Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[Fred Bloggs]

Agreed and I really can't see (at the moment) how a class/group action can as part of a group can help at this stage or even after the case against CK is proven.

The appeals letter will be of value but CK have provided a perfectly good template for free.

Maybe I'm missing something but IF CK get found guilty we will have to then prove individually we were NOT MSC's after all, and not sure how us all lumped together would work for this particular charge, this is different to the tax avoidance days when many of us were in with the same provider with the same scheme.

Sadly, it's far from only being Hector who sees you collectively as a cash cow. Distasteful. But we have seen how successful a monthly subscription model can be for the ambulance chasers. It runs for years and FOMO means the majority who sign up will probably stick with it to the bitter end. I believe.

[malvolio]

I would like to point out that HMRC getting access to freeagent is a risk you run and it won't be zero, the bigger risk is that freeagent is too large a honey pot not to get compromised at some stage. It's a case of when.

FA is a bookkeeping tool. Basically it applies money in to invoices out It does not populate fields to suggest salary to be taken, or try to do anything to manipulate the company income other than to split off the VAT. It will calculate CT and PAYE/NICs but only from information you feed into it. Given, as has been said, that you need a tool to submit stuff to HRC, you have to se something. It is no different to any other similar product. I fail to see how that can translate into being in scope of the MSC rules.

However if an accountant's portal does pre-populate fields according to established algorithms, meaning you have a starter-for-ten when setting your payroll and/or divvies, then there may be such a linkage.

[malvolio]

You sound surprised by that?

---

So do you. The separation between CK and its users is pretty clear, and IPSE's cover is clearly stated to be for you via YourCo. If HMRC approach you as a result of the CK ruling - whatever that turns out to be - then you will be covered.

[eek]

---

So do you. The separation between CK and its users is pretty clear, and IPSE's cover is clearly stated to be for you via YourCo. If HMRC approach you as a result of the CK ruling - whatever that turns out to be - then you will be covered.

Yet it seems that IPSE's cover are trying to wheedle out of it...

[jamesbrown]

I would like to point out that HMRC getting access to freeagent is a risk you run and it won't be zero, the bigger risk is that freeagent is too large a honey pot not to get compromised at some stage. It's a case of when.

This is like saying Microsoft is too large a honeypot because, er, Excel.

[malvolio]

Yet it seems that IPSE's cover are trying to wheedle out of it...

Trying to wheedle out of something that they don't offer cover for? Well, it's a view. Realistically they are tracking the case apparently and will respond when there is something to respond to. I'm not sure exactly clear what benefits isaa... is trying to claim at this point.

[Fred Bloggs]

---

So do you. The separation between CK and its users is pretty clear, and IPSE's cover is clearly stated to be for you via YourCo. If HMRC approach you as a result of the CK ruling - whatever that turns out to be - then you will be covered.

You're wrong. I am not surprised.

[mudskipper]

Yet it seems that IPSE's cover are trying to wheedle out of it...

Well I suppose it depends what "it" is at this stage - I'm certainly not clear.

But yep, I would expect plus membership to cover help with the 30 day appeal process - disappointing if that's not the case.

[eek]

Trying to wheedle out of something that they don't offer cover for? Well, it's a view. Realistically they are tracking the case apparently and will respond when there is something to respond to. I'm not sure exactly clear what benefits isaa... is trying to claim at this point.

The initial appeal - which has to be done within 30 days and with a deadline that is rapidly approaching...

Now after the initial appeal there is nothing that will probably need to be done for years but this is clearly a tax investigation of the tax affairs of the company and the contractor so....

[malvolio]

You're wrong. I am not surprised.

Not helpful.

Perhaps explain in what way I am wrong? Not that I'm bothered, but it may help others...