Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[GregRickshaw]

Speaking with tax specialists and insurance companies, it's almost a given that HMRC will appeal to a higher court if they lose.

If that's the case, and reading about the contributions made to CK and the DK group (for Boox), what's the point in winning the FTT if CK or Boox have no funds to fight the appeal? Is there a point to fight HMRC if they are counting on unlimited resources/funds?

Do we have any chances here if HMRC is not willing to even look at our appeals? Or, is there anything else we can do to proof that neither CK or Boox were managing our companies?

There is loads you can do like get and gather any tiny shred of evidence no matter how insignificant you think it may be; business cards, website etc., those things won't ever hurt you in trying to prove you were a company and you as a director ran the company.

[jamesbrown]

Settled as in pay the amount owed less CT, DT and any bit of Employers NIC

Another reason why HMRC cannot really lose, even if they lose in every stage of the tribunal/court process. This:

1. Reg 80 determinations
2. ???
3. Profit

Is a totally workable strategy.

[DealorNoDeal]

Another reason why HMRC cannot really lose, even if they lose in every stage of the tribunal/court process.

Anything which sows FUD in the contractor community is probably a win in their book. And it will suit their agenda that this will inevitably drag on for years.

[ritwolf]

Bit that isn’t what Boox and CK have been accused of.

it’s things such as suggesting salary levels and making a profit.

I've just read this, what do you mean here by making a profit? Can you give an example please? I'm trying to better understand what is that Boox did to be deemed as MSCP

[eek]

I've just read this, what do you mean here by making a profit? Can you give an example please? I'm trying to better understand what is that Boox did to be deemed as MSCP

Making a profit => charging you for providing a service (it's that simple).

[DealorNoDeal]

Making a profit => charging you for providing a service (it's that simple).

So, the safest option is to use a pro bono accountant.

[eek]

So, the safest option is to use a pro bono accountant.

Do it yourself - or explicitly pay your accountant for every task they perform.

[DealorNoDeal]

Do it yourself - or explicitly pay your accountant for every task they perform.

It's a bit ridiculous that spreading the cost through a fixed monthly payment plan carries a risk.

[jamesbrown]

It's a bit ridiculous that spreading the cost through a fixed monthly payment plan carries a risk.

To your FUD point, I doubt it does.

The real risk is when the payment to the alleged MSCP is linked to the services provided by YourCo (that is, the provision of services by YourCo to its clients), such as invoice frequency/amount or company dormancy status in extremis, perhaps.

[DealorNoDeal]

The real risk is when the payment to the alleged MSCP is linked to the services provided by YourCo (that is, the provision of services by YourCo to its clients), such as invoice frequency/amount or company dormancy status in extremis, perhaps.

Contractor invoices every month. Contractor pays accountant monthly fee. HMRC sees a link it wants to see.

In this respect, recruitment agencies fit the fact pattern better because they typically charge a % of every invoice.