Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[eek]

While not laughable here, I am finding LinkedIn to be a constant source of amusement atm.

The one thing it's told me is to remove someone (previously she was my first choice) from the shortlist for something I'm working on - I suspect she will be rather upset when she discovers what it was....

[eek]

Though, given what has come out of this thread, is that looking around at present offerings by SJD, Danbro etc..... I conclude that certain accountants would appear to have blithely ignored the MSC legislation when pitching for business on their websites. So I do now think that to some degree, the evidence suggests the profession in some quarters has brought this on itself.

Sadly, the contractors are carrying the can. As usual. But anyone looking for "a fully hands off accountant solution" as has been advertised has again blithely ignored legislation of which they should have been fully aware.

It's a very sad mess for those who had vanilla accounting support and are caught in the cross fire.

The problem is that everyone utterly ignored the MSC rules because everyone thought it was about controlling the actual money - heck you only have to read the early part of this thread or linkedIn posts from 2 weeks ago to see that no-one picked up on where this was coming from.

[Fred Bloggs]

The problem is that everyone utterly ignored the MSC rules because everyone thought it was about controlling the actual money - heck you only have to read the early part of this thread or linkedIn posts from 2 weeks ago to see that no-one picked up on where this was coming from.

Not quite everyone. But your point is well made.

[GregRickshaw]

Maybe I'm missing something but contractors deciding to leave their accountant and doing their own accounts and only asking their accountants to do their CT returns and YE will still be on HMRC's radar if their accountant is being invested as a MSCP. HMRC won't know if you are paying your accountants monthly, quarterly or doing a direct debit or even using a portal unless the MSCP or Ltd. company Director tells them. What they definitely do know on their system is what accountant is doing your CT return and YE accounts. So if there was an enquiry into said accountant for said year then all they would do is do a filter on that accountancy practice for that year and pull up all the limited companies. I've read a couple of examples here on that. The issue then is that you are still thrown in the mix with everyone else and I see it very unlikely that HMRC will withdraw their Reg. 80 notice on the back of you telling them that you weren't using their portal and using a spreadsheet. I hope I'm wrong. But bottom line this is an incredible over-reach.

Somehow HMRC seem to know exactly what some clients were doing certainly they mention this is the CK tests.

They (HMRC) though don't seem to care enough to find out what and how other clients operated though... this is what we will have to do ourselves one day.

[GregRickshaw]

While not laughable here, I am finding LinkedIn to be a constant source of amusement atm.

Me too, also marketing emails are another rich tapestry of insight into how headless chickens react

[Maslins]

The problem is that everyone utterly ignored the MSC rules because everyone thought it was about controlling the actual money - heck you only have to read the early part of this thread or linkedIn posts from 2 weeks ago to see that no-one picked up on where this was coming from.

Yup, guilty as charged here. A few in the industry (generally the techy case law bods rather than those working in accountancy firms) did highlight it a few years ago following the Christianuyi case. It didn't get much fanfare at the time, I totally missed it, but there's some "I told you so"s now!

Even if the accountant/MSCP didn't control the bank account, I always hated the "payslips" that some firms produced for clients, £X salary, £Y expenses reimbursed, £Z dividends (dividends should never appear on a payslip!). Especially as typically £Z would be the exact retained profit for that month. Not only bad business sense (leaving zero rainy day fund) but also did seem a bit too much the accountant telling the client exactly what to withdraw, plus the question mark over the legitimacy of one bank transaction being a combination of salary/dividends etc.

[Fred Bloggs]

Yup, guilty as charged here. A few in the industry (generally the techy case law bods rather than those working in accountancy firms) did highlight it a few years ago following the Christianuyi case. It didn't get much fanfare at the time, I totally missed it, but there's some "I told you so"s now!

Even if the accountant/MSCP didn't control the bank account, I always hated the "payslips" that some firms produced for clients, £X salary, £Y expenses reimbursed, £Z dividends (dividends should never appear on a payslip!). Especially as typically £Z would be the exact retained profit for that month. Not only bad business sense (leaving zero rainy day fund) but also did seem a bit too much the accountant telling the client exactly what to withdraw, plus the question mark over the legitimacy of one bank transaction being a combination of salary/dividends etc.

Absolutely agree. My last (probably last one ever) consulting venture was done completely DIY. Obviously, that's bad news for accountants. And I don't claim any special insight there. But I am now very glad that I went fully DIY and struck the company off as soon as it was no longer required.

[GregRickshaw]

Yup, guilty as charged here. A few in the industry (generally the techy case law bods rather than those working in accountancy firms) did highlight it a few years ago following the Christianuyi case. It didn't get much fanfare at the time, I totally missed it, but there's some "I told you so"s now!

Even if the accountant/MSCP didn't control the bank account, I always hated the "payslips" that some firms produced for clients, £X salary, £Y expenses reimbursed, £Z dividends (dividends should never appear on a payslip!). Especially as typically £Z would be the exact retained profit for that month. Not only bad business sense (leaving zero rainy day fund) but also did seem a bit too much the accountant telling the client exactly what to withdraw, plus the question mark over the legitimacy of one bank transaction being a combination of salary/dividends etc.

CK did this kind of payslip thing, but it was never dividends and no rainy day fund etc., but it was not a payslip as such more of an advice slip, but as I have said they stopped this way back in late 2012/13.

After that they did this yearly kind of planning thing where they asked (and you had zero obligation to reply) how much you thought you might be paying yourself in salary next year and dividends.

CK had zero control over the business bank, they had RO access to make things 'easier' at years end.

CK did so little for me actually for a very large £ amount. The dreaded monthly fee which they are caught on.

Nothing much more we can do now until we have news of the tribunal etc., For me I'm paying on account and crossing fingers.

[tenten]

The problem is that everyone utterly ignored the MSC rules because everyone thought it was about controlling the actual money - heck you only have to read the early part of this thread or linkedIn posts from 2 weeks ago to see that no-one picked up on where this was coming from.

Your case in point: https://nixonwilliams.com/free-resou...ce-company-msc

That page pretty much says the same as it did in 2017 when it was first captured by the way back machine. The list of "Indicators of services that may constitute being involved" is basically managing the cash.

[jamesbrown]

I really don't see how it would be remotely possible to engage a professional to do ad hoc paid for tasks and be an MSC. The very idea is laughable even given Hector's apparent over reach in the present investigation. Every street corner convenience store or newsagent would fall within than net. It's not going to happen.

Agreed, but it seems HMRC want to test that point with a straight face (even if they are wearing their clownshoes out of shot).