Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[DealorNoDeal]

I'm probably missing an obvious reason why not but could a recruitment agency be regarded as an MSCP?

When it comes to payment, they typically take a % of every invoice. You couldn't get a more direct financial link with the services provided by a PSC.

[jamesbrown]

I'm probably missing an obvious reason why not but could a recruitment agency be regarded as an MSCP?

When it comes to payment, they typically take a % of every invoice. You couldn't get a more direct financial link with the services provided by a PSC.

Or banks. But seriously, we're still in the chaos stage of the CBS judgement and what it could mean until the tribunals/courts set a better benchmark. For example, the "gives or promotes an undertaking to make good any tax loss" potentially catches any company that is offering IR35 insurance to PSCs.

[Fred Bloggs]

I'm probably missing an obvious reason why not but could a recruitment agency be regarded as an MSCP?

When it comes to payment, they typically take a % of every invoice. You couldn't get a more direct financial link with the services provided by a PSC.

If you were on agency payroll, it's irrelevant because you'd be paid PAYE as an employee.

[eek]

catches any company that is offering IR35 insurance to PSCs.

Now that would be funny given how they tried to wriggle out of their commitments when this case kicked off.

[Mark G71]

It is CK's approach yes and to be fair to CK they have raised a good portion of the money required to go all the way. The appeal has stagnated understandably after Christmas etc., there also seems to be an upswing in the desire to just 'get it settled'. Settled as in pay the amount owed less CT, DT and any bit of Employers NIC

When you say there's a desire to get it settled - ie pay amount owed less CT, DT paid..... Are HMRC agreeing to this? I thought they were non-committal on whether we can reclaim CT and DT paid. Are you saying there is scope to negotiate a settlement at this stage, net of the taxes paid? Or are people just making a payment on account which equates to this net amount?

[DealorNoDeal]

If you were on agency payroll, it's irrelevant because you'd be paid PAYE as an employee.

No, what I had in mind was the typical contractor (off payroll) scenario:

PSC <- Agency <- Client

Where the agency takes a % of the hourly/daily rate of the service the PSC provides to the client.

Could the agency be construed as an MSCP?

[Fred Bloggs]

No, what I had in mind was the typical contractor (off payroll) scenario:

PSC <- Agency <- Client

Where the agency takes a % of the hourly/daily rate of the service the PSC provides to the client.

Could the agency be construed as an MSCP?

Good question. I don't think there's a definitive answer to that one. Mind you, most of us previously thought we had a good understanding of the MSC legislation until fairly recently.

[Chevalier]

No, what I had in mind was the typical contractor (off payroll) scenario:

PSC <- Agency <- Client

Where the agency takes a % of the hourly/daily rate of the service the PSC provides to the client.

Could the agency be construed as an MSCP?

Supposedly there are exemptions for businesses that “place individuals”, so as long as that’s all they are doing, then no.

[DealorNoDeal]

Supposedly there are exemptions for businesses that “place individuals”, so as long as that’s all they are doing, then no.

I bet HMRC would twist that in a flash if it suited them.

However, going after the accountancy firms suits them better because people stay with the same firm for years, whereas people regularly change contract agencies.

[GregRickshaw]

When you say there's a desire to get it settled - ie pay amount owed less CT, DT paid..... Are HMRC agreeing to this? I thought they were non-committal on whether we can reclaim CT and DT paid. Are you saying there is scope to negotiate a settlement at this stage, net of the taxes paid? Or are people just making a payment on account which equates to this net amount?

Sorry used the wrong word really not 'settle' but pay the amount demanded, (less Ct, Dt blah blah blah).

Last stance is they were going to allow the CT, DT to be refunded, it will change no doubt several times over the next few years.

Those who have the full amount to PoA have a no lose gamble (penalties for late payment maybe), others are seemingly just wanting it gone (I can relate to that). Life is for living and I don't blame anyone for paying if they think they (the LTD) have a poor chance of winning.

As I have said many times and others more recently HMRC win even if they don't in more ways than ever the longer this goes on