IPSE vs QDOS

[TheFaQQer]

And as I said, what is on doing that the other isn't? Abbey review the whole contract , for example, not just the areas that impact IR35, which may have a bearing. You have to compare like for like; I was once offered a PI policy that excluded personal errors... It was nice and cheap though.

Agreed Abbey's details used to be rather hard to track down; I think they're a bit clearer now.

If you want the AbbeyTax insurance, you need to pay £185+VAT minimum for an IR35 check. The fact that they look at other clauses is irrelevant for anything that you want covering retrospectively.

So if I want to go back 6 years with Qdos, it'll cost me £400. If I want to go back 6 years with AbbeyTax, it'll cost me £900 minimum (not including my IPSE membership fee to get that discount). I don't need them to tell me that there was a poor restraint of trade clause in the contract, I just need them to pass it for IR35.

If I was looking for them to cover my next contract, then I might be interested in them checking other clauses in the contract that aren't relevant to IR35, but that's irrelevant to trying to get cover for previous contracts.

If AbbeyTax were the only guys offering the insurance, then at that price I'd start to question more about whether I need it for my peace of mind; but they aren't so I'll pay Qdos to cover me instead.

[unixman]

Thanks for all the replies guys. Leaning towards QDOS now. To make any sense, IR35 insurance needs to go back 6 years. Will QDOS need to run their eyes over my contracts in that time ?

Given the 6 year cut-off for IR35, the "claims made" description makes more sense. Regarding PI insurance, the same isn't the case. Is that also "claims made" ?

[malvolio]

Thanks for all the replies guys. Leaning towards QDOS now. To make any sense, IR35 insurance needs to go back 6 years. Will QDOS need to run their eyes over my contracts in that time ?

Given the 6 year cut-off for IR35, the "claims made" description makes more sense. Regarding PI insurance, the same isn't the case. Is that also "claims made" ?

IPSE membership covers you for any investigation, historical or not, for your annual membership. No reviews, no conditions.

HTH...

[TheFaQQer]

Thanks for all the replies guys. Leaning towards QDOS now. To make any sense, IR35 insurance needs to go back 6 years. Will QDOS need to run their eyes over my contracts in that time ?

They used to, but I don't think they do any more.

The only reason that I would choose Qdos TLC35 is if you want that guarantee that they will pay out the tax owed and interest if you lost. If you don't think you would lose, but need a professional to fight the case (and this is where most losses come - they don't have an expert to fight the case from the start), then I would really look closely at what IPSE membership gives you.

When I started contracting, I got the Qdos TLC35 product, and I've always had it. I had it long before I'd even heard of the PCG (as was). So I'm not an IPSE member because of the IR35 protection. I'm there for the rest of it all - the benefits that IPSE+ gives me, plus the voice that IPSE has. Whether you like it or not, IPSE is speaking for freelancers - and the only way that they will listen is if you are a member who is vocal enough / can be bothered enough to try and do something.

The good thing about IPSE is that when there is a success, you'll have the chance to benefit from it even if you aren't a member, though - see Jones v Garnett for details But more members (and particularly involved members) means a louder voice, which means that the bad things might be less likely to happen. And for the price of a morning's work - why wouldn't you want that?

And as MS says...

And if you do decide to go with IPSE, MGM code IPSEMGM0005 will get us both a tenner at Amazon!

[malvolio]

They used to, but I don't think they do any more.

The only reason that I would choose Qdos TLC35 is if you want that guarantee that they will pay out the penalties and interest if you lost. ...

Ermm...

Penalties have never been charged in any IR35 case. Interest will be but again, most cases only cover a few years at most: the only bill I've ever seen was for £90k-ish but from that you would first deduct the CT and any other PAYE and NICs already paid which brought it down to something around £25k-ish, of which no more that 6% would have been interest.

So again I query the real world value of such insurances...

[jamesbrown]

Ermm...

Penalties have never been charged in any IR35 case. Interest will be but again, most cases only cover a few years at most: the only bill I've ever seen was for £90k-ish but from that you would first deduct the CT and any other PAYE and NICs already paid which brought it down to something around £25k-ish, of which no more that 6% would have been interest.

So again I query the real world value of such insurances...

Completely agree. It's purely psychological (and I don't mean that in a dismissive way).

[TheFaQQer]

Ermm...

Penalties have never been charged in any IR35 case. Interest will be but again, most cases only cover a few years at most: the only bill I've ever seen was for £90k-ish but from that you would first deduct the CT and any other PAYE and NICs already paid which brought it down to something around £25k-ish, of which no more that 6% would have been interest.

So again I query the real world value of such insurances...

I should have made it clearer that TLC35 also covers the tax as well as the interest.

The initial judgement in Dragonfly was £99000.

[malvolio]

I should have made it clearer that TLC35 also covers the tax as well as the interest.

The initial judgement in Dragonfly was £99000.

So in effect you're insuring yourself against having t o pay tax... What could possibly go wrong; HMRC would never think to challenge it on the basis that your insured sum represent earned income, for example.

Seriously though, this is QDOS or whoever backing up their assessment of your position by saying they'll pay the bill if they're wrong in that assessment. (You have the same recourse without the insurance, of course, since you could lose a case and then counter sue the reviewer for giving you bad advice, although that's a little more complex) However if they are that certain that they will cover a £100k risk for £400 or so, what are the chances that you would need it...?

You get my point, it's a comfort blanket as much as anything. But hey, it's our money, we spend it how you want.

[TheFaQQer]

Seriously though, this is QDOS or whoever backing up their assessment of your position by saying they'll pay the bill if they're wrong in that assessment. (You have the same recourse without the insurance, of course, since you could lose a case and then counter sue the reviewer for giving you bad advice, although that's a little more complex) However if they are that certain that they will cover a £100k risk for £400 or so, what are the chances that you would need it...?

You get my point, it's a comfort blanket as much as anything. But hey, it's our money, we spend it how you want.

If I thought I could sue and win for getting bad advice, and do so for less than £400 in terms of time and money, then I'd take that in a shot. But that's not going to happen, and there's no guarantee that I would win.

I do get your point - we've been over it goodness knows how many times. But in the same way that you see joining IPSE for £286 as a no-brainer, I see paying Qdos £360 for that peace of mind a no-brainer.

On the vast majority of the argument, we're in agreement - it's a comfort blanket / safety net / peace of mind thing. It's unlikely to be needed. It's unlikely to ever have to pay out. It's cheap because they know that they probably won't have to pay out. IR35 cases are generally lost by not having professional representation from the start (whoever that is done by).

Where we differ is in the action we take based on that information - I'll happily pay for the safety net, you choose not to.

And as we've always said - Qdos TLC35 is NOT a replacement for IPSE+

[Contreras]

Seriously though, this is QDOS or whoever backing up their assessment of your position by saying they'll pay the bill if they're wrong in that assessment. (You have the same recourse without the insurance, of course, since you could lose a case and then counter sue the reviewer for giving you bad advice, although that's a little more complex) However if they are that certain that they will cover a £100k risk for £400 or so, what are the chances that you would need it...?

You get my point, it's a comfort blanket as much as anything. But hey, it's our money, we spend it how you want.

Right. Excellent advice. So by the same logic I should consider the rebuild cost of my house, which is quite a bit more than £100k risk and insured for quite a bit less than £400. The insurance co. did ask some questions on the property and its occupancy to assess their risk of making a payout. The chances I would need it are clearly very slim or they would not give me such good odds, so I might as well not bother.