Accountax

[tim123]

You are mistaking me for someone directly involved in the case.

.

Well you did give that impression.

But you are right in one respect. I am confusing my views upon whether I think that appeal has any chance of success, with the issue that I really wanted clarity on, that of whether the appeal was against points of fact or points of law.

tim

[Accountax Consulting]

Our guarantee is not insurance it is simply our way of putting our money where our mouth is. It is our guarantee of the quality and expertise we offer. If our opinion is wrong we suffer the consequences pay the liability.

It is peace of mind for the contractor.

The magic number X is very small for Accountax. We will fight anyone’s corner however slim the chances of success. You do not need to have our guarantee for us to defend you. By putting a robust defence to HRMC we have won, even the unlikeliest of cases. Of the 800 + cases we have handled we have lost 4 or 5 and settled a couple. We have not had to pay out on any guarantee cases.

We do like a fight with HMRC. Not because we want to antagonise them but because we don’t believe contractors should be penalised. By simply rolling over the contractor can face hefty penalties and leave themselves open to personal liabilities.

As far as substitution is concerned as long as you have a genuine right to send a substitute you are not caught by IR35. A requirement for the substitute to be equally qualified and experienced does not affect that right and you do not need to have someone lined up. There have been numerous cases that have upheld this view. They are not binding but they have not been challenged either.