QDOS cranking up the pressure with IR35 insurance

[psychocandy]

My understanding is that PCG insure themselves, not members. As with any coverage, I expect there has to be a reasonable prospect of winning (or some other reason for PCG to pursue it).

Always wondered that. If PCG or whoever decided that you've not got a good chance of winning could they say, sorry mate, you're on your own?

[jamesbrown]

Always wondered that. If PCG or whoever decided that you've not got a good chance of winning could they say, sorry mate, you're on your own?

IIRC it's Abbey Tax that represent PCG members. Ultimately, they're going to pursue a case to its logical conclusion. If a contract is obviously and undeniably caught, I expect that logical conclusion would come pretty swiftly with a settlement. I wouldn't interpret that as "you're on your own" (unless you want to fight it further at considerable personal expense and likely the same result), but that you've screwed up and must pay what is due.

[malvolio]

IIRC it's Abbey Tax that represent PCG members. Ultimately, they're going to pursue a case to its logical conclusion. If a contract is obviously and undeniably caught, I expect that logical conclusion would come pretty swiftly with a settlement. I wouldn't interpret that as "you're on your own" (unless you want to fight it further at considerable personal expense and likely the same result), but that you've screwed up and must pay what is due.

Ermm...
Don't forget Arctic was fought under the standard PCG membership cover. That cost an awful lot of money, took years and ended up in the House of Lords so I don't think there's any fears of PCG not following a tax case to the bitter end. Unless you're a total numpty (and there's plenty of them) the case is always worth pursuing, there's too much uncertainty not to do so. What usually happens is that HMRC stop the investigation, not PCG, and without ever coming to a final decision.

[psychocandy]

Ermm...
Don't forget Arctic was fought under the standard PCG membership cover. That cost an awful lot of money, took years and ended up in the House of Lords so I don't think there's any fears of PCG not following a tax case to the bitter end. Unless you're a total numpty (and there's plenty of them) the case is always worth pursuing, there's too much uncertainty not to do so. What usually happens is that HMRC stop the investigation, not PCG, and without ever coming to a final decision.

True enough they did.

Just wondered though what would happen as NLUK points out if you get a newbie who does it all wrong is blatantly within IR35 then gets investigated. Wonder where PCG would draw the line at this?

Although I guess a lot of newbies wont even be aware of PCG let alone IR35 possibly?

[jamesbrown]

Ermm...
Don't forget Arctic was fought under the standard PCG membership cover. That cost an awful lot of money, took years and ended up in the House of Lords so I don't think there's any fears of PCG not following a tax case to the bitter end. Unless you're a total numpty (and there's plenty of them) the case is always worth pursuing, there's too much uncertainty not to do so. What usually happens is that HMRC stop the investigation, not PCG, and without ever coming to a final decision.

Indeed, the threshold is going to be set appropriately given the prospects of success. Are there instances of said numpties belonging to PCG where the case hasn't been pursued on the grounds of numptyness?

[Clare@InTouch]

............. on the grounds of numptyness?

That's going to be my new phrase of the week

[jamesbrown]

That's going to be my new phrase of the week

Hmmmm, I might not e-mail you for a week

[TestMangler]

Ermm...
Don't forget Arctic was fought under the standard PCG membership cover. That cost an awful lot of money, took years and ended up in the House of Lords so I don't think there's any fears of PCG not following a tax case to the bitter end. Unless you're a total numpty (and there's plenty of them) the case is always worth pursuing, there's too much uncertainty not to do so. What usually happens is that HMRC stop the investigation, not PCG, and without ever coming to a final decision.

This ^^^

This is exactly what happened to me and two friends of mine (all around the same time). Two + years of batting stuff back and forward between Abbeytax and HMRC followed by a letter out of the blue saying the investigation was at an end.

people tend to talk about the high profile cases won and lost at commissioners and in the courts. Many, many more investigations (some lasting years) don't get that far.

[malvolio]

Indeed, the threshold is going to be set appropriately given the prospects of success. Are there instances of said numpties belonging to PCG where the case hasn't been pursued on the grounds of numptyness?

Not that I know of; I'm sure we would have heard. But people that join PCG tend to have a fairly well developed sense of what they are doing anyway. Certainly their boards get very few RTFMs compared to other sites...

[northernladuk]

Not that I know of; I'm sure we would have heard. But people that join PCG tend to have a fairly well developed sense of what they are doing anyway. Certainly their boards get very few RTFMs compared to other sites...

That makes me glum