Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[CA100]

If you have the money give HMRC the money as a payment on account - which stops interest being charged. Separately raise a tax claim on the corporation tax so that it can be reclaimed if necessary.

Don't settle because if CK/Boox are proven not to be an MSCP you won't get your money back.

You can't settle now, HMRC won't allow it.

Interest charged varies year by year (there is a table on the government website), but generally is around the 3% - 3.5% mark. Therefore if you have your money in stocks and shares where you can typically expect a higher return than 3.5%, you are better off leaving it there and not using it for a payment on account.

[Guy Incognito]

I've written to my M.P.

If you are affected by this please do the same!

[GregRickshaw]

For anyone who didn't see this article in the news section on here.....

This is the article you should all be taking most notice of.

https://www.contractoruk.com/news/00...gislation.html

[Guy Incognito]

"we expect a number of PSCs engaging each ASP to be selected as test cases at tribunal"

Anyone disagree with my interpretation that there will be two groups of test cases?

One group for Boox and one group for CK.

[Guy Incognito]

I've written to my M.P.

If you are affected by this please do the same!

I have had a response. My M.P. has written to the "Chief Executive of HMRC asking that the matter be investigated".

I don't want to share my letter wording because I am not a fan of letter templating but please do write to your MP if you are affected. If you are, the letter really should write itself.

[eek]

"we expect a number of PSCs engaging each ASP to be selected as test cases at tribunal"

Anyone disagree with my interpretation that there will be two groups of test cases?

One group for Boox and one group for CK.

Yep - both companies cover different sets of questions where HMRC wish to expand the criteria for subsequent claims..

[Guy Incognito]

Yep - both companies cover different sets of questions where HMRC wish to expand the criteria for subsequent claims..

Sorry I don't know if "Yep" means "Yes I agree" or "Yes I disagree"?

[eek]

Sorry I don't know if "Yep" means "Yes I agree" or "Yes I disagree"?

Yes I agree 2 separate cases allows HMRC to use different sets of questions (or rather two different routes to get to the point where they can send the next set of letters out).

[SP8977]

I have had a response. My M.P. has written to the "Chief Executive of HMRC asking that the matter be investigated".

I don't want to share my letter wording because I am not a fan of letter templating but please do write to your MP if you are affected. If you are, the letter really should write itself.

That's good I hope something positive comes out of it. Agree that we should not template the letters, but I expanded on the below in my letter, which I hope will help others writing letters:

- I chose an accountant for my small business which I felt had relevant sector experience and were professionally regulated so that I can trust and rely on their advice.
- Have had nothing done for me that any small business in the UK does not expect from their accountant.
- I am a small service business operating outside IR35 and that it's completely unfair that I should be paying employee and employers taxes.
- I pay my accountant to help me mitigate tax in the same way many government ministers, big businesses and small businesses do: legally.
- My view that this law is being used to target small service business and will hurt service provision to our kind of businesses and ultimately entrepreneurship in the UK.

[GregRickshaw]

Keep pushing is the thing here, I can't say too much about my case right now but the article on C-UK is what you all should be doing!

https://www.contractoruk.com/news/00...gislation.html