Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[GregRickshaw]

Interesting movements going on which no-one seems to be aware of, certainly not any of the groups, one of the companies have had a FTT date set for early 2023, having failed an independent review (by .... HMRC they were the independent reviewers! Enough said), they now have their day in court.

There's a potentially seismic shift in this process coming much sooner than most thought.

[Fred Bloggs]

Interesting movements going on which no-one seems to be aware of, certainly not any of the groups, one of the companies have had a FTT date set for early 2023, having failed an independent review (by .... HMRC they were the independent reviewers! Enough said), they now have their day in court.

There's a potentially seismic shift in this process coming much sooner than most thought.

Thanks for that. I wonder how they managed to take this to FTT so quickly? I wonder if that's a bad or a good sign. Or something that shouldn't be viewed beyond face value. In a way, it is good simply because it shortens the uncertainty time line that people are living under.

[DealorNoDeal]

Interesting movements going on which no-one seems to be aware of, certainly not any of the groups, one of the companies have had a FTT date set for early 2023, having failed an independent review (by .... HMRC they were the independent reviewers! Enough said), they now have their day in court.

There's a potentially seismic shift in this process coming much sooner than most thought.

This is typically the final step in the process before a case goes to the FTT. It's a pantomime, of course, because HMRC are hardly likely disagree with HMRC.

[GregRickshaw]

Thanks for that. I wonder how they managed to take this to FTT so quickly? I wonder if that's a bad or a good sign. Or something that shouldn't be viewed beyond face value. In a way, it is good simply because it shortens the uncertainty time line that people are living under.

All we know is the company involved took no advice on not having the review, which does start the hare running.

As someone said on here how would they know this was a bad thing to have a review if they are not on here or they have not been on the various webinars.

To be honest with over 2000 involved and maybe 30 on here and around 200 (est) in the various groups I'm not surprised this has happened.

Yes I agree a life with a TTP and a liability sorted is somewhat preferable to this long drawn out process for mental health, I speak as someone with experience in this.

However I suspect we will now start getting (early next year) letters which contain examples of where companies have been found guilty, more pressure from HMRC.

There is also a rumour Boox went for a judicial review (from what we know not to support their clients but to protect their own backsides) earlier this month and had it thrown out, trying to find out more on this one.

[DealorNoDeal]

All we know is the company involved took no advice on not having the review, which does start the hare running.

It's standard practise for HMRC to offer a review, and it's usually advised to accept it, even though everyone knows it's a complete farce.

What would have me more worried is that this PSC is not part of a group with decent legal representation.

This may be HMRC singling out a weaker member of the herd. Like fred Bloggs, I'm surprised this has been listed for hearing at the FTT so quickly.

I've always wondered whether HMRC can "influence" the tribunal timetable when it suits them...

[Guy Incognito]

This is bad in the sense that if they lose then Boox/CK (which is it?) is judged to be an MSCP.

Does it then mean the lead cases can go straight to Upper Tier?

[DealorNoDeal]

Does it then mean the lead cases can go straight to Upper Tier?

No, they would still have to go to the FTT.

If HMRC are "fast tracking" this PSC to the FTT, and they haven't mentioned this case to CK or Boox, then it sounds like they're playing dirty. I would suspect they've been jerking CK and Boox around, arguing the toss, while they quietly get a "soft" case to tribunal.

[Fred Bloggs]

No, they would still have to go to the FTT.

If HMRC are "fast tracking" this PSC to the FTT, and they haven't mentioned this case to CK or Boox, then it sounds like they're playing dirty. I would suspect they've been jerking CK and Boox around, arguing the toss, while they quietly get a "soft" case to tribunal.

If that's true, I hope the soft case has a good lawyer. But I guess then it wouldn't be a soft case. I can't remember. If you lose at FTT, is there automatic right of appeal and a route to higher tier tribunal or if you need permission to challenge FTT ruling?

[Guy Incognito]

You have to successfully argue they are erred in law - whatever that means

[Fred Bloggs]

You have to successfully argue they are erred in law - whatever that means

Yes. I know, but I can't recall if there's actually any permission required to challenge an FTT. I suppose thinking about it, you must have to put forward the grounds of the argument relating to a point of law on which the FTT is being challenged. So, yes, permission to go beyond FTT is required. Saying you disagree with FTT findings wouldn't be sufficient grounds. I suppose that's why Hector would want to bag a FTT case against a selected soft target up front to support their case against CK or Boox.