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

[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?

[GregRickshaw]

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

Such a farce.

Part of me wonders though whether many of the determinations never went to the intended target or failed to arrive so HMRC didn't get a response and assumed the receiver was dead.

Some of me believes it to be typical HMRC under-resourced, under experienced incompetence.

Most of me believes it was a deliberate sharpening of the knives.

The primary goal of this raid is for HMRC to get legislation in their favour, the collected money will pay for the staff involved in the investigation but the legislation will give HMRC carte blanche and effectively further signal the death knell of PSC style LTDs.

[Lotok]

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

Such a farce.

[GregRickshaw]

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

The answer seems to be pretty straight forward. Engage with HMRC and one gets shafted royally for many years mentally and financially.

Ignore HMRC and one is home scott free

News of the latest farce in the MSC, or deliberate move to concentrate resources came this week in a FOI appeal to HMRC, which revealed HMRC issued zero debt transfer notices to the companies who had not appealed their determinations.

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?

[jamesbrown]

Summary of the situation (one opinion, but sounds about right):

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

[GregRickshaw]

An advert for Osborne Clarke basically

[eek]

Quick google, found this
https://www.osborneclarke.com/insigh...rangements-and

Which tells me nothing other than the random opinion of what someone in Osbourne Clark thinks HMRC may do...

It doesn't say anything like SwissSaffa is implying - all it says is the rather obvious point that MSC legislation may be used again if the rules end up tightened again.

[Lotok]

Quick google, found this
https://www.osborneclarke.com/insigh...rangements-and

…and IR35, the agency workers tax regime and MSC?


In the meantime, HMRC is likely to significantly increase IR35 enforcement activity, use its powers under the agency worker tax regime (which in many ways is a better tool for HMRC than IR35) more widely, and apply pressure on contractor models by continuing action under the managed service company (MSC) regime. Each of these existing tax regimes already allow HMRC to target what it sees as false self-employment arrangements.

Might this increased activity, perhaps with extra funding for HMRC enforcement teams from a new government, be enough to eradicate (without new legislation) a lot of what may be seen as "bogus self-employment"?

[eek]

Looks like the new government is going to make things for MSC victims a whole hell of a lot worse if you read the Osbourne Clark article

What Osbourne Clark article?