Reply to: PCG and QDOS IR35 coverage

[Qdos Contractor]

I obviously don't know the specifics of that case or, more importantly, how long ago it was. However, our current TLC policy most certainly does cover Tax Tribunals (formerly Commissionsers) and countless contractors will testify that we do fight enquiries to the bitter end.

If the prospects of success are strong at the outset of an enquiry (they always are with TLC clients), you can rest assured that we would not hesitate to progress an appeal to Tax Tribunals. It's worth noting that this is a very rare occurrence and we invariably win the case without needing to take it that far.

[Zero Liability]

Here and elsewhere I have heard Accountax are ruthless in defending contractors against HMRC. Exactly what you want. I was certainly happy with their contract reviews, which are thorough and detailed.

Bear in mind though that you could still engage them through the Qdos insurance policy too.

[malvolio]

A win I would say. I don't think I'll be in the PCG figures as I wasn't officially being represented by them.

I would also say that PCG were using Accountax at the time for IR35 investigations so they could probably take some of the glory as well, although I didn't have any direct contact with them. My documents were probably read over by Accountax as a few of them were ex-tax inspectors (I'm led to believe).

Abbey/Accountax have been PCG's taxation experts for a very long time, and are actively supporting them.

But the lesson would appear to be, if you have PCG membership, use it!

[Batcher]

I wonder if QDOS count that as a win or a loss in their "1300:3" claim?

A win I would say. I don't think I'll be in the PCG figures as I wasn't officially being represented by them.

I would also say that PCG were using Accountax at the time for IR35 investigations so they could probably take some of the glory as well, although I didn't have any direct contact with them. My documents were probably read over by Accountax as a few of them were ex-tax inspectors (I'm led to believe).

[dty]

Coming to this thread late:

I was a PCG member and had QDOS IR35 insurance when my HMRC investigation began. Due to the QDOS insurance being all about IR35 investigation, I notified them first.

After around 18 months the QDOS person dealing with my case moved and I had to go over everything with the new person, including sending them documentation that they should already have had.

Eventually HMRC said I was caught and should send them £52k. They even provided handy payment books. I discussed with QDOS and they said the next step was to take it to the commissioners but the insurance wouldn't cover the £7k cost so I would need to pay it myself if I wanted to challenge.

At this point I contacted PCG for advice. As I had already used QDOS they couldn't take on the case but if I faxed them the details and HMRC's letters they would give me advice. They picked HMRC's case to pieces and told me what I should tell QDOS to tell HMRC.

After around 6 months of silence QDOS wrote to HMRC and said as they hadn't responded we would treat the case as being dropped. HMRC wrote back and basically said (I paraphrase) "we know you are guilty but in this instance we will take no further action".

I'm a PCG+ member and it's money well spent. I'm sure HMRC drop a lot of cases as soon as they get the initial response saying PCG are representing you.

I wonder if QDOS count that as a win or a loss in their "1300:3" claim?

[Batcher]

OK so what you are saying is that now you will just stick with the PCG? Or do exactly the same thing again (PCG and Qdos) in the light of what Faqqer says if Qdos then pick up the £50K?

After the case finished I didn't renew my QDOS cover because I reckoned they gave in too easily.

PCG's advice mainly consisted of breaking down the final letter into small chunks and rejecting their points one by one with sound reasoning. The HMRC lady who had written the letter was known to them so they knew how to dismiss her and she had contradicted herself a few times within the letter.

It's possible QDOS have changed the level of cover since but I haven't read up on it and my experience back then puts me off going with them again. I wasn't very happy when I had to start again when they put someone else on my case. As far as I can gather the original person didn't leave, they merely moved onto other things within QDOS but they didn't do any sort of handover.

At the moment I am purely PCG+ and I think that is enough. If I had started the process with them from the beginning I'm sure it wouldn't have gone on so long. It only took them a few days to dismantle the case against me, although it was 6 months before I got a response from HMRC and only because I asked.

[TheFaQQer]

That is exactly what you need really, but if Qdos can't win against the HMRC without the help of the PCG (as Batcher says), wouldn't you still be better off with both?

If they are going to pay the bill anyway, I don't really care whether they win or lose, to be honest.

I'd be interested to hear Qdos' take on this - I thought that they very rarely (if ever) lost, so maybe if they are reading this, they would care to comment?

[jmo21]

Does PCG Plus cover previous years before membership? not clear from website.

Thinking of switching over from QDOS. Their freelancer tax protection does cover past years if you are coming in as a new customer

[adam42]

Coming to this thread late:

I was a PCG member and had QDOS IR35 insurance when my HMRC investigation began. Due to the QDOS insurance being all about IR35 investigation, I notified them first.

After around 18 months the QDOS person dealing with my case moved and I had to go over everything with the new person, including sending them documentation that they should already have had.

Eventually HMRC said I was caught and should send them £52k. They even provided handy payment books. I discussed with QDOS and they said the next step was to take it to the commissioners but the insurance wouldn't cover the £7k cost so I would need to pay it myself if I wanted to challenge.

At this point I contacted PCG for advice. As I had already used QDOS they couldn't take on the case but if I faxed them the details and HMRC's letters they would give me advice. They picked HMRC's case to pieces and told me what I should tell QDOS to tell HMRC.

After around 6 months of silence QDOS wrote to HMRC and said as they hadn't responded we would treat the case as being dropped. HMRC wrote back and basically said (I paraphrase) "we know you are guilty but in this instance we will take no further action".

I'm a PCG+ member and it's money well spent. I'm sure HMRC drop a lot of cases as soon as they get the initial response saying PCG are representing you.

OK so what you are saying is that now you will just stick with the PCG? Or do exactly the same thing again (PCG and Qdos) in the light of what Faqqer says if Qdos then pick up the £50K?

Qdos TLC35, whilst more expensive, pays the penalties and tax if you lose. For the cost of a day rate, I see that as a no-brainer.

That is exactly what you need really, but if Qdos can't win against the HMRC without the help of the PCG (as Batcher says), wouldn't you still be better off with both?

[TheFaQQer]

Qdos TLC35, whilst more expensive, pays the penalties and tax if you lose. For the cost of a day rate, I see that as a no-brainer.

[Goggy]

Thanks a lot! Your reply is very much appreciated!

[Batcher]

Coming to this thread late:

I was a PCG member and had QDOS IR35 insurance when my HMRC investigation began. Due to the QDOS insurance being all about IR35 investigation, I notified them first.

After around 18 months the QDOS person dealing with my case moved and I had to go over everything with the new person, including sending them documentation that they should already have had.

Eventually HMRC said I was caught and should send them £52k. They even provided handy payment books. I discussed with QDOS and they said the next step was to take it to the commissioners but the insurance wouldn't cover the £7k cost so I would need to pay it myself if I wanted to challenge.

At this point I contacted PCG for advice. As I had already used QDOS they couldn't take on the case but if I faxed them the details and HMRC's letters they would give me advice. They picked HMRC's case to pieces and told me what I should tell QDOS to tell HMRC.

After around 6 months of silence QDOS wrote to HMRC and said as they hadn't responded we would treat the case as being dropped. HMRC wrote back and basically said (I paraphrase) "we know you are guilty but in this instance we will take no further action".

I'm a PCG+ member and it's money well spent. I'm sure HMRC drop a lot of cases as soon as they get the initial response saying PCG are representing you.

[malvolio]

QDOS Freelancer Tax Protection or PCGPlus - What's the difference between the two?

I've got my insurances from QDOS and also have got PCG membership.
Now considering to buy a cover for the investigations .
Comparing the two of the above and I can see that QDOS offers contract reviews for the duration of the cover all the rest is the same, isn't? (PCG of course has much more to offer in general)

QDOS (£117 + VAT) :

An IR35 Contract Assessment included
Legal and representation (£50k) in the event of:
An IR35 dispute
A PAYE/NIC dispute
A VAT dispute
A HM Revenue & Customs aspect enquiry
A HM Revenue & Customs full enquiry
A Section 660A dispute
Backdated tax years fully covered

PCGPlus(£220+VAT):

Income Tax Full Enquiry (All books & records requested by HMRC)
Income Tax Aspect Enquiry (HMRC just interested in specific entries on the tax return)
Corporation Tax Full Enquiry (as income tax above, but into your company’s return)
Corporation Tax Aspect Enquiry (into specific entries on the company’s return)
VAT Disputes
Employer Compliance (PAYE/P11D/NIC) Disputes
IR35 Disputes

PCG Plus cover is a lot more than that, and is evolving. It's not all about tax, after all.

But you're looking at a few hundred quid to secure £10ks a year.

[Goggy]

QDOS Freelancer Tax Protection or PCGPlus?

QDOS Freelancer Tax Protection or PCGPlus - What's the difference between the two?

I've got my insurances from QDOS and also have got PCG membership.
Now considering to buy a cover for the investigations .
Comparing the two of the above and I can see that QDOS offers contract reviews for the duration of the cover all the rest is the same, isn't? (PCG of course has much more to offer in general)

QDOS (£117 + VAT) :

An IR35 Contract Assessment included
Legal and representation (£50k) in the event of:
An IR35 dispute
A PAYE/NIC dispute
A VAT dispute
A HM Revenue & Customs aspect enquiry
A HM Revenue & Customs full enquiry
A Section 660A dispute
Backdated tax years fully covered

PCGPlus(£220+VAT):

Income Tax Full Enquiry (All books & records requested by HMRC)
Income Tax Aspect Enquiry (HMRC just interested in specific entries on the tax return)
Corporation Tax Full Enquiry (as income tax above, but into your company’s return)
Corporation Tax Aspect Enquiry (into specific entries on the company’s return)
VAT Disputes
Employer Compliance (PAYE/P11D/NIC) Disputes
IR35 Disputes

[psychocandy]

Kick what? It's your money (and a small percentage of your contract value over a year...) and PCG membership is about a hell of a lot more than insurance, as I'm sure you agree.

But all I keep saying is that it's not a case of PCG or QDOS, it's a case of PCG anyway, and QDOS/Abbey/Accountax/whoever if you really think you need two pairs of braces and a couple of extra belts to keep up a pair of elasticated trousers. I don't, but I'm not you.

If your contract is sound, and either you know enough to assess that yourself or you get it reviewed by someone who does, you aren't going to lose an IR35 case. If it isn't, the only sensible choice is to pay up or go brolly; only a fool would do anything else.

The other point to ponder is that nobody's yet claimed on the penalties insurance. You can be damned sure that if HMG succeed in a few IR35 cases and they are paid off with an insurance policy, that insurance option will very quickly be removed. HMG will not tolerate people insuring against what they see as criminal activity (and IR35 is a law after all). They may even take the view that paying out £1000 to ignore a £50k tax bill is evasion.

But first they have to win.

You have a very good point. I know both QDOS and PCG have lost a very small percentage of cases but I wasnt aware of that any of these cases were covered by their respective insurance (and thus this paid the charges rather than the person in question).

So even though QDOS and Abbey Tax have lost a few cases the ones they lost didnt have the full coverage?

I know the argument about insuring for breaking the law has also been discussed. Interesting argument that HMRC might be miffed that contractor doesnt care that he loses since hes covered anyway.