Tax avoidance insurance

[Qdos Contractor]

So that was a question, bot the question.

Next question is: Have they ever declined to pay out?

No.

[blacjac]

So I take it that means no one with the cover has ever failed an IR35 investigation...?

Have any people with the cover been investigated and won?

[malvolio]

So I take it that means no one with the cover has ever failed an IR35 investigation...?

Have any people with the cover been investigated and won?

AFAIK no PCG member has lost a case for many years. The very few (less than 10?) that were early losses didn't start out with professional support.

[Qdos Contractor]

So I take it that means no one with the cover has ever failed an IR35 investigation...?

Have any people with the cover been investigated and won?

That's correct (sorry, I'm on a train with poor wifi).

And yes, the majority of the 1,300+ cases we've won have involved clients who have had insurance cover of some form; many of them the full TLC policy.

[centurian]

IR35 insurance is probably okay, because they only lose one case at a time - and the amount lost on one case is relatively small in the grand scheme of things - not worth the reputational damage. Whether they would then continue to offer renewals if they lost a succession of cases is another matter

Insurance of the mass marketed schemes always was lunacy. These insurers are in for 100s of millions with the loss of one case. They're not going to pay out without a massive fight. More quote's here

Advisers accused of

Investors' in Icebreaker are now turning to insurance company Enterprise to pay out on policies it provided in respect of "losses or shortfalls" incurred by those who invested in the scheme.

However Enterprise is refusing to honour the insurance policies, on the grounds that it was deceived by Hamilton and her colleagues into believing that Icebreaker was a genuine investment vehicle, rather than an elaborate scheme designed solely to avoid tax.

...

‘Enterprise approached the risk that it was to cover based on...the proposition (albeit mistaken) that the full capital contribution would be invested by participants, and that the proceeds thereof would genuinely be used with a view to profitable trade.

So if it had been a genuine investment vehicle, what was the insurance for, I wonder?

[jbryce]

scheme insurance? ha ha ha ha ha....

IR35 insurance is probably okay, because they only lose one case at a time - and the amount lost on one case is relatively small in the grand scheme of things - not worth the reputational damage. Whether they would then continue to offer renewals if they lost a succession of cases is another matter

Insurance of the mass marketed schemes always was lunacy. These insurers are in for 100s of millions with the loss of one case. They're not going to pay out without a massive fight. More quote's here

Advisers accused of



So if it had been a genuine investment vehicle, what was the insurance for, I wonder?

replying to this to bump it up .... the current crop of '85% +' umbrella schemes do have insurance - but if you look closely they only cover the fees not the amounts you get stung for. They only pay out once the scheme has been defeated in court, by which time no one will care.

[centurian]

replying to this to bump it up .... the current crop of '85% +' umbrella schemes do have insurance - but if you look closely they only cover the fees not the amounts you get stung for. They only pay out once the scheme has been defeated in court, by which time no one will care.

I wonder how they will treat the new Accelerated Payment Notices soon to be pushed out. Since the scheme hasn't been defeated, insurers have a very easy get out clause. And given the onus is then on the taxpayer to take HMRC to court to prove the scheme is valid, they probably never will pay out.