Originally posted by Maslins
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
QDOS TLC35 insurance not an allowable expense for corporation tax?
Collapse
X
-
what about paying personally for IPSE membership and having it as a professional subscription on your SATR?See You Next Tuesday -
Pointless, really, but basically not a problem. IPSE membership is not necessary unless you have a business to protect and other than CT is a perfectly acceptable cost that is not a BIK. So either have YourCo pay or reclaim it on the annual return.Originally posted by Lance View Postwhat about paying personally for IPSE membership and having it as a professional subscription on your SATR?
It is not, however, a professional subscription...Blog? What blog...?
Comment
-
I'm not claiming that the "argument" could be won.Originally posted by northernladuk View PostMan you are talking some absolute rubbish at the moment. You aren't buying insurance from IPSE, you are paying for membership and the cover is a benefit so it can't be argued at all.
IPSE wouldn't release the membership so it stays a closed membership so not allowed by HMRC. It's as simple as that and has been that way forever. Explained in black and white here so you can't argue or add some other claptrap
Wish sometimes you'd just shut up and stop throwing confusion and all the other rubbish that comes with every one of your posts at the moment.Last edited by Contractor UK; 8 July 2022, 17:24.Comment
-
So you are claiming there is an argument to be lost? That's your speciality isn't it?Originally posted by JohntheBike View PostI'm not claiming that the "argument" could be won.'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!
Comment
-
If you are following the post in another forum, you will see the opinion that insurance is there as much to ward off HMRC as to cover for eventualities.Originally posted by northernladuk View PostSo you are claiming there is an argument to be lost? That's your speciality isn't it?
If you make yourself "awkward", then HMRC will look elsewhere. I always keep some ammunition up my sleeve should HMRC come calling.
The last, and only time I was investigated by HMRC, they had their fingers burnt and the inspector dealing with my case I understand was eventually effectively demoted. He tried to intimidate me by issuing me with an unpaid tax bill for expenses claimed, which was greater than the actual expenses that I'd claimed. So clearly I was up for a fight. Just BTW, he used what I could only call a clever tactic in that he brought to the interview the most gorgeous creature that I'd ever clapped eyes on personally, and she was a decidedly significant diversion.
Comment
-
John, honestly. Just **** off with your tedious HMRC investigation tedium. This is black and white with even IPSEs chief making a statement of fact on the case.
But that's not enough for JtB is it. Can't miss an opportunity to post some pointlessly vague statement or reference back to your joke of a case back when most posters weren't born.
Honestly. Just think before you type and if the post doesn't offer some benefit in the form of a factual or related information just don't post it for ****s sake.
Idiot.'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!
Comment
-
FWIW, the discussion on the links above was about fee-protection insurance. I assume that is focused on tax enquiry cover. TLC35 insurance is tax liability cover. Technically, that is not the same thing. Practically, TLC includes tax enquiry cover, and thus HMRC would disallow it, saying it is impossible to break down between the tax enquiry and tax liability portions. It may be HMRC would specifically disallow tax liability cover as well, I haven't researched it.
Pedantry is allowed in a forum dealing with accounting.Comment
-
good to see I'm still irritating you!Originally posted by northernladuk View PostJohn, honestly. Just **** off with your tedious HMRC investigation tedium. This is black and white with even IPSEs chief making a statement of fact on the case.
But that's not enough for JtB is it. Can't miss an opportunity to post some pointlessly vague statement or reference back to your joke of a case back when most posters weren't born.
Honestly. Just think before you type and if the post doesn't offer some benefit in the form of a factual or related information just don't post it for ****s sake.
Idiot.
Comment
-
Honestly, you don't have to work at it, it obviously comes naturally to you.Originally posted by JohntheBike View Postgood to see I'm still irritating you!
Comment
-
I asked my accountant many years ago if I could put this sort of insurance through the books and it was a clear no - was one of the major contractor accountancy firms we all use. Never tried since and always paid for it myself.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers

Comment