Larsen Howie vs QDOS vs IPSE

[dx4100]

They won't open cases that old. From what I remember, every case so far has been opened while the contractor/presenter is in the gig.

Whatever the truth is on this, its a mute point, the client can still contradict...

[northernladuk]

Whatever the truth is on this, its a mute point, the client can still contradict...

Indeed but you just beat me to my edit in my previous post. They can but this is where a contractor must know IR35 to be able to act like a contractor on site. If they can see the client is contradicting then they need to fix it. If they are being controlled or they know full well the RoS won't be honored etc then they need to take action.

They can contradict but I don't think they will lie.

I've mentioned it a few times recently but time on site is an issue as well. Might have everything spot on for the first 3 months but I'll bet everything I have many contractors over 2, 3 years have let it slip and have become part and parcel putting themselves at risk.

[ladymuck]

Whatever the truth is on this, its a mute point, the client can still contradict...

moot

[dx4100]

Indeed but you just beat me to my edit in my previous post. They can but this is where a contractor must know IR35 to be able to act like a contractor on site. If they can see the client is contradicting then they need to fix it. If they are being controlled or they know full well the RoS won't be honored etc then they need to take action.

They can contradict but I don't think they will lie.

I've mentioned it a few times recently but time on site is an issue as well. Might have everything spot on for the first 3 months but I'll bet everything I have many contractors over 2, 3 years have let it slip and have become part and parcel putting themselves at risk.

As someone with a seven year contract in his past I totally get your point

I did keep up with but it required constant attention and control. As if it was day 1....

[malvolio]

I would prefer to start from the position that if you set things up correctly, you wouldn't need that level of cover beyond PEI to cover the costs of an unlikely investigation.

For PEI only IPSE plus is a no-brainer, given the other stuff you get thrown in (and yes, it's of no value if you don't need, it, but work out the cost if you do.)

For Tax payment cover I have never been convinced it's needed. That is up to the individual's attitude to risk, but take a good look at what you are actually insuring against.

I'm slightly concerned about comments on working practices. They are the major decider in any IR35 case. they cannot be ignored. They also have to be legitimate and in place from the outset. That becomes even more important next year.

Finally look at the ROI. A couple of hundred quid to safeguard a minimum 30k contract. Why base your decision on who is cheapest?

[CompoundOverload]

They won't open cases that old. From what I remember, every case so far has been opened while the contractor/presenter is in the gig.

This is where the tickbox IR35 contractors fall down. They think they've filled the right forms in and then forget it's their ongoing responsibility to make sure everything fits, not to fall in to a permatractor arrangement once they are at their 'employers'. We've seen a few of them pop up on here in the last few weeks and there is going to be many more coming.

You say that but they can go back as far as 6 years and in some extreme cases, longer.

I'm sure there have been instances where the contractor has had an enquiry when they have moved onto another client. I very much doubt they pounce when the contractor is in the current gig.

[dx4100]

I would prefer to start from the position that if you set things up correctly, you wouldn't need that level of cover beyond PEI to cover the costs of an unlikely investigation.

For PEI only IPSE plus is a no-brainer, given the other stuff you get thrown in (and yes, it's of no value if you don't need, it, but work out the cost if you do.)

For Tax payment cover I have never been convinced it's needed. That is up to the individual's attitude to risk, but take a good look at what you are actually insuring against.

I'm slightly concerned about comments on working practices. They are the major decider in any IR35 case. they cannot be ignored. They also have to be legitimate and in place from the outset. That becomes even more important next year.

Finally look at the ROI. A couple of hundred quid to safeguard a minimum 30k contract. Why base your decision on who is cheapest?

I certainly don’t think I have done enough over the years to totally protect myself but at the same time I have done vastly more than most contractors who do next to nothing.

Ive always viewed myself as having little risk of any sort of investigation but having a average risk of losing if ever investigated as I am always at the risk of a client seeing something differently or stating something differently than the actual reality.

I think if you want zero risk then I think you just don’t do this life.

[CompoundOverload]

I certainly don’t think I have done enough over the years to totally protect myself but at the same time I have done vastly more than most contractors who do next to nothing.

Ive always viewed myself as having little risk of any sort of investigation but having a avengers risk of losing if ever investigated as I am always at the risk of a client seeing something differently or stating something differently than the actual reality.

I think if you want zero risk then I think you just don’t do this life.

As a contractor, I don't think you are ever fully 100% bullet proof, regardless of how well your ducks are sitting - there is ALWAYS an element of risk.

[malvolio]

As a contractor, I don't think you are ever fully 100% bullet proof, regardless of how well your ducks are sitting - there is ALWAYS an element of risk.

No, there is always a risk of an investigation. IPSE and QDOS haven't lost an IR35 case for years*, which says to me that doing it properly, keeping off the radar by not buggering up your official records and having solid PEI in place means that if necessary you can prove you are outside the boundaries of IR35, wherever they may be that week.



*To be fair, IPSE lost half a case, but that was in part because the contractor stopped taking care.

[sal]

No, there is always a risk of an investigation. IPSE and QDOS haven't lost an IR35 case for years*, which says to me that doing it properly, keeping off the radar by not buggering up your official records and having solid PEI in place means that if necessary you can prove you are outside the boundaries of IR35, wherever they may be that week.



*To be fair, IPSE lost half a case, but that was in part because the contractor stopped taking care.

This is my line of thought, I'm more concerned insuring for investigation, rather than against tax bill. I have had my contracts reviewed and I follow sound working practices, the chances of me losing a case are slim to none if I get proper representation.

Also I don't think there is much chances of HMRC going after old contracts any time soon. From next year they will have their hands full chasing after freshly declared inside IR35 roles, that where treated as outside by the contractors before.