IR35 Insurance

[WordIsBond]

Approximately none. HTH

Indeed.

So while you and I may have the same PLI mine could have different add-ons.

And if HMRC starts investigating you and digging around, they aren't going to find out the details, and then try to use it against you? Are you sure?

[TheFaQQer]

And if HMRC starts investigating you and digging around, they aren't going to find out the details, and then try to use it against you? Are you sure?

So what if they do? That's why the insurance is there - to deal with the investigation and anything that comes out of it.

[Bozwell]

And if HMRC starts investigating you and digging around, they aren't going to find out the details, and then try to use it against you? Are you sure?

If you buy home insurance and your house burns down will you be accused of arson?

[WordIsBond]

So what if they do? That's why the insurance is there - to deal with the investigation and anything that comes out of it.

Legal protection insurance (IPSE membership or QDOS Tax Enquiry insurance) is there to deal with the investigation.

Anything that comes out of it? If your defence is that you aren't a disguised employee, buying insurance against being found to be one doesn't help your case.

"Yes, Your Honour, I'm not a thief but I have insurance to pay my fine in case you convict me. Why would I throw money away on such insurance if I'm not a thief? Well, I thought I might end up being one after all."

Not an argument I'd want to make, but to each his own, I guess. I understand why you buy it.

[TheFaQQer]

Legal protection insurance (IPSE membership or QDOS Tax Enquiry insurance) is there to deal with the investigation.

Anything that comes out of it? If your defence is that you aren't a disguised employee, buying insurance against being found to be one doesn't help your case.

My case will be built around having a right of substitution, a lack of mutuality of obligation and a lack of direction or control by the client. Insurance isn't going to come into it at all.

[malvolio]

My case will be built around having a right of substitution, a lack of mutuality of obligation and a lack of direction or control by the client. Insurance isn't going to come into it at all.

That's "direction and control", the attack on expenses notwithstanding...

[jamesbrown]

Not an argument I'd want to make, but to each his own, I guess. I understand why you buy it.

I think the point is that, once you're under investigation, the assumption is that you're guilty until they're satisfied that the main pillars don't apply (and you'll probably never get direct confirmation of that from them). I think you made a similar comment a while back about a two-person company. It's clear from the actions of HMRC that all this minutia is irrelevant to them; there will be no dissuading them other than through professional representation of the facts as pertinent to the case law.

[TheFaQQer]

That's "direction and control", the attack on expenses notwithstanding...

It was pre-emptive having looked at the consultation document

[mudskipper]

That's "direction and control", the attack on expenses notwithstanding...

Absence of direction or (absence of) control puts you outside IR35.

Being subject to direction and control (+ lack of both MOO and RoS) puts you inside.


It's the negative that makes the difference.

The T&S is worded differently - you won't be allowed to claim expenses if you are subject to direction or control, as opposed to you can claim expenses if you're not subject to to direction or (not subject to) control.

(HT to TCD for doing the dogwork - we'll let you out your kennel soon)

[malvolio]

Absence of direction or (absence of) control puts you outside IR35.

Being subject to direction and control (+ lack of both MOO and RoS) puts you inside.


It's the negative that makes the difference.

The T&S is worded differently - you won't be allowed to claim expenses if you are subject to direction or control, as opposed to you can claim expenses if you're not subject to to direction or (not subject to) control.

(HT to TCD for doing the dogwork - we'll let you out your kennel soon)

Yes, I know all that, thanks, but the case law from RMC is very clear that it is Direction and Control that categorises employment. The T&S phrase of "direction or control" is likely to be either an error or, rather more likely, a deliberate piece of drafting to ensure as many people as possible are caught by it. Until that is resolved, which will take a while, we all need to be very clear on the difference; this is a lot more fundamental than IR35, it is striking at the whole concept of the independent contractor.