Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[jamesbrown]

In my experience though Hector chancing their arm is rare really, if they have a sniff then they have got it for very good reason.

You only need to look at their record with IR35 to know that this is untrue. Some of the CK marketing is unquestionably dumb, but CK is a million miles away from CBS, at least from what I can see, looking from the outside in.

[frz78]

You only need to look at their record with IR35 to know that this is untrue. Some of the CK marketing is unquestionably dumb, but CK is a million miles away from CBS, at least from what I can see, looking from the outside in.

well they do seem to be very different - but as greg says. we will have to go through the worry until that is proven.

[jamesbrown]

Oh okay happy to be proved wrong on this. Just in my experience then.

But chance their arm they will and make us sick with worry they do this very well.

Agree, definitely stressful, but I honestly doubt they will have a strong case against CK if they broadly operated as a normal contractor accountancy. If I'm wrong about this, then a very, very large group of people need to be worried.

[Fred Bloggs]

Agree, definitely stressful, but I honestly doubt they will have a strong case against CK if they broadly operated as a normal contractor accountancy. If I'm wrong about this, then a very, very large group of people need to be worried.

In Hector's shoes, next I would be determining who it was who used the "totally hands off solution" and who had a vanilla book keeping service. Then it's dead easy to rule out who is potentially MSC caught and who isn't. If this doesn't happen, I would be very surprised since it seems to me that CK wasn't a one size fits all service. Vanilla book keeping just can't be MSC caught in my thinking.

[jamesbrown]

In Hector's shoes, next I would be determining who it was who used the "totally hands off solution" and who had a vanilla book keeping service. Then it's dead easy to rule out who is potentially MSC caught and who isn't. If this doesn't happen, I would be very surprised since it seems to me that CK wasn't a one size fits all service. Vanilla book keeping just can't be MSC caught in my thinking.

Right. They may try it on with the entire client base, but I just don't see it working if the situation is as described by many people in this thread. Alternatively, perhaps their marketing is just dumb and completely off base and all clients get vanilla accounting.

[frz78]

In Hector's shoes, next I would be determining who it was who used the "totally hands off solution" and who had a vanilla book keeping service. Then it's dead easy to rule out who is potentially MSC caught and who isn't. If this doesn't happen, I would be very surprised since it seems to me that CK wasn't a one size fits all service. Vanilla book keeping just can't be MSC caught in my thinking.

i mean if having an online portal for bookkeeping is now regarded as MSC, then it throws into question any digital solution from accountants. How any of the contractors are meant to know these technical details is beyond me.

[jamesbrown]

i mean if having an online portal for bookkeeping is now regarded as MSC, then it throws into question any digital solution from accountants. How any of the contractors are meant to know these technical details is beyond me.

Or indeed FA or any other bookkeeping software backed by vanilla accountancy, but that is completely implausible and far removed from the MSC legislation. Indeed, it's quite clear that vanilla accounting is out of scope of the legislation. If there is a problem related to the bookkeeping software, it will be much more contrived than simply its existence, rather that it defaults to certain salary and dividend payments that each contractor then follows by default. But it sounds like that wasn't happening or, at least, it wasn't happening in recent years, perhaps 10 years ago.

[frz78]

Or indeed FA or any other bookkeeping software backed by vanilla accountancy, but that is completely implausible and far removed from the MSC legislation. Indeed, it's quite clear that vanilla accounting is out of scope of the legislation. If there is a problem related to the bookkeeping software, it will be much more contrived than simply its existence, rather that it defaults to certain salary and dividend payments that each contractor then follows by default. But it sounds like that wasn't happening or, at least, it wasn't happening in recent years, perhaps 10 years ago.

The only salary is you are allowed to pay yourself as minimum PAYE wage threshold for example, but the contractor decides that at the start of the year - you tell CK not the other way round. You can change your tax planning to whatever suits you. For example i now have a PAYE perm role and do some freelance in addition, so i set up as no salary. Every year the contractor decides this - not CK.

[Fred Bloggs]

Right. They may try it on with the entire client base, but I just don't see it working if the situation is as described by many people in this thread. Alternatively, perhaps their marketing is just dumb and completely off base and all clients get vanilla accounting.

I have to say, I find it hard to believe that from the people paying for the "completely hands-off approach" that's available right now on the CK website. There's two services presently available, Professional and Elite. I really cannot see folks paying for Elite and getting the same service as Professional or vice versa.

Of course, what CK offered back in the day I don't know. I would first be running a screen on who paid what and look at the most expensive service customers first. They're the ones likely most at risk from possible MSC legislation. I think?

I don't see everyone getting the same treatment from Hector once it becomes clearer who received what service. If I were a vanilla book keeping CK customer, and I could prove it, I'd be a bit more relaxed than if I were a "completely hands-off approach" client.

[Fred Bloggs]

i mean if having an online portal for bookkeeping is now regarded as MSC, then it throws into question any digital solution from accountants. How any of the contractors are meant to know these technical details is beyond me.

It isn't me who is saying that.

No, I don't believe the entire industry is at retrospective risk.

It's your responsibility as a company director to understand all the legislation that applies to running a small Ltd Co. Ignorance is no defence of the law. I have zero sympathy for anyone who claims they weren't fully aware of the MSC legislation.