Reply to: Churchill Knight & Boox clients being investigated as Managed Service Companies

[GregRickshaw]

It's good news - it means their target number goes down and so they devote less resources to it.

As I have said for a long time, they are merely honing in on the targets.

They don't care about the collateral which got in their way.

They have always been about trapping just a few in an inescapable trap, to get their legislation, that's all this has ever been about.

Once they have that it will send the remaining PSCs into the arms of umbrellas and a PAYE structure.

[Guy Incognito]

It's good news - it means their target number goes down and so they devote less resources to it.

[GregRickshaw]

Did anyone spot this last week?

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/...cape-crackdown

CK clients too, I didn't see the news on the article you linked, but we were advised of this about a month ago. I don't truly think many of us were surprised (annoyed yes) surprised no. I'm sure there are multiple 100s of contractors who never took any action at all from the very first letter.

[ladymuck]

Did anyone spot this last week?

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/...cape-crackdown

HMRC has been accused of “stunning incompetence” by a leading employment status expert after 246 former clients of Boox who failed to appeal PAYE determinations under the managed services companies (MSC) legislation may get off, whereas the 915 that did file an appeal may end up having to pay.

[nekro]

Glad I didn't make POA.

[jamesbrown]

Also worth noting that you can make a payment on account to avoid this interest.

[jamesbrown]

More good news....


https://www.contractoruk.com/news/0016587will_hmrcs_9_interest_rate_bully_you_submis sion.html

Typo (space) in your link. Here's the correct one:

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

[rdw1970]

More good news....


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

[praxeologist]

They threw my first two years out too, almost 6 months from the start of this so over two years ago and I'll still haven't had a penny back of the amount I paid on account and all lines of enquiry have gone completely silent.

Did you pay on account?

I did not pay on account because I anticipated the same problem you're facing.

[GregRickshaw]

We wrote to HMRC again in August asking to reduce the demands for all of the years based on the above to nil. They have finally come back saying they reviewed it and reduced all the years for which they've made demands to nil.

Good luck to everybody else.

They threw my first two years out too, almost 6 months from the start of this so over two years ago and I'll still haven't had a penny back of the amount I paid on account and all lines of enquiry have gone completely silent.

Did you pay on account?

[praxeologist]

You're not alone. Hang in there. Hopefully you have some robust evidence in your favour. Be prepared however that HMRC have no ethics, mercy, sense of logic or are capable of sensibly dealign with this matter.

I did not pay on account. I estimate it would be hard to get the funds back promptly once they have them after this outrageous extortion attempt is quashed.

HMRC so far want three tax years. I assume that's the case for most of us. In my case the defence is as follows:
- in the first year under consideration I did not receive more than half of the company's revenue as per 1(b) of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/1/section/61B
- in the latter two years my company wasn't a client of the "MSCP" (I appointed a different accountant and broke any contact with the "MSCP")

HMRC have so far ignored the above evidence (new accountant contract+old accountant disengagement email, bank statements for the 1(b) rule etc) and sent a templated response about waiting for the test cases. I have also compiled extensive evidence of emails, statements, agreements etc of me running my own business as a backup. I fully expect them to raise another set of demands for the following years even though I have had nothing to do with the MSCP for years. To top it all, like others, I've been coerced into a standstill agreement re NICs.

We wrote to HMRC again in August asking to reduce the demands for all of the years based on the above to nil. They have finally come back saying they reviewed it and reduced all the years for which they've made demands to nil.

Good luck to everybody else.

[GregRickshaw]

Who is the email from? Care to share it?

No we cannot share it here. The gist is all you and Hector need to see.

[enda1]

When I got the email about that yesterday my mutterings were very impolite and cannot be repeated on here.

Such a farce.

Who is the email from? Care to share it?

[GregRickshaw]

Yip sums it perfectly do the right thing, don't use dodgy umbrellas (linked to loans, EBT and Trusts) use LTD and get yourself a FCA accountant and have them do virtually nothing but your books and here we are....

I'd love to believe it's utter incompetence but we never knows with Hector.

They win by getting us to shoot ourselves in the foot, sing like canaries, (Remember the famous 'based on information received' in the original claims?) giving them all the information they need so they have to do very little to claim a sizeable amount of money to enable further attacks but most importantly they will do anything they can to get the legislation they want.

[Hareforthebear]

To engage or not to engage with HMRC that is the question

HMRC did not issue the debt transfer notice to directors of around 400 LTDs who failed to 'appeal/acknowledge/chucked in the bin' the PAYE determination demands from HRMC in time and therefore the deadline has now passed.

So when HMRC win and issue bills to those LTDs the debt stops at the company and cannot be transferred to the directors.

Those of you who did appeal in a timely manner, complying and working with HMRC what were you thinking?

That’s outrageous. To think I could’ve just binned it and moved on with my life. We are punished for trying to do the right thing, much like what started this mess, by engaging an accountant to ensure I remained compliant.

Surely that works against their planned argument in some way? They’re not taking necessary actions to protect those claims, doesn’t that somewhat invalidate ours to a degree?