Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[Hareforthebear]

I seem to recall very early on one of the ‘expert advisers’ suggested requesting an independent review was a strategy to fast track towards tribunal.

Just because this forum is not aware who it is doesn’t necessarily mean it is a soft target.

It could be someone lawyered up and ready to hit the tribunal with all guns blazing. Of course it could also be someone who didn’t realise exactly what they were setting in motion. Time will tell I guess.

[DealorNoDeal]

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.

I don't know if this answers your question but here's goes.

Person A goes to the FTT and loses. A would need permission to appeal to the UTT, although it's rare for this not to be granted. It's only as you go higher up (CofA and above) that it gets much harder. As Hoey recently found out, getting permission at the SC is tough.

Person B cannot appeal A's FTT decision to the UTT. B would need to go to the FTT first, and they don't require any permission for this. Obviously A's decision is bound to be cited by HMRC, and it would be down to B's legal representatives to rebut/differentiate.

--------------

In the context of the current case, it would not help CK/Boox if HMRC are front-running with an ill-prepared and/or poorly represented A.

[Fred Bloggs]

I don't know if this answers your question but here's goes.

Person A goes to the FTT and loses. A would need permission to appeal to the UTT, although it's rare for this not to be granted. It's only as you go higher up (CofA and above) that it gets much harder. As Hoey recently found out, getting permission at the SC is tough.

Person B cannot appeal A's FTT decision to the UTT. B would need to go to the FTT first, and they don't require any permission for this. Obviously A's decision is bound to be cited by HMRC, and it would be down to B's legal representatives to rebut/differentiate.

--------------

In the context of the current case, it would not help CK/Boox if HMRC are front-running with an ill-prepared and/or poorly represented A.

That's how I understand it too. FTT does not set a case law precedent but higher courts do. Subsequent FTT cases would be bound by UTT and higher cases. So other than generally proving a point, the upcoming FTT mentioned here, even if Hector does win it. Following on FTT's won't be bound by the decision as FTT doesn't set case law. But it's a nice situation to be in if Hector can win cases against soft targets and widen the MSC(P) net.

[DealorNoDeal]

That's how I understand it too. FTT does not set a case law precedent but higher courts do. Subsequent FTT cases would be bound by UTT and higher cases. So other than generally proving a point, the upcoming FTT mentioned here, even if Hector does win it. Following on FTT's won't be bound by the decision as FTT doesn't set case law. But it's a nice situation to be in if Hector can win cases against soft targets and widen the MSC(P) net.

Yes, it's not the end of the world if HMRC wins an FTT against a "soft target". Of course, the "soft target" could appeal to the UTT and then it starts to become more problematic.

I suspect CK and Boox may find themselves having to constantly play catch-up with this other case, as it progresses more quickly through the courts. This is what HMRC will want; to put CK and Boox always on the back-foot.

[eek]

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...

I’ve never wondered - it’s easy - all hmrc need to do is say it’s a short case and it can be easily slotted in around longer ones.

and hmrc will want this out early as a win allows clients of more accountancy firms to join the fun

[jamesbrown]

Likewise, I am not too surprised by the accelerated timetable (too much to gain if this can be leveraged for an attack on the broader contractor accounting industry - and, remember, some fraction of people will just fold instantly), although I am a little surprised at just how quickly it has been scheduled if early 2023 is correct.

[mogga71]

Likewise, I am not too surprised by the accelerated timetable (too much to gain if this can be leveraged for an attack on the broader contractor accounting industry - and, remember, some fraction of people will just fold instantly), although I am a little surprised at just how quickly it has been scheduled if early 2023 is correct.

So what do people reckon will be the earliest that other accountancy firms will be targeted? is April too soon?

[GregRickshaw]

I seem to recall very early on one of the ‘expert advisers’ suggested requesting an independent review was a strategy to fast track towards tribunal.

Just because this forum is not aware who it is doesn’t necessarily mean it is a soft target.

It could be someone lawyered up and ready to hit the tribunal with all guns blazing. Of course it could also be someone who didn’t realise exactly what they were setting in motion. Time will tell I guess.

There was an insurance company who advised that but they misunderstood the review/appeal process. They weren't trying to fast track to tribunal.

As far as I know it is not someone lawyered up etc., but an innocent mistake. Trying to find out if and when there is an actual date confirmed.

[DealorNoDeal]

As far as I know it is not someone lawyered up etc., but an innocent mistake. Trying to find out if and when there is an actual date confirmed.

That's not good. The problem is, having requested a review, they've now initiated proceedings. Following the review, they would have been given two choices (a) settle and pay up within 30 days or (b) appeal to the FTT.

[Fontangle]

This might be a bit of an obvious question, but MSC won’t apply where someone has worked within IR35 and paid PAYE and NICS at source, right?