• 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!

Accountax

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

    #31
    Originally posted by Cheshire Cat View Post
    So, Qdos, how many of your paying clients, insured for IR35, have had to cough up to HMRC? What does that represent as a proportion of your clients?
    This is key for me, as you might win 1200 and lose 2 cases that you represent, but that could translate as "we took on 1202 cases, won 1200 and lost 2. We also rejected another 1200 cases outright, so the chances of a client having to pay up are approx 50:50".
    That hasn't happened with any insured clients. Focusing on the TLC policy, it would never happen anyway because there is a risk assessment prior to acceptance. The 50:50 figure you mention is a massive overestimation. Whilst I can't produce specific stats, I've personally never rejected a case prior to inception.

    I don't understand why there is this apparent suspicion about the services and expertise we provide. We are tax specialists and, like other firms, have a successful record in defending IR35 enquiries. There are no catches - we simply have consultants with the knowledge to enable us to win the majority of cases. On the back of this we've been able to design insurance policies to cover contractors against representation costs and liabilities. I can provide countless testimonials from satisfied clients if that would help.

    If you want to discuss further please contact me directly.
    Qdos Contractor - IR35 experts

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by sidknows View Post
      'David Smith of Accoutax is quite an impressive chap and seems to enjoy a good argument with HMRC which he seems to win'
      FWIW I had Qdos successfully represent my company in an IR35 investigation and would recommend them to bits.

      However in conversation with the tax numpty when I informed them during a telephone conversation that I had insurance for the investigation, and that communications should be directed to them rather than me. They asked if the firm representing me was Accountax as they were truly shocked (and seemed a little frightened) by Accountax behaviour during previous encounters.

      This may or may not be a good thing - if Accountax will not suffer low grade Revenue fools and tells it how it is - i.e. "that's a stupid question' -then part of me says whay!!

      But on the other hand do I want a company representing me that possibly antagonises the Revenue?
      How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Qdos Consulting View Post
        That hasn't happened with any insured clients. Focusing on the TLC policy, it would never happen anyway because there is a risk assessment prior to acceptance. The 50:50 figure you mention is a massive overestimation. Whilst I can't produce specific stats, I've personally never rejected a case prior to inception.

        I don't understand why there is this apparent suspicion about the services and expertise we provide. We are tax specialists and, like other firms, have a successful record in defending IR35 enquiries. There are no catches - we simply have consultants with the knowledge to enable us to win the majority of cases. On the back of this we've been able to design insurance policies to cover contractors against representation costs and liabilities. I can provide countless testimonials from satisfied clients if that would help.

        If you want to discuss further please contact me directly.
        I think the concern is one that's been expressed before by various people - that by limiting your cover to cases that are in all probability defensible, you are insuring against an event that, equally in all probability, won't occur. To which the logical corrolary is to ask why the insurance adds any value.

        Yes, I know you may still have to grind through an investigation that will need to be paid for, but you must accept that the chances of TLC35 being required to pay out tax and fines are vanishingly small - not becuase TLC35 is good (which it is) but because the case can't be lost anyway. So why not stop with the PEI cover?

        In effect TLC35 is for people who like belts and braces with both hands in their pockets just in case. However, with the commissioners' deliberate ignoring of case law in recent cases and pending the results of a couple of appeals, IR35 may yet get its teeth back and TLC35 would then look like a good idea.
        Blog? What blog...?

        Comment


          #34
          'I don't understand why there is this apparent suspicion about the services and expertise we provide'

          I think you will find that your statement of 1200 wins and 2 losses may have something to do with that

          Given that you only take on cases that you think you can win , these stats could be seen to be misrepresented
          Additionally how may of these cases have gone to the special commissioners

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by sidknows View Post
            'I don't understand why there is this apparent suspicion about the services and expertise we provide'

            I think you will find that your statement of 1200 wins and 2 losses may have something to do with that

            Given that you only take on cases that you think you can win , these stats could be seen to be misrepresented
            Additionally how may of these cases have gone to the special commissioners
            We don't take on cases that have no prospects of success - I don't see how that is controversial.

            Only a handful are Special Commissioners cases - less than 10. We try to avoid taking that route if possible.
            Qdos Contractor - IR35 experts

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by sidknows View Post
              'I don't understand why there is this apparent suspicion about the services and expertise we provide'

              I think you will find that your statement of 1200 wins and 2 losses may have something to do with that

              Given that you only take on cases that you think you can win , these stats could be seen to be misrepresented
              Additionally how may of these cases have gone to the special commissioners
              That's a little unfair. PCG's numbers, which include a lot of early QDOS ones, are now 1445 to 5, so QDOS's win/loss ratio is spot on. And the PCG doesn't pre-vet you.
              Blog? What blog...?

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Qdos Consulting View Post
                We don't take on cases that have no prospects of success - I don't see how that is controversial.

                .
                Agreed,

                What's controversial is that no-one involved will tell us how many cases they have refused to take on.

                All they ever say is "we have won 1000:2" (or some similarly skewed figure) creating the impression that the ratio of all consultants who ought to be inside/outside IR35 is 1000:2.

                But it isnt, it's 1000: (2 + X) where X = rejected cases, or some other definition that I might not have got quite right!

                Nobody, but nobody will admit to the value of X and whenever the question is asked you get the politician's trick of not answering the question and giving us the 1000:2 answer that we already knew.

                If there isn't anything suspicious, why do people so steadfastly refuse to answer the question.

                So the question is "What is the value of X", how hard is it?

                It's not like I don't have a genuine business reason for wanting to know. I do. I need to know in order to assess the likelihood of any (UK) contract that I am offered being outside IR35 (which frankly, given the working practices of the companies that I work for, which I know to employ thousands of consultants, usually look like a complete fail). Am I being an idiot here, or are there 50% of people, silently, inside IR35?

                tim
                Last edited by tim123; 6 February 2008, 14:15.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by malvolio View Post
                  However, with the commissioners' deliberate ignoring of case law in recent cases .
                  And which case law did the commissioners ignore precisely?

                  (If you are referring to the case(s) that I think you are, I believe that you are wrong).

                  tim

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Since PCG don't make any preconditions and are managing the same ratio as QDOS, it's likely that X is actually quite a small number. OK, most PCG members are pretty well briefed on the subject anyway, so there is some degree of self-selection going on.

                    The real issue is that HMG refuse to tell anyone (including themselves) how much tax IR35 is bringing in. Without that snippet of knowledge, we will never be able to put a close value on X
                    Blog? What blog...?

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by tim123 View Post
                      And which case law did the commissioners ignore precisely?

                      (If you are referring to the case(s) that I think you are, I believe that you are wrong).

                      tim
                      If I am, why is it going to appeal then? You can only appeal the commissioners where they have failed to apply the existing case law correctly - you don't have to exercise substitution to prove you have the right to do it.
                      Blog? What blog...?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X