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

[rdw1970]

I've just got a letter this morning stating that the Boox MSCP lead cases are hitting the tribunal on the 15th June 2026 and that the hearing is expected to last 10 days.

This is ridiculous that it has gone on so long...It is also quite unfair that those of us who represented our cases and put in appeals are now targeted whilst those that ignored HMRC's bullying have been let off.

AFAIA there is just the one test case as the tribunal concerns a debt transfer notice from one Ltd Co to Boox (or The APP Accounting Group) to the Directors(s) of TAAG.

You're right, it is ridiculous but not surprising that its taken 4 years to get this stage and approx 250 Boox clients may have got off the hook by not responding to HMRC.

[Fuzzynavel]

I've just got a letter this morning stating that the Boox MSCP lead cases are hitting the tribunal on the 15th June 2026 and that the hearing is expected to last 10 days.

This is ridiculous that it has gone on so long...It is also quite unfair that those of us who represented our cases and put in appeals are now targeted whilst those that ignored HMRC's bullying have been let off.

[howbigmassive]

I actually understand from my Tribunal in January this year (which did not consider the merits of the case, but upheld a barring order against HMRC in [2026] UKFTT 177 (TC)) that one group of test cases (I don't recall if it is CKA or TAAG) is likely to start in June 2026. There could be delays to that, but I'd expect at least an FTT hearing and judgment well before 2030, with expected appeals to UT and then higher, which means that the expected timeline for definitive judgment could be close to 2030.

[eek]

Churchill Knight / MSC Dispute – Anyone used the "Hays On-Site" defence for Debt Transfer?


Hi all, I’m one of the thousands caught in the Churchill Knight / HMRC Managed Service Company (MSC) investigation for the 2017/18 and 2018/19 tax years.

I’ve recently dug up some old onboarding documents from 2014 that show a very clear link between Hays Talent Solutions and Churchill Knight. Specifically, my "New Client Checklist" from CK has a mandatory step: "Agency informed of account activation?"

I’ve also identified the specific Hays consultant who was embedded on-site at UBS at the time. Their LinkedIn even confirms they were "on-site via Hays Talent Solutions" during my onboarding period in 2014.

My argument to HMRC is that this wasn't my choice of accountant—it was a mandated corporate workflow facilitated by the recruiter. Under Section 61D, I’m pushing for Debt Transfer to Hays as the "Involved" third party.

Has anyone else successfully used an "On-Site Agency" defense?
With the test cases supposedly pushed back to 2030, I’m wondering if naming the on-site rep makes HMRC more likely to "stay" the case or look at the agency instead.

Any advice or similar experiences would be massively appreciated!

the conclusion of that argument is that you were 100% inside IR35 but you are talking about a time when you were responsible for the assessment and payment of tax.

i wouldn’t personally use that argument

[Domglym]

Churchill Knight / MSC Dispute – Anyone used the "Hays On-Site" defence for Debt Transfer?


Hi all, I’m one of the thousands caught in the Churchill Knight / HMRC Managed Service Company (MSC) investigation for the 2017/18 and 2018/19 tax years.

I’ve recently dug up some old onboarding documents from 2014 that show a very clear link between Hays Talent Solutions and Churchill Knight. Specifically, my "New Client Checklist" from CK has a mandatory step: "Agency informed of account activation?"

I’ve also identified the specific Hays consultant who was embedded on-site at UBS at the time. Their LinkedIn even confirms they were "on-site via Hays Talent Solutions" during my onboarding period in 2014.

My argument to HMRC is that this wasn't my choice of accountant—it was a mandated corporate workflow facilitated by the recruiter. Under Section 61D, I’m pushing for Debt Transfer to Hays as the "Involved" third party.

Has anyone else successfully used an "On-Site Agency" defense?
With the test cases supposedly pushed back to 2030, I’m wondering if naming the on-site rep makes HMRC more likely to "stay" the case or look at the agency instead.

Any advice or similar experiences would be massively appreciated!

[enda1]

Any date for an FTT hearing yet?

Sadly, I can see this dragging on for many years, possibly well into the 2030s. It's a complex case and, even if HMRC lost at the FTT (unlikely I know), they're bound to appeal to the UTT->CofA->SC.

Anyone caught up in this has my sympathy. You are being treated very unfairly and as though you used a dodgy tax avoidance scheme.

11th - 27th November, with reading days the 9th and 10th. At least this is for CK anyway. No idea for Boox.

[howbigmassive]

For those following the recent developments, my company Carbon Six has been involved in a protracted appeal against HMRC.

The Tribunal’s judgment has now been released. In it, HMRC’s conduct throughout the appeal was described by the Judge as ‘shambolic and haphazard’. Paragraphs 100 and 122 are particularly illuminating regarding the Revenue’s approach to these proceedings.

HMRC failed to meet the deadlines and directives issued by the Tribunal. Despite a formal warning that they would be barred if they did not comply, they subsequently failed to meet a second ‘Unless Order’.

HMRC applied to set aside the barring at a hearing on 14 January 2026. However, the Tribunal found that their application and skeleton argument contained incorrect and/or misleading statements (paragraph 122). Their excuses for the procedural failures were deemed ‘bad’ reasons, and the bar was upheld. As HMRC had failed to issue a Statement of Case, the Judge summarily allowed my appeal.

While the merits of the underlying tax case were not fully assessed due to the barring, the judgment highlights where HMRC’s conduct fell short of their duty to the court. Specifically:

• HMRC attempted to rely on superseded law (citing the Upper Tribunal decision in BPP), despite that logic being overturned or superseded by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
• HMRC’s arguments—that a barring would lead to an ‘inequality of arms’ or a ‘windfall’ for the taxpayer—were specifically rejected as they ignored the binding precedents set by the higher courts.

I hope this provides some clarity for other contractors dealing with similar procedural issues. The case serves as a reminder that the Revenue is as bound by the Tribunal’s directives as any taxpayer.

[geekergosum]

Any date for an FTT hearing yet?

Sadly, I can see this dragging on for many years, possibly well into the 2030s. It's a complex case and, even if HMRC lost at the FTT (unlikely I know), they're bound to appeal to the UTT->CofA->SC.

Anyone caught up in this has my sympathy. You are being treated very unfairly and as though you used a dodgy tax avoidance scheme.

The general consensus seems to be when HMRC get round to it.

"They're busy"

This was the crux of my letter to my MP. In my case I acted promptly and all the delays or non-response have been on HMRC's side (almost like them dragging their feet means they can either accrue more interest on settlements or look to charge more at the end) which makes this grossly unfair. IF I had delayed myself the initial appeal then I would also have been laughing now as their incompetence led to timing out.

I still don't get their conditions for being an MSC.

A person is NOT an MSC Provider if they are merely "providing legal or accountancy services in a professional capacity."

[woody1]

Any date for an FTT hearing yet?

Sadly, I can see this dragging on for many years, possibly well into the 2030s. It's a complex case and, even if HMRC lost at the FTT (unlikely I know), they're bound to appeal to the UTT->CofA->SC.

Anyone caught up in this has my sympathy. You are being treated very unfairly and as though you used a dodgy tax avoidance scheme.

[geekergosum]

On a side note:

I've raised this whole debacle with my MP, complaining that the process and the length of time HMRC are taking is unfair. That any interest should be frozen due to their actions, and that I'd like my own personal circumstances to reflect the impact this has had on my mental health.

[geekergosum]

A summary (admittedly from Gemini):


Based on the document you provided ([2026] UKFTT 177 (TC)), here is the summary of what happened in the case of Carbon Six Engineering Limited v HMRC and exactly what it means for you.
The Headline: A Massive "Technical" Win


Carbon Six Engineering Limited won their appeal. The Judge, Amanda Brown KC, summarily allowed the appeal, meaning Carbon Six does not have to pay the tax bill (approx. £134,000).

However, this victory was not because the Judge decided that Managed Service Company (MSC) legislation didn't apply. It was because HMRC was incompetent in handling the paperwork.
1. What actually happened?


HMRC lost because they repeatedly failed to follow the Tribunal's instructions.

• The "Unless Order": The Tribunal issued an "Unless Order" (a final warning) requiring HMRC to respond to Carbon Six's applications by August 14, 2025. The order stated that if HMRC failed to reply, they would be automatically barred from the proceedings.
• HMRC's Failure: HMRC ignored the order. They claimed it was an "administrative error" because the email went to their "clearing house" inbox and wasn't passed to the new legal team after a handover.
• The Judge's Ruling: Judge Brown KC ruled that this was a "serious and significant" breach. She rejected HMRC's excuse as a "bad reason" and refused to let them back into the case.
• The Result: Because HMRC was barred, they could not defend their tax bill. The Judge therefore allowed Carbon Six's appeal "summarily" (on the spot).

2. Is Carbon Six a "Churchill Knight" case?


No, but it is related.

• HMRC originally claimed Carbon Six was a Churchill Knight (CKA) client in 2022.
• This was a mistake. Carbon Six was actually a client of The App Accounting Group (TAAG), which trades as Boox.
• The judgment confirms there are currently "TAAG group appeals" and "CKA group appeals" moving through the courts.

3. What does this mean for YOU?


If you are with Boox (TAAG) or Churchill Knight, this judgment is very important for three reasons:

A. It proves HMRC is disorganized The judgment reveals that HMRC's legal teams are currently chaotic. They are changing teams, losing emails, and missing deadlines.

• Action for you: Watch your own case like a hawk. If HMRC misses a deadline to send you a document (like a Statement of Case), you can apply for an "Unless Order." If they miss that, you could win just like Carbon Six did.

B. It confirms the "Group Appeals" are active The document confirms that "lead cases" for both TAAG (Boox) and Churchill Knight are currently being managed. The Judge refused to pause the Carbon Six case behind these groups only because HMRC had already been barred. This means the main battle on whether Boox/CK are MSC providers is still going ahead for everyone else.

C. It sets a standard for "Fairness" The Judge explicitly stated that HMRC must comply with rules just like anyone else. She refused to let them off the hook just because the tax amount was large or because it was part of a group litigation. This protects you from HMRC bullying you with delays.
Summary of Impact on Your Situation

Feature	Carbon Six Case	Your Case (Likely)
Reason for Win	HMRC missed court deadlines (Procedural).	You need to win on the law (Substantive) unless HMRC misses deadlines in your file too.
MSC Ruling	None. The Judge didn't decide if they were an MSC.	The Tribunal still needs to decide if Boox/CK are MSC providers.
Debt Status	Wiped (£0).	Paused (pending the main Group Appeal results).

Export to Sheets
Recommendation: Keep this document safe. If HMRC delays your case or fails to reply to your letters, send this judgment to your representative. It is a powerful precedent that HMRC can be struck out for incompetence.

[WTFH]

Care to elaborate?

It appears that for some people, HMRC did not follow the law by providing information within particular time frames, they also mentioned the wrong company in some of their documents.
The judge has barred HMRC from taking part in further proceedings in this particular case (apart from proceedings relating to the allocation of costs for the case)

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov...6/177#para_130

Note that this is about very particular circumstances, but it is a chink of light and proof that HMRC are not above the law.

[woody1]

This may be of interest to 923 taxpayers: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov...tt/tc/2026/177

Care to elaborate?

[Iliketax]

This may be of interest to 923 taxpayers: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov...tt/tc/2026/177

[rdw1970]

I wonder how many people have just sold up and left the UK rather than having this nonsense hanging over them for years.

Well we know 250 former clients of Boox failed to appeal their determinations and HMRC neglected to issue debt transfer notices to the directors, so I wonder how many of these were individuals either emigrated or returned to their home countries so never saw the letters (or did see it and ignored it).

I think for anyone who has appealed, this may be a risky thing to do now as HMRC has Tax treaties with (i think) 150 countries so they could in theory request the tax authority in the country where you reside to collect the debt on their behalf. I'm one of lifes worriers so wouldn't want this hanging over me and would prefer to have it finalised one way or another.