Reply to: IPSE and alternatives ?

[JohntheBike]

So might I and the rest of IPSE...

The case now is totally different to your case way back then, under different ruling legislation, on several levels.

IPSE were - indeed are - instrumental in driving the case within Whitehall, all Chaplin has done is try to get the great unwashed to wake up to the threat to their livelihood (without, sadly, much real success). And Chaplin's work seems to have mutated into money earning.

The case now is totally different to your case way back then

I never mentioned my case, only my constant opinion that anyone judged caught by IR35 in the FTT would have a good case for employment rights in the ET. Subsequent legislation has not changed that situation. All it has done in my opinion is to show that HMRC cannot be trusted and if you sup with the Devil, then be that at your peril.

[malvolio]

no, I only asked for the reasons for the ban, which until an official responded, I didn't know. The banning process didn't advise which post invited the ban. However, my past "acrimonious" relationship with IPSE was quoted as an additional reason for considering termination of my membership.

To put the record straight, ever since IR35 was implemented, I contended that anyone caught by IR35 in the FTT would have a good chance of winning a case in the ET and continued criticising any position which sought to invalidate that point of view. It was my opinion that the IBOYOA ideology was being pushed as the only way forward against IR35 and that any other approach wasn't supported or welcomed.

It's ironic now that IPSE are actually supporting a case in the ET for someone who has been declared caught by CEST. However, there was no magnanimous acknowledgement of my original and continued stance against IR35. So if my criticisms of IPSE's approach to IR35 were considered to be "acrimonious" then so be it. At least I have remained constant and have never changed my opinion.

HMRC's conduct over IR35 has vindicated my position and in my opinion representative organisations should have been more robust in their approach to IR35 and HMRC. However, anyone who has any dialogue with officialdom has, by nature, to curtail their criticisms in order to maintain that dialogue. However, given Dave Chaplin's position, in my opinion he has been able to cause much greater reverberations in the halls of power than any one else has.

NLUK might have a different opinion though!

So might I and the rest of IPSE...

The case now is totally different to your case way back then, under different ruling legislation, on several levels.

IPSE were - indeed are - instrumental in driving the case within Whitehall, all Chaplin has done is try to get the great unwashed to wake up to the threat to their livelihood (without, sadly, much real success). And Chaplin's work seems to have mutated into money earning.

[JohntheBike]

So no threats to IPSE from you then?



Well I think Dave's done a sterling job, but it was IPSE that got IR35 into the lib dem manifesto and got it debated at the hustings events. Without that, we would not have had statements promising to review the legislation from the other main parties. Whether that will come to anything remains to be seen, but I think on this occasion IPSE have pulled the stops out.

So no threats to IPSE from you then?

obviously not. April 2020 might very well be though!

but I think on this occasion IPSE have pulled the stops out

possibly, but they claimed for many years to be influencing the powers that be without one iota of evidence to support that claim.

[mudskipper]

no, I only asked for the reasons for the ban, which until an official responded, I didn't know. The banning process didn't advise which post invited the ban. However, my past "acrimonious" relationship with IPSE was quoted as an additional reason for considering termination of my membership.

So no threats to IPSE from you then?

However, given Dave Chaplin's position, in my opinion he has been able to cause much greater reverberations in the halls of power than any one else has.

Well I think Dave's done a sterling job, but it was IPSE that got IR35 into the lib dem manifesto and got it debated at the hustings events. Without that, we would not have had statements promising to review the legislation from the other main parties. Whether that will come to anything remains to be seen, but I think on this occasion IPSE have pulled the stops out.

[JohntheBike]

Did you argue against the ban? Was that perhaps what would have prompted such a reaction?

no, I only asked for the reasons for the ban, which until an official responded, I didn't know. The banning process didn't advise which post invited the ban. However, my past "acrimonious" relationship with IPSE was quoted as an additional reason for considering termination of my membership.

To put the record straight, ever since IR35 was implemented, I contended that anyone caught by IR35 in the FTT would have a good chance of winning a case in the ET and continued criticising any position which sought to invalidate that point of view. It was my opinion that the IBOYOA ideology was being pushed as the only way forward against IR35 and that any other approach wasn't supported or welcomed.

It's ironic now that IPSE are actually supporting a case in the ET for someone who has been declared caught by CEST. However, there was no magnanimous acknowledgement of my original and continued stance against IR35. So if my criticisms of IPSE's approach to IR35 were considered to be "acrimonious" then so be it. At least I have remained constant and have never changed my opinion.

HMRC's conduct over IR35 has vindicated my position and in my opinion representative organisations should have been more robust in their approach to IR35 and HMRC. However, anyone who has any dialogue with officialdom has, by nature, to curtail their criticisms in order to maintain that dialogue. However, given Dave Chaplin's position, in my opinion he has been able to cause much greater reverberations in the halls of power than any one else has.

NLUK might have a different opinion though!

[mudskipper]

I posted a comment which was a variation on the chiefs and indians adage, and I was banned for 6 months for making a racist post. Officials of IPSE advised that during their assessment of the post, they had considered terminating my membership completely.

Did you argue against the ban? Was that perhaps what would have prompted such a reaction?

[JohntheBike]

How did they manage to do that?

Asking for a CUK Mod

I posted a comment which was a variation on the chiefs and indians adage, and I was banned for 6 months for making a racist post. Officials of IPSE advised that during their assessment of the post, they had considered terminating my membership completely.

[SimonMac]

they made it abundantly plain that they didn't want me as a member, so I obliged and didn't renew this year.

How did they manage to do that?

Asking for a CUK Mod

[JohntheBike]

Which is why you shouldn't disregard IPSE membership, regardless of how you consider the associated baggage. The cover is basically for any tax investigation (not just IR35) instigated while you are a member. When the contract in question was in force is not a parameter.

Which is why you shouldn't disregard IPSE membership

they made it abundantly plain that they didn't want me as a member, so I obliged and didn't renew this year.

[malvolio]

Their forums are a hotbed of discussion and jolly japes ...

That's hardly a criterion, given where we are now. And the forums are a bit of a wasteland these days because many of the original IR35 targets have moved on.

The PEI cover is still as good as anyone's, and usually cheaper

[northernladuk]

Their forums are a hotbed of discussion and jolly japes ...

Can someone point this out to mb31.

[ladymuck]

Thanks for the advice. The sort of thing I was after. I have strong doubts I'd get any sort of retrospective insurance and I'm erring towards taking out IPSE membership, even if it's just as a shoulder to cry on if it goes pear shaped. My strategy has always been to cough up if I got nabbed but will put up a fight with suitable guidance. The contract lasted longer than planned. I got some good non IR35 related guidance from the PCG previously but my membership lapsed after a permie stint. I've toughed it out through all the previous IR35 palavas but this one feels a little different. Time to hang up my keyboard

Their forums are a hotbed of discussion and jolly japes ...

[rootsnall]

Thanks for the advice. The sort of thing I was after. I have strong doubts I'd get any sort of retrospective insurance and I'm erring towards taking out IPSE membership, even if it's just as a shoulder to cry on if it goes pear shaped. My strategy has always been to cough up if I got nabbed but will put up a fight with suitable guidance. The contract lasted longer than planned. I got some good non IR35 related guidance from the PCG previously but my membership lapsed after a permie stint. I've toughed it out through all the previous IR35 palavas but this one feels a little different. Time to hang up my keyboard

[malvolio]

I'm still not sure that I'm making myself plain. Let's say someone has never paid for tax investigation insurance either through membership of an organisation or directly themselves. Given the current situation they now wish to take out tax investigation insurance.

I would say that when an insurance application is made, I would hope that Markel and Qdos would assess the contractor's current and probably past situation before agreeing to cover going forward. If they just took the money and relied on their exclusion clauses, would that be tantamount to accepting payment fraudulently? I don't know.

I had tax investigation insurance through IPSE, but when I didn't renew my membership and approached Markel tax directly, they did insure me. However, I had already paid Abbey Tax for a professional assessment of my contract which they judged was outside. Given the current situation which suggests that some might be subject to historic investigations, I clarified my position if I accepted an "inside" contract. They advised that my historic cover would not be compromised.

If you apply for car insurance, several questions are asked before a premium is determined. If you have answered all the questions truthfully, then you are covered. Even if there is an accident which is your fault, you are still covered. I can see tax investigation insurance moving in the same way. A series of questions will be asked and cover will be offered if the company is prepared to take the risk. I was not asked any questions when I insured recently. However, the exclusions specifically state that cover will only be functional if there is a good prospect of winning against HMRC. Clearly anyone whose contract was really inside IR35 would fall foul of this provision.



I guess the confusion exists because tax investigations are by their nature retrospective. So if I take out tax investigation insurance today, this will cover me for a tax investigation which will look at previous years, even though I would not have had cover in those years.

Which is why you shouldn't disregard IPSE membership, regardless of how you consider the associated baggage. The cover is basically for any tax investigation (not just IR35) instigated while you are a member. When the contract in question was in force is not a parameter.

[JohntheBike]

That wouldn't be fair on people that have paid insurances throughout their career. Work for 4 years and pay one year and your covered? I'd be up in arms if I knew they were doing that.

I'm still not sure that I'm making myself plain. Let's say someone has never paid for tax investigation insurance either through membership of an organisation or directly themselves. Given the current situation they now wish to take out tax investigation insurance.

I would say that when an insurance application is made, I would hope that Markel and Qdos would assess the contractor's current and probably past situation before agreeing to cover going forward. If they just took the money and relied on their exclusion clauses, would that be tantamount to accepting payment fraudulently? I don't know.

I had tax investigation insurance through IPSE, but when I didn't renew my membership and approached Markel tax directly, they did insure me. However, I had already paid Abbey Tax for a professional assessment of my contract which they judged was outside. Given the current situation which suggests that some might be subject to historic investigations, I clarified my position if I accepted an "inside" contract. They advised that my historic cover would not be compromised.

If you apply for car insurance, several questions are asked before a premium is determined. If you have answered all the questions truthfully, then you are covered. Even if there is an accident which is your fault, you are still covered. I can see tax investigation insurance moving in the same way. A series of questions will be asked and cover will be offered if the company is prepared to take the risk. I was not asked any questions when I insured recently. However, the exclusions specifically state that cover will only be functional if there is a good prospect of winning against HMRC. Clearly anyone whose contract was really inside IR35 would fall foul of this provision.



I guess the confusion exists because tax investigations are by their nature retrospective. So if I take out tax investigation insurance today, this will cover me for a tax investigation which will look at previous years, even though I would not have had cover in those years.