Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[Lotok]

Yeah, I've already applied for this and received a letter back saying my claim was noted but nothing will be actioned until the Regulation 80 Determination is finalised. Once finalised, I would then need to make the claim for the overpayment. There was no talk or information about time limits (other than them noting about the investigation... this is from the CT department not MSC) – and since this was a generic response, I presume we all received something similar? Basically, however long this case takes... we can only apply for a refund after the case is closed (meaning the timeframe/deadline is redundant, surely).

Quote from a DK email on the subject

For the years to 31^st January 2019, 2020 and 2021 the deadlines are 31^st January 2023, 2024 and 2025 under the normal rule. You may have heard that HMRC have been saying that they cannot be submitted until the PAYE matter is sorted out. This is legally incorrect and more recent correspondence that I have had from is not consistent on this point: some of it implies that they can and other pieces maintain the original line.

[DealorNoDeal]

I don't expect much from Boox

That's concerning.

HMRC's best chance of winning this half-baked case is if there's a poor defence at the tribunal.

[Hareforthebear]

Quote from a DK email on the subject

As far as I’m aware HMRC haven't once provided definitive workings on how they have come to the figures presented so how could we even be sure it’s relevant.

If HMRC are successful at tribunal then presumably the tribunal would rule how this can or can’t be applied?

I hardly think they could not accept claims should they prove relevant given the mixed messaging.

Needless to say DK has an interest in these being submitted anyway.

This is something I myself am happy to take the risk on as I don’t see how it could be justified by any stretch. HMRC even Now still state they are ‘fact finding’.

[Guy Incognito]

I am desperately hoping CK get their funds and go first. Hopefully they win and the case law is sufficient to protect us poor Boox schmucks.

If Boox go first they might pave the way for a CK loss because it will not be a well funded defence.

[GregRickshaw]

And they (not CK) have refused to contribute anything to the fighting fund. So they either believe their cases are so strong they don't need to or they (not CK) are just burying their heads in the sand.

[enda1]

I am desperately hoping CK get their funds and go first. Hopefully they win and the case law is sufficient to protect us poor Boox schmucks.

If Boox go first they might pave the way for a CK loss because it will not be a well funded defence.

At last update they were at 82% of their £1.3M target. So they've collected a substantial war chest.

[Bruce88]

And they (not CK) have refused to contribute anything to the fighting fund. So they either believe their cases are so strong they don't need to or they (not CK) are just burying their heads in the sand.

My understanding is that TAAG/Boox are taking this very serious and have already spent a substantial amount on legal fees. They have been proactive (maybe not publicly) in trying to get the HMRC to change their view and have the case dismissed. They sent a very detailed technical response to the HMRC which explained why they believed the HMRC assessment was incorrect. As far as I can see the HMRC just ignored it and decided to plow ahead regardless.

They have also pointed out the numerous errors that HMRC have made, including sending determinations for substantial amounts to Boox clients who are companies with multiple employees and clearly not PSCs. Personally, I don't think it reflects well on the HMRC case if they can make such basic errors in interpreting their own rules.

[DealorNoDeal]

At last update they were at 82% of their £1.3M target. So they've collected a substantial war chest.

= £1m, which should be more than enough for a good with HMRC.

[GregRickshaw]

My understanding is that TAAG/Boox are taking this very serious and have already spent a substantial amount on legal fees. They have been proactive (maybe not publicly) in trying to get the HMRC to change their view and have the case dismissed. They sent a very detailed technical response to the HMRC which explained why they believed the HMRC assessment was incorrect. As far as I can see the HMRC just ignored it and decided to plow ahead regardless.

They have also pointed out the numerous errors that HMRC have made, including sending determinations for substantial amounts to Boox clients who are companies with multiple employees and clearly not PSCs. Personally, I don't think it reflects well on the HMRC case if they can make such basic errors in interpreting their own rules.

Whilst I agree with everything in your second paragraph about errors and interpretation. I am not hearing anything like you mention from the first paragraph from any of the Boox contractors caught up in this, in fact the exact opposite.

We do also know CK have reached out to talk about a joint fighting fund and have been rebuffed on every occasion, however I probably understand it now as the latest letters to Boox clients seem HMRC are framing a much more detailed bunch of captures (as ridiculous and incoherent as they are) against Boox whereas the CK letters have the same few captures and no in depth detail.

Lets' hope there is a coming together for the final push.

[Bruce88]

Whilst I agree with everything in your second paragraph about errors and interpretation. I am not hearing anything like you mention from the first paragraph from any of the Boox contractors caught up in this, in fact the exact opposite.

I believe Boox have scaled down their operation significantly and have only a small amount of staff remaining. However their parent group TAAG are still very much involved in fighting this case.