Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[DealorNoDeal]

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).

You will get it all back, plus a small amount of interest (0.5% p.a. I think).

Personally, if it was me, I'd make a PoA rather than settling. Once you settle, it's not normally reversible. That's why I suspect HMRC are not letting people settle at the moment.

[GregRickshaw]

You will get it all back, plus a small amount of interest (0.5% p.a. I think).

Personally, if it was me, I'd make a PoA rather than settling. Once you settle, it's not normally reversible. That's why I suspect HMRC are not letting people settle at the moment.

Yes it's a good option. As to the settlement not being allowed after reading what Hector has on CK and CK's responses the case seem strong for Hector (oops speculated again).

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Array

after reading what Hector has on CK and CK's responses the case seem strong for Hector (oops speculated again).

Are you prepared to share any of this? I'm interested to see how much might apply to other specialist accountants. I fully understand if you prefer not to.

[GregRickshaw]

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.

There is a perfectly good private message system if you want to get personal with me, you won't of course.

Anyway some might find your input valuable, I actually do too, it's your speculation of peoples' lives and judgements no one wants or needs.

[eek]

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

My point was just don't settle if other options (such as payment on account) are available as that would allow you to recover the money were HMRC to be found to have got things wrong....

[GregRickshaw]

My point was just don't settle if other options (such as payment on account) are available as that would allow you to recover the money were HMRC to be found to have got things wrong....

I thank you for this I really do.

[SoConfused]

Yes it's a good option. As to the settlement not being allowed after reading what Hector has on CK and CK's responses the case seem strong for Hector (oops speculated again).

I am with CK and I really don't follow why you would be writing this. Do you know something I and other CK users don't?

[GregRickshaw]

I am with CK and I really don't follow why you would be writing this. Do you know something I and other CK users don't?

Have your read your determination letter? When you look at the points highlighted by Hector remember it's not how you (or I) operated it's how CK operated.

I looked at them all and said probably the same as you. They didn't do that for me etc., etc., but according to the letter just one of those tests has to fail. The one 'in the letter' which is the hardest to deny, says benefit from ongoing.... Hector argues a monthly fee is benefitting.

The letter also clearly states from Hector 'just one' failure of those points.

So if CK offered any of those things stated in the letter to any of the companies they did the books for then sadly it applies to all of us. As someone said we could then argue we were not in that model but once CK get caught it will be an uphill battle.

Read your letter again and remember it's not you they are looking at, it's we may have been caught by CK's actions

[mudskipper]

Have your read your determination letter? When you look at the points highlighted by Hector remember it's not how you (or I) operated it's how CK operated.

I looked at them all and said probably the same as you. They didn't do that for me etc., etc., but according to the letter just one of those tests has to fail. The one 'in the letter' which is the hardest to deny, says benefit from ongoing.... Hector argues a monthly fee is benefitting.

The letter also clearly states from Hector 'just one' failure of those points.

So if CK offered any of those things stated in the letter to any of the companies they did the books for then sadly it applies to all of us. As someone said we could then argue we were not in that model but once CK get caught it will be an uphill battle.

Read your letter again and remember it's not you they are looking at, it's we may have been caught by CK's actions

I'm not that close to this, and haven't read all the detail, but just a reminder that HMRC do not make the rules. They interpret them, and quite often get that interpretation wrong, which is the point of tribunals, appeals and all the rest of it.

If that one point is all that makes yourCo a MSC, then I'd say they have a extremely weak case, not a strong one. Any client who has continued to pay the accountant while not in contract could make a good argument that they're paying for a service, not that CK were benefitting financially on an ongoing basis from the provision of the services of the individual.

Whilst one should never be complacent, I do think talk of losing your house/bankruptcy is premature.

[SoConfused]

Have your read your determination letter? When you look at the points highlighted by Hector remember it's not how you (or I) operated it's how CK operated.

I looked at them all and said probably the same as you. They didn't do that for me etc., etc., but according to the letter just one of those tests has to fail. The one 'in the letter' which is the hardest to deny, says benefit from ongoing.... Hector argues a monthly fee is benefitting.

The letter also clearly states from Hector 'just one' failure of those points.

So if CK offered any of those things stated in the letter to any of the companies they did the books for then sadly it applies to all of us. As someone said we could then argue we were not in that model but once CK get caught it will be an uphill battle.

Read your letter again and remember it's not you they are looking at, it's we may have been caught by CK's actions

Yet to still receive the letter. So I will digest when it finally arrives.
"Benefit from ongoing...." is so over-reaching, all accountants benefit from services they charge else there would be no point being in business. I have lawyers lined up anyway so once I have the letter in hand, I'll be on the phone to them and taking advise on next steps. Or maybe that is a bad idea as hector then may come for them and me again for providing a service to my Ltd company. (tongue in cheek).

This forum has given me confidence that what is being probed is far reaching and I personally cannot accept that this will be won by HMRC based on what I know and how I have operated. But I am still in a bad place with this, sleep-less nights, stress and struggling to get on with everyday life. One thing which should be respected is innocent until proven guilty which does NOT apply to HMRC and these investigations which is NOT right.