Originally posted by eek
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View Post
CBS (dodgy IoM scheme) -> CK/Boox is a bit more than "very, very slightly".
The issue with any argument is that the FTT and subsequent tribunals into CBS seriously expanded the remit that was used by focussing on particular points such as salary decisions and what constitutes profiteering that opened up the MCS legislation to a far bigger set of companies.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by GregRickshaw View Post
Yip! In my mind there is no doubt they both have been MSCP. The tiers/service levels they introduced long after I joined will be the reason.
This is why I am getting ready to prove I am not one of the MSC.
I have a good case I believe, guilt by association is what I have to throw off and I will.
Incidentally I was recently chatting with a fellow CK client and they did not receive a determination at all, and I have to say they seemed to let CK run a vast majority of their business.Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.Comment
-
Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
Then, when it comes to it, you point at him/her and tell Hector why that person was an MSC and why you aren't. It's survival of the fittest and nobody is going to look after you like yourself can.
I am pretty much running on my own now anyway not waiting for the various groups or CK themselves etc.,Comment
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
People should really be paying attention to this. It will probably take 3+ years for these cases to conclude. That is enough time for anyone not with CK or Boox to reconsider and switch to FA, Xero or similar with ad-hoc/end-of-year help, as needed (I wouldn't recommend no help unless you're an experienced contractor because there are probably even more trap doors in doing that).Comment
-
As people may not notice this article I will point it out here Directors, HMRC V Gradidge proves naivety is no excuse if MSC debts get transferred to you (contractoruk.com)
It relates to transfer of MSC debts to a director (who claims to have not even realised he was a director).merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by eek View PostAs people may not notice this article I will point it out here Directors, HMRC V Gradidge proves naivety is no excuse if MSC debts get transferred to you (contractoruk.com)
It relates to transfer of MSC debts to a director (who claims to have not even realised he was a director).Comment
-
Interesting...
" Under the MSC legislation the liability hits the MSC (the PSC). It does not fall to the MSCP, and indeed cannot be passed to the MSCP until HMRC is satisfied it cannot be reasonably recovered from the MSC."
CK and Boox on the hook before the director?
Comment
-
Originally posted by rdw1970
I think you would have to be stone broke before Hector was satisfied they could not recover the debt from you. They can look at and retrieve money from your bank accounts etc and if the debt is ignored and a payment plan isn't agreed with them they can take more drastic measures like using debt recovery agencies. I think reasonably recovered probably means someone doing a Ronnie Biggs and living in a country where the UK doesn't have a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty so it would prove too costly and time consuming to recover the debt. Just like the Terminator, Hector just won't stop!
Maybe you are right and this was my belief, but that says the MSC not the director personally. Those of use who have PoA using funds from the company as it's a company debt, could we possibly have done the wrong thing.
I was clear until I saw that paragraph it sort of reads the way IR35 debt does.
Comment
-
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...manual/esm3625
Note the ordering and the conditions for moving from (1) to (2) or (3). A "transfer" of debt means a transfer from where it falls first, which is the MSC. So, it will go to the director(s) of the MSC first. It's unlikely it won't be recovered at that point.Comment
Partners
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment