QDOS Tax Liability Cover

[sim2kuk]

So I have just been determined "Inside IR35". However, as a key provider the client has said they will happily pay me to parity with my current contract rate, so that I will not lose out financially if I were to go inside with them.

I have been at the client for 19 months, which will be 21 by the time the legislation comes around.

The question is this - if in the likely scenario that I got investigated for going outside to inside, the case will likely not be taken on by QDOS. However, will the tax liability cover still be applied? This is what is said on the website:

"Circumstances where contractors have received an SDS as 'inside IR35' by their client would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. There are a number of factors which could impact our ability to defend a contractor in an enquiry, but Qdos will always endeavour to ensure our clients benefit from their policies. This does not change the existing TLC policy, which was always subject to an assessment of the prospects of achieving a successful outcome."

This seems to indicate that I'd be covered as long as I have enough liability cover in place (I currently have £50k of cover so that should be just about enough).

I'm not 100% sure if this applies to going from outside to inside and continuing working, or just if you're given that determination.

Anyone else seen this asked already/have any idea?

Cheers.

[northernladuk]

I think you might find that 50k isn't as close enough as you think if you consider the worst case.

I certainly don't read the same in to that paragraph as you though. It says they'd look at the realistic prospect of success. Doesn't tell me anything about what they'd do if they look at it, decide its slam dunk caught and walk away.

Here a bit of out there blue sky thinking. Why not give them a bell, ask them and come back and tell us the situation??

[sim2kuk]

I think you might find that 50k isn't as close enough as you think if you consider the worst case.

I certainly don't read the same in to that paragraph as you though.

So I'm looking at it as percentage of take home, which drops from approx 74% to 66%, so in theory it should be the difference plus some interest for those 21 months.

How should I calculate it?

[sim2kuk]

I think you might find that 50k isn't as close enough as you think if you consider the worst case.

I certainly don't read the same in to that paragraph as you though. It says they'd look at the realistic prospect of success. Doesn't tell me anything about what they'd do if they look at it, decide its slam dunk caught and walk away.

Here a bit of out there blue sky thinking. Why not give them a bell, ask them and come back and tell us the situation??

I was seeing if anyone on here had already asked it, or knew, that was why? I will speak to them but some of the experts on here may know more about their actual policies, rather than just what they say to placate people.

In theory, the "not taking a case on" and "tax liability cover" should be independent of each other, as one is not contingent on the other. They can not take a case on but still cover your tax liability, for example.

[jamesbrown]

They should be able to guide you based on turnover.

That said, I think you have an extremely optimistic take on their guidance about the SDS. There has always been a requirement for a realistic prospect of success. If you have an SDS that broadly matches reality and was completed with reasonable care, I seriously doubt you’d pass this hurdle, no matter what the eventual outcome might’ve been.

[northernladuk]

So I'm looking at it as percentage of take home, which drops from approx 74% to 66%, so in theory it should be the difference plus some interest for those 21 months.

How should I calculate it?

Dunno. Ask QDOS when you speak to them?

I was just thinking the JLJ came was 140k for 4 years and that's without knowing any details of the case. Based on that very wooly assumption you are on the hook for about 25k still.

Bearing in mind you are putting yourself in to the highest risk catagory and are unsure if you are covered is investigate the figures in a lot more detail.

[northernladuk]

I was seeing if anyone on here had already asked it, or knew, that was why? I will speak to them but some of the experts on here may know more about their actual policies, rather than just what they say to placate people.

In theory, the "not taking a case on" and "tax liability cover" should be independent of each other, as one is not contingent on the other. They can not take a case on but still cover your tax liability, for example.

Indeed. So ask them. Someone else asked the same question the other day and didn't get an answer either.

Would be good to have it from the horses mouth so we know for the future.

[sim2kuk]

Indeed. So ask them. Someone else asked the same question the other day and didn't get an answer either.

Would be good to have it from the horses mouth so we know for the future.

Yeah, I'll ask the question. Doesn't look good though.

Do we think that going from Outside to perm would be an issue as well?

[jamesbrown]

They can not take a case on but still cover your tax liability, for example.

Er, no.

[Kanaiya]

QDOS Tax Liability Cover

Yeah, I'll ask the question. Doesn't look good though.

Do we think that going from Outside to perm would be an issue as well?

I did asked the same question but never got any clear answer. Can you please share once you have got the answer


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum