to go in with as much detail as possible with as much evidence as you can muster? Or is it more a case of keep the initial appeal fairly basic with a view to producing evidence at a later review stage?
I'm asking this question, because I understand the initial appeals are being stood over, without really being looked at in detail by HMRC. I imagine they are being left on file to be reviewed pending the outcome of the first FTT, after which the HMRC will contact you with regard to renewing your appeal and producing further evidence to back your claim?
I say this because of a previous occasion when I had dealings with the HMRC. Although I ended up in the clear, the conclusion I came to was that it was better to only produce very specific evidence, and only after it was requested.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Expert Accounting for Contractors: Trusted by thousands Dec 12 14:47
- Finish the song lyric Dec 12 12:05
- A quick read of the taxman’s Spotlight 67 may not be enough Dec 12 09:27
- Contractor MVL Solution from SFP Dec 11 12:53
- Gary Lineker and HMRC broker IR35 settlement on the hush Dec 11 09:10
- IT contractor jobs market sinks to four-year low in November Dec 10 09:30
- Joke of the Day Dec 9 14:57
- How company directors can offset employer NIC rising to 15% Dec 9 10:30
- Contractors, seen Halifax’s 18-month fixed rate remortgage? Dec 5 09:59
- Contractors, don’t be fooled by HMRC Spotlight 67 on MSCs Dec 4 09:20
Comment