• 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.

Tax Investigation Insurance Run-off Cover post-Liquidation - IPSE or Caunce O'Hara?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Tax Investigation Insurance Run-off Cover post-Liquidation - IPSE or Caunce O'Hara?

    For anyone closing their limited company, what run-off type tax protection / IR35 insurance is recommended and for how long?

    I’ve been a member of IPSE for a while and they seem to have changed the run-off options. Previously I think they provided cover for £50 for 1 year after closing your company.

    Now they are ‘offering’ something called ‘Safeguard membership’ which is much more expensive:
    - 6 months cover, £80
    - 12 months cover, £140
    - 18 months cover, £200

    I think this might be limited to 18 months only as well, so doesn’t give full piece of mind about any potential retrospective investigation.

    Another option I’ve found is Caunce O’Hara who offer ‘Tax Enquiry and Legal Expenses Insurance’, which is also through Markel Tax (same as IPSE). This apparently only costs £35 p.a. and can be kept as long as you like.

    I’m basically looking for the same level of cover you can get on the IPSE Plus membership, but without all the bells and whistles.

    Are these 2 options effectively giving the same level of cover, but with obvious differences in price and potential cover length?

    Any better and/or cheaper alternatives to these 2 options, e.g. by going direct to Markel?


    #2
    This one has been asked a few times now and the general opinion seems to have changed. Back in the day we would have said just keep it for a year after but the few times this has been asked recently people seem to say don't bother. As long as you are confident no fraud or dodgy info has been submitted then the company can close and there is nothing to come after.

    Thing that bothers me, where I can see that this is true, why would QDOS et all push such expensive post shut down products? I struggle to believe they are so blatently ripping people off if there is no chance of HMRC coming after a closed company. The whole IR35 insurance has been a bit of old rope at best with a very tiny chance you'd need it but if that chance goes down to zero after closure how can they have the gaul to charge £200 for 18 months. It wasn't much more than that when the compay was open and at risk of investigation.

    I'd really like to see one of the companies named in your post coming on here and explaining to us exactly what risk can materialise post shut down and why they want upwards of £200 to cover it. We can assume but we must be missing something if they feel they need to offer a product. ADMIN/MODS - Any chance we can have a CUK article on this?

    Your question of are the two offering the same level of cover? I think you are probably in the best position to tell us that, not the other way around. You've researched it and should have the sales bumpf telling you what it covers? Very few people will have looked in to it as much as it appears you have. What does the sales patter and T&C's say for each product?
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
      This one has been asked a few times now and the general opinion seems to have changed. Back in the day we would have said just keep it for a year after but the few times this has been asked recently people seem to say don't bother. As long as you are confident no fraud or dodgy info has been submitted then the company can close and there is nothing to come after.

      Thing that bothers me, where I can see that this is true, why would QDOS et all push such expensive post shut down products? I struggle to believe they are so blatently ripping people off if there is no chance of HMRC coming after a closed company. The whole IR35 insurance has been a bit of old rope at best with a very tiny chance you'd need it but if that chance goes down to zero after closure how can they have the gaul to charge £200 for 18 months. It wasn't much more than that when the compay was open and at risk of investigation.

      I'd really like to see one of the companies named in your post coming on here and explaining to us exactly what risk can materialise post shut down and why they want upwards of £200 to cover it. We can assume but we must be missing something if they feel they need to offer a product. ADMIN/MODS - Any chance we can have a CUK article on this?

      Your question of are the two offering the same level of cover? I think you are probably in the best position to tell us that, not the other way around. You've researched it and should have the sales bumpf telling you what it covers? Very few people will have looked in to it as much as it appears you have. What does the sales patter and T&C's say for each product?

      gall

      I've nothing else to add..... maybe I should call you gobby as I swing past. That seems to be de rigeur recently . Add no value and just be rude.
      See You Next Tuesday

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Lance View Post
        gall

        I've nothing else to add..... maybe I should call you gobby as I swing past. That seems to be de rigeur recently . Add no value and just be rude.
        Well I didn't read the question but anyone tell me what time it is please as I can't tell unless mickey mouse is pointing at them?
        'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Lance View Post


          gall

          I've nothing else to add..... maybe I should call you gobby as I swing past. That seems to be de rigeur recently . Add no value and just be rude.
          Pedantry aside, I think NLUK raises a very valid point. It would be useful to know how to deal with that grey area of risk when looking to close the company. I too would like to hear justifications from companies and organisations selling this cover. Money for old rope or a worthwhile investment?

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by ShandyDrinker View Post

            Pedantry aside, I think NLUK raises a very valid point. It would be useful to know how to deal with that grey area of risk when looking to close the company. I too would like to hear justifications from companies and organisations selling this cover. Money for old rope or a worthwhile investment?
            I guess it depends. If you've done something dodgy that makes the tax man come after you personally then some legal cover might be useful.
            But if I were that person I'd get the legal protection with my home insurance.
            See You Next Tuesday

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

              Your question of are the two offering the same level of cover? I think you are probably in the best position to tell us that, not the other way around. You've researched it and should have the sales bumpf telling you what it covers? Very few people will have looked in to it as much as it appears you have. What does the sales patter and T&C's say for each product?
              Thanks NLUK. I'll be honest, I was hoping someone might have already waded through all the T&C gumpf after having to weigh up a similar decision and it would have saved me the pain of having to do it! I'll set aside some time to try to figure out the specifics between the 2 options, but on the face of it they appear very similar.

              Although if anyone has already been through the detail and can report back that would be great!

              I suspect that IPSE are possibly trying to generate extra cash flows following the inevitable reduction in membership following recent IR35 changes, by packaging up this insurance with a few extra ads-ons, most of which are probably not worth it for me and many others in a similar situation.


              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Lance View Post

                I guess it depends. If you've done something dodgy that makes the tax man come after you personally then some legal cover might be useful.
                But if I were that person I'd get the legal protection with my home insurance.
                Even if you haven't done anything dodgy, you could still in theory be investigated. Having legal cover just eliminates some of the stress of not having to deal with it on your own.

                That is a very good point about home insurance. I have actually got family legal cover up to £100k through Tesco Bank, which includes 'tax protection'. It also includes a legal helpline. I don't think Markel are involved, but a company called Am Trust Europe Limited.

                I suspect that this is pretty much the exact same cover and benefits provided by IPSE and Caunce O'Hara? And this only cost an extra ~£25 per year for cover!

                I could well have been wasting money on IPSE membership all these years, as tax protection was the only real 'benefit' I was interested in.

                I do think a CUK article exploring some of these issues and options would be very worthwhile for the community and could collectively save thousands of pounds on unnecessary and/or duplicated insurance cover.

                Comment

                Working...
                X