Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[jamesbrown]

Where an individual has absolute and clear proof of a simple book keeping relationship, they are quite clearly not an MSC. The legislation as written says so.

As Paul Mason pointed out, it's less clear-cut than that. There isn't actually an exemption for accountancy/book-keeping, just an assumption of no automatic guilt for accountancy/book-keeping, which is quite a bit weaker. Here are the words, the most important of which are "merely by virtue of":

A person does not fall within subsection (1)(d) merely by virtue of providing legal or accountancy services in a professional capacity.

[Fred Bloggs]

As Paul Mason pointed out, it's less clear-cut than that. There isn't actually an exemption for accountancy/book-keeping, just an assumption of no automatic guilt for accountancy/book-keeping, which is quite a bit weaker. Here are the words, the most important of which are "merely by virtue of":

The only thing I can say with certainty there is that it's this stuff that makes lawyers very wealthy people. Everyone else loses.

[GregRickshaw]

As Paul Mason pointed out, it's less clear-cut than that. There isn't actually an exemption for accountancy/book-keeping, just an assumption of no automatic guilt for accountancy/book-keeping, which is quite a bit weaker. Here are the words, the most important of which are "merely by virtue of":

This 100% This.

It is also why David Kirk (as criticised as he may be for worrying about point a) is so concerned about point a.

As I have been since day one, the other points (in my case) won't even touch the sides.

And as eek has said we are guilty by association.

[jamesbrown]

The only thing I can say with certainty there is that it's this stuff that makes lawyers very wealthy people. Everyone else loses.

Yup, and in the mean time it's another cash cow for WTT and the like. It will probably be several years before it's actually litigated, but there will be plenty of "expert advice" offered between now and then.

[eek]

The only thing I can say with certainty there is that it's this stuff that makes lawyers very wealthy people. Everyone else loses.

Oh the only way to avoid losing is to do everything you can to not become a target - sadly this MSC stuff came from left field and literally no-one was thinking about it until March this year because everyone thought it was irrelevant.

[Fred Bloggs]

Yup, and in the mean time it's another cash cow for WTT and the like. It will probably be several years before it's actually litigated, but there will be plenty of "expert advice" offered between now and then.

Sad but true. Not to mention the stress and suffering of many families in the meantime. That's where my sympathy lies.

[Fred Bloggs]

This 100% This.

It is also why David Kirk (as criticised as he may be for worrying about point a) is so concerned about point a.

As I have been since day one, the other points (in my case) won't even touch the sides.

And as eek has said we are guilty by association.

In bold. I'd like someone who is talking to these tax advisers to ask that very question. I still cannot believe a book keeping service classifies an individual as an MSC without an individual case being heard on request. If it does, then the entire self employed sector of the economy is pretty much wiped out. Not just contractors.

[Hareforthebear]

What I find really frustrating is that I wouldn’t have minded paying it at the time as it would of not have made a lot of difference when there was funds in / coming into my company, and I could’ve planned around it accordingly. If HMRC had come out and said, ‘we think there’s an issue here, this is what we believe you should be doing’ I would’ve done it, as I always took a conservative approach to things and as far as I’m concerned was operating legitimately, and used a regulated accountant to ensure I remained compliant as easily as possible. It wasn’t like I was part of some sort of questionable scheme.

Now my company hasn’t traded for 3 years so has no assets, and any liabilities will fall to me.

[GregRickshaw]

In bold. I'd like someone who is talking to these tax advisers to ask that very question. I still cannot believe a book keeping service classifies an individual as an MSC without an individual case being heard on request. If it does, then the entire self employed sector of the economy is pretty much wiped out. Not just contractors.

I cannot believe this either but here I am.

Which is why most of us are working very hard to prove individually we are not an MSC

The guilt by association thing has ramped up a bit since CK's announcement last week (I posted most of it).

Which referred to the 5 cases which will go forward, and paraphrasing now "If HMRC find those cases guilty then CK are guilty of being the P in the MSCP so then all will be guilty by being companies under the MCSCP likewise if all are found not guilty then HRMC may drop the cases"

If somehow in the meantime CK or Boox can prove they are not MSCP then all of our cases are dropped.

David said this clearly in his webinar, if the P cannot be proved then we are not MSC by association.

[GregRickshaw]

In bold. I'd like someone who is talking to these tax advisers to ask that very question. I still cannot believe a book keeping service classifies an individual as an MSC without an individual case being heard on request. If it does, then the entire self employed sector of the economy is pretty much wiped out. Not just contractors.

I guess too (very much guess) book-keeping can be ambiguous?

I know of some business who has a book-keeper who regularly does work for them, not just VAT, year end blah blah. Surely having a book-keeping service which does other things such as tallies bank statements to expenses etc., does not mean MSC?

One thing for sure this is a huge and lengthy fight as this is a real mess