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

[TheFaQQer]

He wasn't working for us, or returning our calls / emails and didn't speak to me at all before drafting our response. I prepared an 8 page document giving points as to why I thought we were outside and he ignored the whole document. He just wasn't working in our best interests. We paid for another tax consultant who re-wrote our response after discussions with us and took on board the points I raised (some positive and some negative as he pointed out and explained). He was excellent and I just wish we hadn't taken the insurance that gave us the first 'tax consultant'.

What was the insurance meant to cover - just the investigation or penalties if you lost? What did the insurance company say when you sacked their advisor?

If you can't / won't provide the name of the advisor who was bad (which would be good so we can all avoid them if push came to shove), can you say who the insurance was with so that we can give them a wide berth if they provide duff advisers? Thanks.

When it's all over, I'd consider a malpractice case against the insurer and their professional advisor if what you say is true.

[Munchers]

It's neutral.

However, spelling HMRC incorrectly, posting in the wrong forum, and providing almost no useful information upfront wasn't a great start...

Following some of the above advice would be a good start, notably about having a specialist onside before the OP bungles this beyond the point of no return.

Sorry,I'm come back when I'm more qualified.

[northernladuk]

It's neutral.

I beg to differ. It can be irrelevant if the OP has managed it properly which takes a lot of effort over that length of time or devastating to his case if he quickly became part and parcel and didn't like even attempt to look like a business. Either way it's something HMRC will be all over.

[Munchers]

What was the insurance meant to cover - just the investigation or penalties if you lost? What did the insurance company say when you sacked their advisor?

If you can't / won't provide the name of the advisor who was bad (which would be good so we can all avoid them if push came to shove), can you say who the insurance was with so that we can give them a wide berth if they provide duff advisers? Thanks.

When it's all over, I'd consider a malpractice case against the insurer and their professional advisor if what you say is true.

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.

[tractor]

..

It's neutral.

However, spelling HMRC incorrectly, posting in the wrong forum, and providing almost no useful information upfront wasn't a great start...

Following some of the above advice would be a good start, notably about having a specialist onside before the OP bungles this beyond the point of no return.

There are some very obvious time wasting posts here from sockies and mumsnet windup merchants from time to time

The OP obviously is not one of those and is in need of advice. Be gentle, there is no such thing as an IR35 expert. The revenue move the goalposts from case to case even arguing a point for in one case and the same point against in another.

The OP needs a break. Just sayin...

[Munchers]

Can I ask how you came to be investigated?

Not sure. Seems to come down to two views:

1. Tip off to HMRC
2. HMRC looked at business where I'd contracted and I hear they found a contractor being paid direct into personal bank account.

My guess is 2. and they've drilled down to other contractors now.

[jamesbrown]

There are some very obvious time wasting posts here from sockies and mumsnet windup merchants from time to time

The OP obviously is not one of those and is in need of advice. Be gentle, there is no such thing as an IR35 expert. The revenue move the goalposts from case to case even arguing a point for in one case and the same point against in another.

The OP needs a break. Just sayin...

Yeah, you're right, that probably was a bit harsh.

To the OP - good luck finding a specialist you can work with. It is essential that you have a specialist onside and don't, under any circumstances, engage directly.

[jamesbrown]

I beg to differ. It can be irrelevant if the OP has managed it properly which takes a lot of effort over that length of time or devastating to his case if he quickly became part and parcel and didn't like even attempt to look like a business. Either way it's something HMRC will be all over.

But that's a separate point. Length of contract is neutral. Being part and parcel is not neutral. It's very difficult to connect the two without further details.

[TheFaQQer]

Following some of the above advice would be a good start, notably about having a specialist onside before the OP bungles this beyond the point of no return.

Sorry,I'm come back when I'm more qualified.

This last point is critical - the majority of cases that lose do so because they have no representation, or a representative that isn't very good. Make sure from here that you get good, professional advice from people that have done it before and won.

I'd get on the phone to someone like Assured, Accountax or Qdos and see what they recommend from here and whether they are willing and able to help you. If you have PCG membership, then you should have called them first - if not, ring them and see if they can help you now (but I doubt they will for free).

Good luck - it sounds like you are going to need it.

[northernladuk]

But that's a separate point. Length of contract is neutral. Being part and parcel is not neutral. It's very difficult to connect the two without further details.

Yeah I get your meaning but 2 contracts in 6 years isn't the best footing to be starting on. That would indicate contract lengths of three years or more. I'd like to know what the notice period of that is. You are right that it's in the details but certainly not a position I would like to be in in the OP's situation.