• 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.

Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts



    Originally posted by rdw1970 View Post

    The issue isn't paying the monthly fee itself, it's still paying a fee regardless if you're working or not. Same if your company is dormant and you pay a smaller fee to keep the same accountants. Hector says this meets one of the 5 tests to determine if your accountant in an MSCP - "(a) benefits financially on an ongoing basis from the provision of the services of the individual"

    This is the Test David Kirk says is the most problematic one and doesn't think the other 2 tests (which Hector says apply to CK and Boox) will stand up in court.

    These were:-
    (c) influences or controls the way in which payments to the individual (or associates of the individual) are made.
    (d) influences or controls the company’s finances or any of its activities

    Totally agree CK and Boox should seek support from the other main players and start applying some political pressure on Hector.
    I have been saying this since day one, once they caught us on the fee there was no way back.

    Also it's all fees not just the dormant fee etc., The argument David, WTT and GT have to make is there was no % earned based on income etc.,

    Yes the other two points are very subjective and nearly all of us are able to prove 100% (c) and (d) definitely did not apply to us at all and have loads of evidence to support. The fee though hopefully there will be the accountant rule and exceptions.

    Hard to believe isn't it, HMRC could reap in £millions just because your accountant had the audacity to charge you for the work they did for you.


    Comment


      Got my response. Pretty clear they are just templating a letter out to stand over 100% of appeals.

      Took them well over three weeks.

      I'd be surprised if I hear anything before my 2018/19 demand on 04 April next year.

      Comment




        Originally posted by Guy Incognito View Post
        Got my response. Pretty clear they are just templating a letter out to stand over 100% of appeals.

        Took them well over three weeks.

        I'd be surprised if I hear anything before my 2018/19 demand on 04 April next year.
        A response to an WTT/David appeal or just the standard 'we'll put this aside' response to our original appeals?

        Comment


          Originally posted by GregRickshaw View Post



          A response to an WTT/David appeal or just the standard 'we'll put this aside' response to our original appeals?
          My own (first) appeal which was 3,000 words. I got the 'we'll put this aside' response.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Guy Incognito View Post

            My own (first) appeal which was 3,000 words. I got the 'we'll put this aside' response.
            Same here but I used the CK template, David and WTT said the big appeals would come later, though not sure what the difference is TBH.

            The only 'helpers' I know who are approaching this differently are Gilbert who are asking HMRC to give evidence to support their claims rather then the other way around. I imagine they are having the same time delays though.

            Comment


              Originally posted by GregRickshaw View Post

              Same here but I used the CK template, David and WTT said the big appeals would come later, though not sure what the difference is TBH.

              The only 'helpers' I know who are approaching this differently are Gilbert who are asking HMRC to give evidence to support their claims rather then the other way around. I imagine they are having the same time delays though.
              HMRC Evidence = You paid monthly

              Comment


                Originally posted by Guy Incognito View Post

                HMRC Evidence = You paid monthly
                Not quite it's

                HMRC Evidence = You paid monthly + Different rate was charged when you were working...
                merely at clientco for the entertainment

                Comment


                  Originally posted by eek View Post

                  Not quite it's

                  HMRC Evidence = You paid monthly + Different rate was charged when you were working...
                  A different rate when you were working or when you were not working?

                  HMRC can't provide evidence for differing rates during working as that didn't happen, they can of course provide evidence of different levels of fees for premium services (packaged products) and possibly differing rates when not working (dormant).

                  However this then goes to a case by case basis.
                  Last edited by GregRickshaw; 19 May 2022, 15:43.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by eek View Post

                    Not quite it's

                    HMRC Evidence = You paid monthly + Different rate was charged when you were working...
                    I paid the same rate working or not and provided very detailed evidence of this.

                    Comment




                      Originally posted by Guy Incognito View Post

                      I paid the same rate working or not and provided very detailed evidence of this.

                      I too paid the same rate for the years in question and never was not working so my fee stayed the same entirely, it's only in these later years I had a dormant company for a while.

                      I swear the waiting is the worst

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X