QDOS IR35 Cover?

[TheFaQQer]

Even though you don't need it and to get it they will want to be fairly certain you won't lose the case in the first place?

It's your choice, of course, but AFAIK nobody has yet needed the cover to pay out. The vast majority of cases are being closed off with no money owed. Personally I stick with the PCG+ coverage and good working practices.

For less than a days rate, the ultimate piece of mind is a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.

PCG+ doesn't compare because it gives a lot more in different areas.

[GB9]

Even though you don't need it and to get it they will want to be fairly certain you won't lose the case in the first place?

It's your choice, of course, but AFAIK nobody has yet needed the cover to pay out. The vast majority of cases are being closed off with no money owed. Personally I stick with the PCG+ coverage and good working practices.

But the whole point of insurance is to cover against the unexpected. As previously discussed, if losing these cases was regular then the cost of insurance would be much much higher. Personally, I don't want to be the first person to be bankrupted for an unforeseen circumstance or the bloody mindedness of a judge!

[malvolio]

But the whole point of insurance is to cover against the unexpected. As previously discussed, if losing these cases was regular then the cost of insurance would be much much higher. Personally, I don't want to be the first person to be bankrupted for an unforeseen circumstance or the bloody mindedness of a judge!

Like I said, it's your call. If you are sure you're outside IR35 following a proper review, it's pretty much a zero risk if you have professional representation from the start. If you're certain you are caught by IR35, or even sufficiently unsure about it to be concerned then you pay the taxes due under IR35.

What you shouldn't do is pretend you're outside and try to insure against it while you gamble on not being pulled for an investigation

[GB9]

Like I said, it's your call. If you are sure you're outside IR35 following a proper review, it's pretty much a zero risk if you have professional representation from the start. If you're certain you are caught by IR35, or even sufficiently unsure about it to be concerned then you pay the taxes due under IR35.

What you shouldn't do is pretend you're outside and try to insure against it while you gamble on not being pulled for an investigation

Is anyone trying the latter?

From a personal perspective my contracts and working practices are outside IR35 as reviewed by both QDOS and my accountant. However, what would happen if I ended up in a review and a client said "we view all our contractors as employees"? It may be contrary to all other evidence but would be enough to set the cat loose.

Insurance is there for the unexpected. It doesn't matter how carefully you prep, something unexpected may arise. You are correct it is personal choice, but for less than a day's fee income it is worth it from my perspective.

[psychocandy]

QDOS do seem to send these letters out from time to time. Sales I guess.

I did look into this and as someone said, you can't really have both. i.e. Go to PCG if you get investigated then expect QDOS to cough up if you lose. You've got to go with PCG or QDOS from the off.

The way they cover is different too. With QDOS you pay and you're covered. So if you stop contracting its wise to keep paying for a certain time in case you get investigated.

The abbey tax extension to PCG is different. You pay per contract and have to pay to get contract reviewed up front and then every extension. But of course, since you're covered per contract no need to pay once you're done.

In the end, I wanted to be with PCG and the Abbey Tax thing was just too complicated so I didnt bother.

[JoJoGabor]

My problem with any IR35 insurance is you basically have to declare you are putside of IR35 when you apply. If you are proven to be inside IR35 surely they hold the right not to pay out.

[GB9]

My problem with any IR35 insurance is you basically have to declare you are putside of IR35 when you apply. If you are proven to be inside IR35 surely they hold the right not to pay out.

QDOS review all my contracts and working practices too, so hopefully that situation won't arise!

As I said earlier, on the face of it, once the contract review and working practices are confirmed as outside IR35, there should be zero risk, however you are protecting against the unknown e.g. we all know the BETs have no legal standing.....at the moment. However, if a judge were to pick up on them and use them as if they were legal standing, any review outcome might be significantly different.

[malvolio]

QDOS review all my contracts and working practices too, so hopefully that situation won't arise!

As I said earlier, on the face of it, once the contract review and working practices are confirmed as outside IR35, there should be zero risk, however you are protecting against the unknown e.g. we all know the BETs have no legal standing.....at the moment. However, if a judge were to pick up on them and use them as if they were legal standing, any review outcome might be significantly different.

If they tried to use the BETs to vary a judgement, the case would be appealed. The case law defining an employment relationship is pretty solid, as is the law governing IR35 (OK, the scope is rubbish but the basis is clear). It won't be varied by mis-application of guidelines intended to highlight potential targets.

Other threats will appear of course, the Alexander review nonsense being one such. One hidden advantage of PCG membership is early sight of all such risks...

[psychocandy]

My problem with any IR35 insurance is you basically have to declare you are putside of IR35 when you apply. If you are proven to be inside IR35 surely they hold the right not to pay out.

Well, thats the thing. I don't think anyone has ever tested that. I also wonder the same.

So it all goes through court etc and you lose and end up with back tax, penalties etc.

Insurer then says, well its your fault for telling us your outside IR35 when you're not, so we're not paying now.

[KentPhilip]

My problem with any IR35 insurance is you basically have to declare you are putside of IR35 when you apply. If you are proven to be inside IR35 surely they hold the right not to pay out.

Not with QDOS.
I signed up for QDOS TLC35, and they did not ask me to make such a statement.

I guess QDOS think that, say, 2% of their customers will get investigated, and some of them will lose so a payout is due. But they can still be profitable despite this due to the small numbers involved.

I think also that QDOS rely on HMRC backing off when faced with a determined defence from them, because HMRC know that there are easier low-hanging fruit out there who can be more easily defeated.