IR35 - Guilty as charged! - Updated May 2016 - NOT GUILTY!

[psychocandy]

OP- Still havent said. Who was your 'insurance' with?

IMHO, QDOS or PCG membership is pretty much a no-brainer. I guess alternatives are out there but for me its one of these two.

PCG for me at the moment but the QDOS product (and QDOS in general) is very good.

[centurian]

He should still join. Even if they don't take on the case - and that is by no means a given - the access to support and guidance is worth having.

Translation :

"Sure, everyone will be pissed at someone joining only when the excrement hits the fan, but we have to be pragmatic, because a binding judgement set in law is bad for all contractors, PCG members or not, especially if it could have been avoided with better representation in the first place."


I am no PCG fan, but definitely think it's worth joining and getting their advice. They don't want any contractor to lose against HMRC, because it just gives HMRC more ammunition/motivation to go after more contractors, including PCG members.

[tractor]

...

Translation :

"Sure, everyone will be pissed at someone joining only when the excrement hits the fan, but we have to be pragmatic, because a binding judgement set in law is bad for all contractors, PCG members or not, especially if it could have been avoided with better representation in the first place."


I am no PCG fan, but definitely think it's worth joining and getting their advice. They don't want any contractor to lose against HMRC, because it just gives HMRC more ammunition/motivation to go after more contractors, including PCG members.

I would agree with this.

There are double benefits as far as contractors and the PCG are concerned

[centurian]

OP- Still havent said. Who was your 'insurance' with?

It's starting to sound like a more generic "HMRC investigation insurance" which covers you for any HMRC enquiry. Most accountants try and pimp these policies - they are often designed for general PAYE/VAT enquiries. They often have almost no detailed experience/knowledge of IR35 matters.

The insurance is often pretty cheap - and I suspect, so is the service - they send a few token letters to shake the trees to make sure HMRC haven't completely cocked-up the calculations, then throw in the towel when it starts getting heavy and say "you're screwed - pay up".

OP, can you confirm, was this insurance specifically for IR35 investigations, or more generic insurance pimped by your accountant.

[northernladuk]

Translation :

"Sure, everyone will be pissed at someone joining only when the excrement hits the fan, but we have to be pragmatic, because a binding judgement set in law is bad for all contractors, PCG members or not, especially if it could have been avoided with better representation in the first place."


I am no PCG fan, but definitely think it's worth joining and getting their advice. They don't want any contractor to lose against HMRC, because it just gives HMRC more ammunition/motivation to go after more contractors, including PCG members.

But by winning every single case it proves to HMRC they need to change the legislation as there are clearly cases where people are claiming outside but they are inside. We know that and HMRC know that. To be able to defend clear cases of inside will just incite them to change legislation, probably at the detriment for everyone, including those that try hard to understand their situation.

Throw 'em a couple of lambs to keep 'em happy IMO. You can't expect a professional organisation to defend you if you can't be arsed to help yourself.

[Munchers]

So what are your next questions? Have we answered your original ones (or shown we don't know)?

Yes my original question was answered sometime ago - useful links were posted. Thank you for those.

[TheFaQQer]

OP- Still havent said. Who was your 'insurance' with?

Yes they did:

I'm seeking advice to help me so it doesn't really help my case to give false information. The cover was supposed to give assistance during the investigation. The Company haven't replied - Wolters Kluwer UK. I'm not prepared to name accountants as I'm not entirely sure this was their fault - I think they acted in good faith.

[Munchers]

OP- Still havent said. Who was your 'insurance' with?

I gave the name of the Company yesterday.

[TheFaQQer]

I am no PCG fan, but definitely think it's worth joining and getting their advice. They don't want any contractor to lose against HMRC, because it just gives HMRC more ammunition/motivation to go after more contractors, including PCG members.

I think HMRC would be crazy to go after PCG members, to be honest, since they have professional advice available to them right from day one.

[Munchers]

It's starting to sound like a more generic "HMRC investigation insurance" which covers you for any HMRC enquiry. Most accountants try and pimp these policies - they are often designed for general PAYE/VAT enquiries. They often have almost no detailed experience/knowledge of IR35 matters.

The insurance is often pretty cheap - and I suspect, so is the service - they send a few token letters to shake the trees to make sure HMRC haven't completely cocked-up the calculations, then throw in the towel when it starts getting heavy and say "you're screwed - pay up".

OP, can you confirm, was this insurance specifically for IR35 investigations, or more generic insurance pimped by your accountant.

Your assessment is right - generic support pimped by my accountant. And yes looking at changing accountants after this.