outside IR35 before..inside after?

[malvolio]

What are IPSEs guidelines on the new legislation and determinations?

If you are found inside and carry on with the client using an Umbrella, will they still defend you? Does IPSE recommend that you leave if found inside at the risk of invalidating your IR35 insurance?

If you are relying on IPSE then it is important to know what their take on the new rules are and how you as a policyholder with them are expected to navigate through the new process, in order to ensure that you are not invalidating your cover.

I myself am not a member of IPSE, but those that are and are relying on them should speak to them and be clear as to what you need to do prior to/when the new legislation comes in.

They've got lots of guidance on outside IR35 cases, but seem to be still working on the opposite options. Understandable, if irritating, since it's all a bit speculative at the moment. However, at the end of the day the same old rules apply to any IR35 determination, the changes merely move who makes that determination up the chain (and probably to someone less likely to understand the point...)

IPSE membership will cover any IR35 tax investigation, unconditionally. You don't need to do anything other than follow the usual good practice over contract terms. That hasn't changed, nor is it likely to. What is covered and how is detailed on their website.

[JohntheBike]

They've got lots of guidance on outside IR35 cases, but seem to be still working on the opposite options. Understandable, if irritating, since it's all a bit speculative at the moment. However, at the end of the day the same old rules apply to any IR35 determination, the changes merely move who makes that determination up the chain (and probably to someone less likely to understand the point...)

IPSE membership will cover any IR35 tax investigation, unconditionally. You don't need to do anything other than follow the usual good practice over contract terms. That hasn't changed, nor is it likely to. What is covered and how is detailed on their website.

IPSE membership will cover any IR35 tax investigation, unconditionally.

If IPSE's policy is still through Markel Tax, previously Abbey Tax, then that is not true. Any HMRC challenge will only be defended if there is a reasonable chance of winning. So the cover is not unconditional.

[hammertime1985]

What are IPSEs guidelines on the new legislation and determinations?

If you are found inside and carry on with the client using an Umbrella, will they still defend you? Does IPSE recommend that you leave if found inside at the risk of invalidating your IR35 insurance?

If you are relying on IPSE then it is important to know what their take on the new rules are and how you as a policyholder with them are expected to navigate through the new process, in order to ensure that you are not invalidating your cover.

I myself am not a member of IPSE, but those that are and are relying on them should speak to them and be clear as to what you need to do prior to/when the new legislation comes in.

I actually have IPSE tax insurance cover and prior to following my gut instinct got contradictory advice from the IPSE helpline. The generic advice I got was that as long as you have an outside determination (backed up by a tax review specialist) and working practices are OK, you can stay with the client until the new tax year despite being judged inside by the client. That didn't sit right with me which is why i ended up just leaving before any determinations were made.

I left A LOT of contractors back there who are still there now and think they are A OK until the end of March despite having a massive target on their back.

[malvolio]

If IPSE's policy is still through Markel Tax, previously Abbey Tax, then that is not true. Any HMRC challenge will only be defended if there is a reasonable chance of winning. So the cover is not unconditional.

Nonsense, unless you're talking about the (IMHO totally unnecessary) tax payment coverage, which you won't get unless you have a solid outside IR35 position anyway.

That said it's always been the case that your defence is conditional on you not saying or doing something suicidal, like pleading guilty at a tribunal, or claiming after a case has been started. But that applies to anyone that offers that kind of PEI cover.

[JohntheBike]

Nonsense, unless you're talking about the (IMHO totally unnecessary) tax payment coverage, which you won't get unless you have a solid outside IR35 position anyway.

That said it's always been the case that your defence is conditional on you not saying or doing something suicidal, like pleading guilty at a tribunal, or claiming after a case has been started. But that applies to anyone that offers that kind of PEI cover.

sorry you are incorrect.

from the terms and conditions of tax investigation insurance -

What is not covered?

Where there is no reasonable prospect of challenging HMRC in VAT, PAYE & IR35 disputes (Claims Condition 1).

So do you homework correctly.

[malvolio]

sorry you are incorrect.

from the terms and conditions of tax investigation insurance -

What is not covered?

Where there is no reasonable prospect of challenging HMRC in VAT, PAYE & IR35 disputes (Claims Condition 1).

So do you homework correctly.

So if you say you are caught by IR35, that doesn't kinda meet those criteria? If you behave as an employee and take on anything they want you to do in contradiction of your contract? Leave on Friday as a permie and rejoin on Monday doing the exact same job?

There are always caveats. Only an idiot signs something that implies best endeavours regardless. IPSE, nor PCG, have ever refused a case to my knowledge.

It also depends on other factors. As in the Arctic case, if IPSE think they will gain from a court case, they will make a judgement on how defensible it is. A loss can prove a legal point just as effectively as a win.

And I've done a reasonable amount of research over the years thanks.

[PTP]

Here's a Dave Chaplin article on this from earlier in the week. Although it doesn't talk about a specific insurer

OFF-PAYROLL / IR35: Contractor's - think you're insured - then think again

Another reason it might be best to leave before there's a risk of an inside SDS being issued.

Says in comments that it's like being in an accident and being charged with drink driving, and expecting your insurers to payout.

[JohntheBike]

So if you say you are caught by IR35, that doesn't kinda meet those criteria? If you behave as an employee and take on anything they want you to do in contradiction of your contract? Leave on Friday as a permie and rejoin on Monday doing the exact same job?

There are always caveats. Only an idiot signs something that implies best endeavours regardless. IPSE, nor PCG, have ever refused a case to my knowledge.

It also depends on other factors. As in the Arctic case, if IPSE think they will gain from a court case, they will make a judgement on how defensible it is. A loss can prove a legal point just as effectively as a win.

And I've done a reasonable amount of research over the years thanks.

your are clearly confusing what IPSE will support and what Markel Tax will support. IPSE was the policy holder with Abbey Tax, and assuming they are still the policy holder with Markel Tax, then that provision will clearly be in effect. Markel tax will not support an individual in any HMRC investigation if they think there is little chance of winning. It won't be IPSE's decision.

[malvolio]

your are clearly confusing what IPSE will support and what Markel Tax will support. IPSE was the policy holder with Abbey Tax, and assuming they are still the policy holder with Markel Tax, then that provision will clearly be in effect. Markel tax will not support an individual in any HMRC investigation if they think there is little chance of winning. It won't be IPSE's decision.

Well I won't argue. But the decision is IPSE's. Clearly they will take advice.

Don't confuse Markel's open market services with those they operate with IPSE.

[JohntheBike]

Well I won't argue. But the decision is IPSE's. Clearly they will take advice.

Don't confuse Markel's open market services with those they operate with IPSE.

So, are you claiming that IPSE's policy with Markel is fundamentally different from the open market version? In a previous post I actually claimed what you are stating now, i.e. it was IPSE's decision whether or not to support a claim, but this was quickly dismissed and it was claimed that all IPSE would do is pass the claim directly to Markel. I pointed out that IPSE's decision whether or not to pass on the claim to Markel might be influenced by political considerations, which was roundly denied. You have said nothing which leads me to believe that that is not true. I remind you that you claimed that any claim submitted through IPSE would be supported unconditionally. I doubt that this is the case.