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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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’.

[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.