Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[Guy Incognito]

To be perfectly honest, my experience is that you should never trust an accountant.

Always educate yourself so that you can make your own informed decisions on things. Then, if you do ask an accountant, you have a better chance of knowing when they're offering advice that might be correct.

And to be fair, I think that is the right approach to take with just about everything in life, not just accountants.

Do you fix your own car and do your own plumbing? I have had very many numerous pieces of contradictory information from NHS doctors.

It's not possible to research everything yourself, there isn't time. You need people you can trust.

[Fred Bloggs]

Do you fix your own car and do your own plumbing? I have had very many numerous pieces of contradictory information from NHS doctors.

It's not possible to research everything yourself, there isn't time. You need people you can trust.

Usually I do, yes. However, when I can't, finding the people you can trust is extremely difficult.

NHS Doctors? Given up with them now, pretty much. If I need a diagnosis then I research the experts in the field then pay to see them.

[jamesbrown]

Do you fix your own car and do your own plumbing? I have had very many numerous pieces of contradictory information from NHS doctors.

It's not possible to research everything yourself, there isn't time. You need people you can trust.

As I said earlier in this thread, it is one thing to hire someone to do work that would be more expensive to complete yourself (because you charge your clients more than your accountant charges you for the time that would otherwise have been spent). That's just commercial sense or, at least, it was until this debacle (where commercial sense now also means to mitigate risk). It is another thing entirely if you don't actually understand what they are doing. You need to sign off all your accounts explicitly, which says "I understand what you just did there". If you didn't understand it, you're not on top of your responsibilities as a director and you can see why it might be reasonable to ask the question of whether you are running your company or your accountant is running it.

[Guy Incognito]

As I said earlier in this thread, it is one thing to hire someone to do work that would be more expensive to complete yourself (because you charge your clients more than your accountant charges you for the time that would otherwise have been spent). That's just commercial sense or, at least, it was until this debacle (where commercial sense now also means to mitigate risk). It is another thing entirely if you don't actually understand what they are doing. You need to sign off all your accounts explicitly, which says "I understand what you just did there". If you didn't understand it, you're not on top of your responsibilities as a director and you can see why it might be reasonable to ask the question of whether you are running your company or your accountant is running it.

Totally agree. My route to understanding is consulting with paid accountant I trust.

[hobnob]

I had an email from IPSE today, saying that they're running a webinar on Thu (26th May) about this:
Managed Service Company Legislation … and why you need to be aware of it | IPSE
NB "This session is free of charge to attend for both members and non-members."

So, it might be worth registering if this topic affects you. (I don't know whether it will be possible to watch a recording later.)

[rabbleish]

I had an email from IPSE today, saying that they're running a webinar on Thu (26th May) about this:
Managed Service Company Legislation … and why you need to be aware of it | IPSE
NB "This session is free of charge to attend for both members and non-members."

So, it might be worth registering if this topic affects you. (I don't know whether it will be possible to watch a recording later.)

For those with a company that was accepted for, and then dissolved, IPSE's view is that HMRC can't come after it by having it reinstated.

In the Costelloe case though there was reinstatement, presumably for transferring the debt onwards to the former director.

I have no idea just what cost it is to HMRC to get a reinstatement, but I suspect it involves actually appearing in front of a judge to explain the request, which must make it at least resource intensive, and therefore less likely than going after companies that are dormant or still running.

[eek]

For those with a company that was accepted for, and then dissolved, IPSE's view is that HMRC can't come after it by having it reinstated.

In the Costelloe case though there was reinstatement, presumably for transferring the debt onwards to the former director.

I have no idea just what cost it is to HMRC to get a reinstatement, but I suspect it involves actually appearing in front of a judge to explain the request, which must make it at least resource intensive, and therefore less likely than going after companies that are dormant or still running.

Resource intensity doesn't bother HMRC - and HMRC will try to do it in bulk anyway.

[jamesbrown]

For those with a company that was accepted for, and then dissolved, IPSE's view is that HMRC can't come after it by having it reinstated.

They did indeed say this or, rather, Markel Tax said it, but I think they’re wrong. HMRC can have a company restored to the register and the transfer of debt provisions in the MSC legislation make it worthwhile (i.e., there is not the normal high bar to transferring the debt).

[rabbleish]

They did indeed say this or, rather, Markel Tax said it, but I think they’re wrong. HMRC can have a company restored to the register and the transfer of debt provisions in the MSC legislation make it worthwhile (i.e., there is not the normal high bar to transferring the debt).

Yeah. I wonder if this is the scenario that is least likely simply due to the time factor. If these cases take 2-3 years to get through tribunals and apoeals for example, then for a dissolved company it really will be diminishing returns for them to go after it, assuming the normal 4 years window is in place.

[jamesbrown]

Yeah. I wonder if this is the scenario that is least likely simply due to the time factor. If these cases take 2-3 years to get through tribunals and apoeals for example, then for a dissolved company it really will be diminishing returns for them to go after it, assuming the normal 4 years window is in place.

But this is why they are issuing protective assessments for 17/18. The time limit has been met and you can be pretty sure it will continue to be met for subsequent tax years too. For accountants other than the ones caught up here, the usual time limits to assess will apply, of course.