Retrospective IR35 investigations

[Skint]

be careful. There are caveats. The main one is that they will only fight the case if they believe there is a good chance of beating HMRC. If they think they will not win a case, then they will not fight it. This is the price you have to pay for covering retrospective investigations. Normal insurance of any kind wouldn't cover you for past events.

I'm not disputing what you say, but how does that work? The contractor pays the insurer £1,400 and the insurer gets the contractor to answer questions about their working practices and reviews the contractor's contract and agrees they are outside IR35, and signs them up. Then the contractor is subject to an enquiry and the insurer says, "oh, no, sorry, we don't think we'll win so we won't fight your case" Wouldn't that be some kind of breach of contract?

[CompoundOverload]

I'm not disputing what you say, but how does that work? The contractor pays the insurer £1,400 and the insurer gets the contractor to answer questions about their working practices and reviews the contractor's contract and agrees they are outside IR35, and signs them up. Then the contractor is subject to an enquiry and the insurer says, "oh, no, sorry, we don't think we'll win so we won't fight your case" Wouldn't that be some kind of breach of contract?

Actually, they don't even insure you on based on that. You respond to 4 questions related to the "stated principles" or something similar (I think one relates to RoS). Based on your response to those statements they determine if they will insure you or not.

Even though I have had my contract reviewed by them (and passed as outside), not once was it contingent on that or the WP of said engagement(s). But for every client i have had, I have always had a contract review by them, whilst the insurance was running.

[Skint]

... You respond to 4 questions related to the "stated principles" or something similar ....

I answered a 47-question questionnaire

[CompoundOverload]

I answered a 47-question questionnaire

Was that not the Working Practices questionnaire?

[Kanaiya]

Actually, they don't even insure you on based on that. You respond to 4 questions related to the "stated principles" or something similar (I think one relates to RoS). Based on your response to those statements they determine if they will insure you or not.
.

They don’t ask any questions at the time of buying insurance.


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[NeedTheSunshine]

I'm not disputing what you say, but how does that work? The contractor pays the insurer £1,400 and the insurer gets the contractor to answer questions about their working practices and reviews the contractor's contract and agrees they are outside IR35, and signs them up. Then the contractor is subject to an enquiry and the insurer says, "oh, no, sorry, we don't think we'll win so we won't fight your case" Wouldn't that be some kind of breach of contract?

Well the wording of the contract might be outside but what are the working practices in reality? Is the RoS really true? It's not breach of contract if the contractor wasn't being completely truthful about the working practices and RoS.

It's good marketing for the insurer to win a case.

If the insurer thinks the case is unlikely to win it must be because of the information supplied by the contractor was incorrect and they think that HMRC have a reasonable case.

[JohntheBike]

Was that your ET or another?
I’ve always thought that I’d like to be able to use that as an argument but never seen it in IR35 articles I’ve read. I’d only get around 35k in perm vs 500-550 contract.


Just a thought
If it was a strong factor, then maybe doing the same job at same company on the far lower permie pay scale wouldn’t be such a bad move? [I still wouldn’t recommend it btw!! - this can’t be the case otherwise Id have seen it mentioned before]

Was that your ET or another?

yes, it was my case and it was one of the major points that Hewlett Packard used in their defence and the panel accepted that and made significant play on it. Note it was in the ET judgement, not the EAT.

[JohntheBike]

From you?


9 years (or whatever it is) at the same client is going to put a completely different spin on the situation.

You've stated categorically that you are untouchable a thousand times. We know because you trot the same 17 year old reason for it.


When was the last time you engaged with an agency bearing in mind the time you've been in your gig? I think you will find the law has changed a number of times since then.

And when does providing NI and passports have anything to do with IR35?

No one has ever denied that have they? It's in the guidance on how to prove you can work in the UK?

When was the last time you engaged with an agency bearing in mind the time you've been in your gig?

November 2018

You've stated categorically that you are untouchable a thousand times.

No I haven't. What I've said is that I've done as much as I can, and more than most, to protect my position. No one is immune to HMRC's attention. I feel that I cannot have done any more than I have to protect myself from HMRC. I clearly upset HMG over my conduct in my case and perhaps there is an entry against my record such as "leave well alone" - who knows? I do have a letter from HMRC intimating such.

And when does providing NI and passports have anything to do with IR35?

I'm really surprised that you don't understand the significance of that. Only your employer needs your NI number. You are not obliged to provide it to any other private organisation. By not doing so, it re-inforces my independent position.

[JohntheBike]

I'm not disputing what you say, but how does that work? The contractor pays the insurer £1,400 and the insurer gets the contractor to answer questions about their working practices and reviews the contractor's contract and agrees they are outside IR35, and signs them up. Then the contractor is subject to an enquiry and the insurer says, "oh, no, sorry, we don't think we'll win so we won't fight your case" Wouldn't that be some kind of breach of contract?

well I would hope that this scenario would not occur. If the insurers have decided on covering you as a result of questions that they asked and that you answered truthfully, then I guess they would defend the case. In my case, I paid Abbey Tax for a professional assessment of my contract, which they confirmed was not subject to IR35. So they could hardly then not defend me if HMRC came calling. However, I see that other posters here have had various interactions with their insurers, so I can't comment on their positions.

but as they say, caveat emptor.

[DaveB]

November 2018



I'm really surprised that you don't understand the significance of that. Only your employer needs your NI number. You are not obliged to provide it to any other private organisation. By not doing so, it re-inforces my independent position.

That's not quite true.

The Intermediaries Reporting Requirements require agencies to collect and report information on contractors they engage outside of IR35. This includes NI numbers.

Employment intermediaries reporting requirements - GOV.UK

What this means for a worker - GOV.UK

Employment intermediaries report template (CSV) - GOV.UK