Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[DealorNoDeal]

However their parent group TAAG are still very much involved in fighting this case.

That's good to hear. It would be a real shame if HMRC got an easy ride because of a poor defence.

It will be interesting to see what HMRC actually present at a tribunal. I imagine it won't be a lot of the flimsy rubbish they've trotted out so far.

[antuk]

Why would Boox even fight it at this point - they have pretty much shut down, yes their parent company is still running but all the Boox customers (that didnt leave before) were moved to someone else.

What do they have to gain by fighting it at this stage, I hope im wrong and they do fight - I just don't see whats in it for them now they have lost their customer base

[Bruce88]

Why would Boox even fight it at this point - they have pretty much shut down, yes their parent company is still running but all the Boox customers (that didnt leave before) were moved to someone else.

What do they have to gain by fighting it at this stage, I hope im wrong and they do fight - I just don't see whats in it for them now they have lost their customer base

Their parent company TAAG are still a going concern. My understanding is that due to the debt transfer rules within the MSC legislation, the director of TAAG will be liable for any NI/tax which isn't recovered from the MSC directors or associates.

[Hareforthebear]

Their parent company TAAG are still a going concern. My understanding is that due to the debt transfer rules within the MSC legislation, the director of TAAG will be liable for any NI/tax which isn't recovered from the MSC directors or associates.

Just to clarify, TAAG is not the ‘parent co’ of BOOX. TAAG is BOOX. BOOX was a business division of TAAG which is the legal entity contractors have engaged as accountants. The BOOX part of TAAG (customers etc) has since been sold to a different firm, but TAAG is who is involved in the investigation.

TAAG is the entity on the hook here, and as mentioned before they are still a going concern, they have other division/s. So there very much is an incentive to fight from the perspective they still have an active business at stake, not to mention obviously the directors are potentially on the hook as well.

[DealorNoDeal]

My understanding is that due to the debt transfer rules within the MSC legislation, the director of TAAG will be liable for any NI/tax which isn't recovered from the MSC directors or associates.

If that's true, then it is a good incentive for TAAG to fight. The chances that HMRC would be able to recover what's owed from ever single MSC are slim. There's bound to be quite a few where there's hardly a pot to piss in, and it could all add up to a sizeable sum.

[GregRickshaw]

If that's true, then it is a good incentive for TAAG to fight. The chances that HMRC would be able to recover what's owed from ever single MSC are slim. There's bound to be quite a few where there's hardly a pot to piss in, and it could all add up to a sizeable sum.

The directors of CKA certainly feel this, they know how many companies caught up in this can never pay and the directors never be found. I have been very impressed with CKA's approach to this and the not running away, they continue to have a thriving customer base from the sounds of things too.

[DealorNoDeal]

The directors of CKA certainly feel this, they know how many companies caught up in this can never pay and the directors never be found.

And I have no doubt HMRC would go after CKA and TAAG, and in a high-profile way. Not just for the money but also the message it sends to other contractor accountants.

[gikap]

Ive just received an NI bill from HMRC, its addressed to me not the company but says the company is liable. Does not mention which years it covers, and is for an insane number (about 50% of what I took from the company over 3 years).

Is this appeal separate from the income tax appeal, it feels like they should be tied together, so not sure why I need to appeal this separately?

With help from DK in my case it was a single appeal mentioning both letters ie. Appeal against the regulation 80 PAYE determinations issued on <some-date> for tax years <list-of-tax-years> and the section 8 National Insurance decision.

[jamesbrown]

If that's true, then it is a good incentive for TAAG to fight. The chances that HMRC would be able to recover what's owed from ever single MSC are slim. There's bound to be quite a few where there's hardly a pot to piss in, and it could all add up to a sizeable sum.

It is nominally correct. However, they will look to the director(s) of the MSC and their personal assets before they look to the MSCP, let alone persons connected to the MSCP, such as their directors. Still, there could easily be a liability at the end of that (very long) chain, hence the interest from the alleged MSCPs in pursuing.

[DealorNoDeal]

At least the interests of CKA & TAAG are somewhat aligned with the clients.

This was rarely the case with any of the contractor tax schemes, where there was virtually no risk to the providers if the contractors were investigated by HMRC.