Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[GregRickshaw]

I don't think Jamesbrown and I are being flippant we are just being honest. Look at the CBS case - it started before April 2012 (given the 2007/8 tax year was in play) and the time frames are

First Tribunal - 15 – 18 September 2015
Upper Tribunal - 27-29 November 2017 - Judgement 19 Jan 2018
Court of Appeal - 19 March 2019

So that is 7 years from the initial letters to the final judgment and 3.5 years until the initial tax tribunal - and remember that you may not be part of the initial case but just party to the end result.

Which is why I'm currently saying don't run for the monthly fee options because that could be 7 years of £50+ a month until things even kick off - and it's likely to go to the Court of Appeal because this is definitely an extension to the MSC rules...

I know eek you are not being deliberately flippant your wisdom and insight is always a good read.

Sadly though 7 years of waiting is 7 years of torture for me nothing more. Whilst some may have a 'flip it' attitude to having a huge amount of debt looming large I can't take that I'm afraid.

[jamesbrown]

Not pointless at all, I find this forum very useful.

Much of the speculation is indeed pointless. Some other interesting details will emerge in due course, I'm sure, but some of the thinking here is extremely muddled and counterproductive. Again, accountancy is explicitly carved out in ITEPA Part 2 Chapter 9 and yet it's also clear that some (at least self-declared) accountants can be simultaneously MSCP providers "involved with" MSCs. Paying a fee to an accountant is quite obviously irrelevant in separating those two things. The reason everyone is struggling to understand how an accountant could simultaneously be declared an MSCP involved with MSCs is that HMRC are currently probing that line to clarify it!

We know the specific charges and we know the responses.

No we don't and I certainly wouldn't trust your judgement of that. In your own words:

I wouldn't have a clue, I still don't and I don't want anything to do with that stuff

Indeed, HMRC will be salivating at the chance of you being a test case.

I love it when people who are not involved throw out words like 'take years'.... that is not helpful to those of us suffering this every waking moment and are facing genuine financial ruin, I'm glad you can be so flippant about it I wouldn't wish this on anyone.

I've already said I wouldn't wish this on anyone. At the same time, you appear to have shown very poor judgement (weren't you involved in aggressive avoidance schemes too? In other words, there is probably a pattern here). I still want you and others to come through it, but some critical self reflection might not go amiss. It's also a factual statement that this will take years to resolve, sadly.

[eek]

I know eek you are not being deliberately flippant your wisdom and insight is always a good read.

Sadly though 7 years of waiting is 7 years of torture for me nothing more. Whilst some may have a 'flip it' attitude to having a huge amount of debt looming large I can't take that I'm afraid.

And I know that but I would be working out what HMRC want and putting it to one side or paying it via an APN that is recoverable rather than writing HMRC a large cheque that would never be refunded.

The CK case is very much testing a new MSC front and while HMRC may be correct that the CBS Appeal court decision broadened the legislation to include what were previously fairly generic (albeit badly sold and explained) accountancy services HMRC could equally be seen as completely abusing their position.

We just don't know and there is little point signing £x,000 away until you know if HMRC are on a fishing expedition or have a valid argument.

[mudskipper]

"benefits financially on an ongoing basis from the provision of the services of the individual"

This seems tenuous - they're being paid because your company needs competent accounting, which is only loosely linked to "provision of services of the individual" - yourCo pays the accountant a constant amount whether or not you're in contract, and whether or not those contracts earn yourCo £200,000 a year or £20,000.

[eek]

This seems tenuous - they're being paid because your company needs competent accounting, which is only loosely liked to "provision of services of the individual" - yourCo pays the accountant a constant amount whether or not you're in contract, and whether or not those contracts earn yourCo £200,000 a year or £20,000.

Go back and read the tribunal and appeal judgments.

CBS started charging fees based on turnover but even after they stopped doing and they started charging a standard fee - that wasn't by itself enough to change the end result (paragraph 13 of the Appeal statement).

It's tenuous but that doesn't mean they ain't an argument within it...

[DealorNoDeal]

Sadly though 7 years of waiting is 7 years of torture for me nothing more. Whilst some may have a 'flip it' attitude to having a huge amount of debt looming large I can't take that I'm afraid.

Have you received an actual assessment from HMRC yet? Did it suggest making a payment on account (PoA) to stop interest accruing? I know you said they wouldn't let you settle but you could always make a PoA.

It may be that they're not allowing settlement at the moment because they haven't yet reached a decision as to whether to pursue the case (start litigation).

[GregRickshaw]

Much of the speculation is indeed pointless. Some other interesting details will emerge in due course, I'm sure, but some of the thinking here is extremely muddled and counterproductive. Again, accountancy is explicitly carved out in ITEPA Part 2 Chapter 9 and yet it's also clear that some (at least self-declared) accountants can be simultaneously MSCP providers "involved with" MSCs. Paying a fee to an accountant is quite obviously irrelevant in separating those two things. The reason everyone is struggling to understand how an accountant could simultaneously be declared an MSCP involved with MSCs is that HMRC are currently probing that line to clarify it!



No we don't and I certainly wouldn't trust your judgement of that. In your own words:



Indeed, HMRC will be salivating at the chance of you being a test case.



I've already said I wouldn't wish this on anyone. At the same time, you appear to have shown very poor judgement (weren't you involved in aggressive avoidance schemes too? In other words, there is probably a pattern here). I still want you and others to come through it, but some critical self reflection might not go amiss. It's also a factual statement that this will take years to resolve, sadly.

Not so pointless as you seem to want to get involved all the time.

I have provided word for word what is going on without any speculation. Many of us have shared every detail privately, as a new speculation arrives it is discussed fully.

Every point described has been discussed and CK's response has been discussed, there is natural 'I wonder if' but no speculation here.

I imagine a lot of us on here wish you were as wise 'after every event' as you are.

As for critical self reflection? This is all our own faults and we should just suck it up eh?

Just wow, I have lived a dreadful life critically reflecting on everything I have ever done, especially in this last few years. You actually know nothing of the misery I have endured and you then suggest I show a little self criticism that is just wow words escape me.

Oh a factual statement made, none of ours/mine are factual but yours clearly are.

If this is so pointless just stop contributing.

[GregRickshaw]

Have you received an actual assessment from HMRC yet? Did it suggest making a payment on account (PoA) to stop interest accruing? I know you said they wouldn't let you settle but you could always make a PoA.

It may be that they're not allowing settlement at the moment because they haven't yet reached a decision as to whether to pursue the case (start litigation).

I have and yes the PoA is available which I am considering too I have asked for clarification on what exactly we get back should this go CK's way (IMHO it won't).

Yes I have been told that regarding the settlement

[GregRickshaw]

We just don't know and there is little point signing £x,000 away until you know if HMRC are on a fishing expedition or have a valid argument.

Maybe no point to some but to me it's an option to relieve the pain. No option yet as discussed.

[jamesbrown]

Not so pointless as you seem to want to get involved all the time.

I have provided word for word what is going on without any speculation. Many of us have shared every detail privately, as a new speculation arrives it is discussed fully.

Every point described has been discussed and CK's response has been discussed, there is natural 'I wonder if' but no speculation here.

I imagine a lot of us on here wish you were as wise 'after every event' as you are.

As for critical self reflection? This is all our own faults and we should just suck it up eh?

Just wow, I have lived a dreadful life critically reflecting on everything I have ever done, especially in this last few years. You actually know nothing of the misery I have endured and you then suggest I show a little self criticism that is just wow words escape me.

Oh a factual statement made, none of ours/mine are factual but yours clearly are.

If this is so pointless just stop contributing.

I will continue to flag any bad judgement or falsehoods on your part and offer my opinions commensurate with this being a professional forum. You don't seem able to cope with it, so you might consider putting me on ignore. HTH.