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

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[jamesbrown]

Two contracts covering 6 years? That's not a great start.

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.

[northernladuk]

Two contracts covering 6 years? That's not a great start.

[Clare@InTouch]

I'm probably a bit pessimistic about chances as didn't realise we only need to prove one factor outside. I know the final letter challenges all areas so fingers crossed.

Either way I knew there was a risk, I can afford to deal with the issue if absolutely have to although it will hurt.

What I'm unclear on is what period will it cover. Am I right in saying they can go back 6 year (maximum) and if so when would this period start?

Have a read through here: CH51300 - Assessing Time Limits: The Time Limits: What are the new time limits?

6 years from the end of the relevant period when there is an extended time limit.

[MickeyP]

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'.

Name please

[Munchers]

I'm probably a bit pessimistic about chances as didn't realise we only need to prove one factor outside. I know the final letter challenges all areas so fingers crossed.

Either way I knew there was a risk, I can afford to deal with the issue if absolutely have to although it will hurt.

What I'm unclear on is what period will it cover. Am I right in saying they can go back 6 year (maximum) and if so when would this period start?