Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[jamesbrown]

Is there any consensus on whether this situation may pose a problem for those who have used CK or Boox and then closed down their company successfully?

In my case, I've since moved and so I doubt I'd find out about the letters until it was too late.

You need to get on top of this ASAP. You should contact CK/Boox and HMRC to see whether you've received a determination for 2017/18. Were you with CK or Boox in 2017/18? Closing your company does not necessarily mean you're free because HMRC can reinstate it administratively and the transfer of debt provisions are pretty expansive. If you don't respond to the determination within 30 days of it having been issued, then the debt is live and excuses about having moved on, dog ate the letter etc. will not work. If you weren't with CK or Boox in 2017/18, then you may not have an immediate problem, but you should still check.

[DealorNoDeal]

Right, the CoA only considered one very specific question about the interpretation of 61B(1)(d) referred to as Ground 10 (one of ten grounds of appeal to the UTT), so the case law, such as it is, only relates to that specific point, which was lost by the Appellants:

I believe a decision of the UTT creates case law, so Grounds 1-9 as well.

[jamesbrown]

I believe a decision of the UTT creates case law, so Grounds 1-9 as well.

Only the FTT would be bound by those and only where the facts were effectively the same.

[nekro]

It was really good webinar, as was WTTs and also GT`s briefings have been very good too.

I have been saying this for a while it`s the fee test which is the part I am deeply afraid of and I can`t see how the companies can argue it or defend it. But yes I thought he spoke very well indeed.

One point though which I didn`t quite get was, David thinks the accountants are paying for our defences (test cases), I asked CK this when it first happened and they quite categorically said no they weren`t paying. Maybe things have changed.

As an aside though I also never realised IR35 was a company debt and not transferable!

Please can anyone provide a link to the GT briefing (if one exists)? thanks

[GregRickshaw]

Please can anyone provide a link to the GT briefing (if one exists)? thanks

GT's was by email on demand/enquiry etc.,

[Guy Incognito]

Potentially stupid question but I'm asking anyway.

Will the Boox and CK court cases be separate? Or will we take a mix of Boox and CK through a single tribunal?

[GregRickshaw]

Potentially stupid question but I'm asking anyway.

Will the Boox and CK court cases be separate? Or will we take a mix of Boox and CK through a single tribunal?

Thing to remember though it's not their court case it's ours. But as the points caught on are slightly different I would imagine there will be different test cases going forward for each company.

If they (CK and Boox) have broken the law they will be punished accordingly

[Guy Incognito]

What laws could they have broken? It is not illegal to be a MSCP.

[malvolio]

What laws could they have broken? It is not illegal to be a MSCP.

It is if they or one of their clients does not pay full PAYE and NICs on their income. Given the broad definitions of an MSCP by Lawspeed, QDOS and others, it is quite possible that YourCo's entire trading history could be in scope of the legislation governing MSCPs and therefore MSCs.

The argument is about defining the boundary of what constitutes an MSCP, not the law itself.

[antuk]

so its recently been brought to my attention that Boox knew they were being investigated as far back as 2018, despite not agreeing with HMRCs conclusion, should they not have taken steps to mitigate the impact and change their working practices?