Originally posted by GregRickshaw
- 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 mudskipper View Post
If found to be an MSC (which, from what you've said, if given proper legal advice sounds unlikely) is this a company liability or personal liability?
Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
If found to be an MSC (which, from what you've said, if given proper legal advice sounds unlikely) is this a company liability or personal liability?Last edited by AdamEdwards; 18 March 2022, 20:09.Comment
-
Originally posted by GregRickshaw
Interesting, of those I have just read I can't see how CK can be accused of any of those possibly very tenuously point four. Not sure about their other clients but none of my dealings with CK and their dealings with me would fall into any of the five mentioned.
There's more to this than those points, which CK are answering based on Hector's approach. They (CK) have given Hector answers (diluted for morons like me to understand) on all of those.
As I said earlier something is 'off' here and my tiny brain cannot possibly comprehend tax or employment laws (let alone the combination of the two).
CK have so far been very good and transparent so as more info comes to light we may be able to determine further the root cause.
That said, if they were shown to be a MSCP, I struggle to see how anyone receiving plain vanilla accountancy services from them could be considered an MSC. Highly doubtful. I can understand the concern - it must be pretty worrying to receive this - but it doesn't stack up; however, I take your points about there being more to this than meets the eye.
Comment
-
Hmmm, some stuff on their website has alarm bells ringing for me.
We have carefully constructed our limited company packages to suit contractors and freelancers at each career stage. If you want to take care of some of the work yourself or prefer a completely hands-off approach, you have the option to choose.
I mean, what on earth is a "completely hands-off" approach in the context of running a company? What is a "package" at "each career stage"? I appreciate this could be superficial, but it's very poorly chosen language, at best, and I can see how an HMRC person looking at their website might wonder what is happening under the hood.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostHmmm, some stuff on their website has alarm bells ringing for me.
https://www.churchill-knight.co.uk/s...pany/packages/
I mean, what on earth is a "completely hands-off" approach in the context of running a company? What is a "package" at "each career stage"? I appreciate this could be superficial, but it's very poorly chosen language, at best, and I can see how an HMRC person looking at their website might wonder what is happening under the hood.
Taken as far the composite company providers did, it basically meant sham incorporation. With no business risk or exposure to the normal rough and tumble of running a small business. There were even fighting funds set aside to fight off tax investigations.
The language you posted is more or less what the composite company providers were saying back then. As a result we got MSC legislation.
It's not that difficult to see the connection? I am surprised it took so long actually.Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.Comment
-
Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
That's exactly the kind of stuff I have been referring to. Superficial or not, that's going to have to be defended. It won't be easy explaining why a "completely hands off" company isn't an MSC.
Taken as far the composite company providers did, it basically meant sham incorporation. With no business risk or exposure to the normal rough and tumble of running a small business. There were even fighting funds set aside to fight off tax investigations.
The language you posted is more or less what the composite company providers were saying back then. As a result we got MSC legislation.
It's not that difficult to see the connection? I am surprised it took so long actually.Comment
-
Ok Greg. This looks like a subset of ‘In Business on Your Own Account’.
While CK are looking like they’ve got questions to answer, it looks as if you have solid answers to those questions.
So organise your folder with EVERYTHING that shows that you are a businessman. Dig out all correspondence for organising your Ltd, Vat and everything else (digital and paper) that shows that you set up and run the LTd on your own. Also demonstrate that you make all the financial decisions for your company. Make sure that those answers are given to your tax advisor and your MP.
Here are tips to show that you are outside IR35: https://www.contractoruk.com/private...side_ir35.html
And remember to put all of this evidence into your appeal to HMRC - you have 30 days from the date of the letter to return it.
View this as a form of IR35 investigation - HMRC are wrong in your circumstances and a good defence will get you out of this."I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
- Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...Comment
-
Originally posted by GregRickshawI am looking into transferring ownership of my house to my partner, as what we have seen so far is there is no provision to chase the debt from anyone other than the debt owner. I am aware normally of Hector's stance when you move money etc., but it does not seem to apply in this transfer of debt legislation.
Having said that, if HMRC do litigate against CK, this could easily drag on for more than 5 years.
If I were you, I'd look into this very carefully before taking the drastic step of transferring your house.Scoots still says that Apr 2020 didn't mark the start of a new stock bull market.Comment
-
I’ve also started to prepare for the worst now.?
HMRC gave an option to pay the amount while the investigation was pending so there no interest on the amount. The letter stated that this stance does not consider the MSC legislation to apply. It will be return if CK win.
Also does it make sense to leave CK for a smaller firm for the future as I’m confident that all my work carried out is outside IR35?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
- Spot the hidden contractor Yesterday 10:43
- Accounting for Contractors Dec 19 15:30
- Chartered Accountants with MarchMutual Dec 19 15:05
- Chartered Accountants with March Mutual Dec 19 15:05
- Chartered Accountants Dec 19 15:05
- Unfairly barred from contracting? Petrofac just paid the price Dec 19 09:43
- An IR35 case law look back: contractor must-knows for 2025-26 Dec 18 09:30
- A contractor’s Autumn Budget financial review Dec 17 10:59
- Why limited company working could be back in vogue in 2025 Dec 16 09:45
- Expert Accounting for Contractors: Trusted by thousands Dec 12 14:47
Comment