Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[jamesbrown]

Largely unrelated (focused on LLPs, but pushing in the same general direction w/r to more people on the payroll), but this one just finished in the SC, around 5 years after the FTT in 2021, so 2031 is not ridiculous:

https://www.cityam.com/hedge-fund-ru...0m-tax-battle/

[GregRickshaw]

It seems HMRC think the same, they started sending even more stand still agreements which takes them roughly to 2033.

[Hareforthebear]

It seems HMRC think the same, they started sending even more stand still agreements which takes them roughly to 2033.

Wow really?!

Have they actually taken any protective action with the county courts or is this just a bluff they are trying to bully people into?

I was never sent one though had no intention of signing and NICS now time barred (or potentially not in their opinion if you believe their tribunal waffle). I do know of someone who HMRC admitted (in writing) that a portion of their NICS were time barred and asked them to sign a standstill for remaining or they will take action in county court. They did not sign nor did HMRC take any protective action.

[GregRickshaw]

Bullying yes, panicking yes, calculated yes, every adjective you need applies to HMRC. They truly are the very definition of a law unto themselves. Correct at the tribunal they basically said, 'we don't give a sh** about time barred'

No one would be daft enough to put it past them to try to collect after 10 years. I think there are rules (theirs of course) which is something along the lines of 'if they can prove deliberate wrong doing'

I do know something had I done this much research into my Geography degree as I have done into HMRC DR schemes, MSC legislation etc., I'd have been a professor at Oxford instead of a low life IT contractor...

Had enough of this for now. Going back to life until the next tribunal. Still not got my POA back yet, I wonder how much interest I will get since they've had my money for nearly five years.

See you all back here in November

[enda1]

It seems HMRC think the same, they started sending even more stand still agreements which takes them roughly to 2033.

Wonder if they'll miss the cc deadline this time around for those that don't sign...

[bnacontractor]

Has any one received a further standstill agreement relating to CK and taken advice on whether to agree to it. It reads very much in a way that you have no choice and dammed if you or you don’t but just interested in other people’s thoughts before I agree to this dragging out and hanging over me even longer?

[howbigmassive]

A standstill agreement request in July when the limitation period for NICs would be two weeks after the end of the financial year of 5 April 2027 is premature, especially with the BOOX test case having just finished - and you'd expect a judgment before then (regardless of any subsequent appeals), and then with the CKA test case also scheduled for later this this year.

HMRC should wait until closer to the end of the limitation period before filing protective claims with the county court (CC), otherwise I'd suggest it is a premature and unreasonable request, which incurs costs on their side to prepare and file, and on the defendants side to respond to. In my specific case, HMRC requested standstill agreements on multiple occasions, most requests were unreasonable and I declined all of them, with HMRC proceeding to file two protective claims with the CC:

1. A standstill request on 23 November 2023.
2. A standstill request on 4 March 2025 covering two separate tax years simultaneously - unreasonable and unnecessary.
3. A standstill request on 8 April 2025 with only three days to respond - unreasonable.
4. A standstill request on 29 August 2025, when there were still seven months remaining until the limitation period and whilst my tribunal appeal was in full flow - unreasonable and unnecessary.

There is the wider issue that HMRCs use of protective claims and standstill agreements is a result of their disorganised handling of this entire investigation. A party should not be able to benefit from such instruments, when it was their own conduct that led to the delays in the first place. For example, it took HMRC 655 days to perform the 'independent review' that I had a statutory right to request, when their own guidance is 45 days.

The Limitations Act 1980 exists for a reason and I'd suggest HMRCs use of them is an abuse of process - but it does not stop them trying, and it did not prevent the CC from allowing the claims, because HMRC then immediately requested that they be aside whilst the test cases were pending.

[senka311]

Has anyone heard anything from David Kirk since the end of the trial?
I've had daily updates then nothing since the 29/06...

[Lotok]

I know his last email was long, but he did say in it he would be silent until the judgement comes out.

[GregRickshaw]

I know his last email was long, but he did say in it he would be silent until the judgement comes out.

I think he only meant silent in opinion. He'll still be communicating his other work for us.