• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Tax avoidance insurance

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Tax avoidance insurance

    Surely we have seen the adverts claiming that the 80% guaranteed take home is insurance backed, often Lloyds backed, so you cannot possibly lose. The recent one involving Gary Barlow was insurance backed, so he should be fine, right?

    Icebreaker threatens to sue Deloitte | AccountingWEB

    Taylor adds: "Based on correspondence from the insurers solicitors, it is clear that the insurer believes it was not provided with the relevant information. The insurer has voided the scheme and agreed to repay the premiums.
    Given that most avoidance schemes at this end of the scale are on such a knife-edge legal wise, presumably insurers can pull this stunt whenever a scheme gets defeated.

    So the insurance is like an umbrella which only works when the sun is shining.

    #2
    That's my view also. When I looked at IR35 insurance you basically had to sin that you were outside of IR35, but surely if you are found by HMRC to be inside, then the insurance company will take the same view that your application was void?

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by JoJoGabor View Post
      That's my view also. When I looked at IR35 insurance you basically had to sin that you were outside of IR35, but surely if you are found by HMRC to be inside, then the insurance company will take the same view that your application was void?
      So join PCG. Cover is unconditional.

      Unless you're talking about insurance to cover the extra tax arising from losing a case - which I've said for years is probably a waste of money.
      Blog? What blog...?

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by malvolio View Post
        So join PCG. Cover is unconditional.

        Unless you're talking about insurance to cover the extra tax arising from losing a case - which I've said for years is probably a waste of money.
        Because they will come up with some reason not to pay out I take it?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by kal View Post
          Because they will come up with some reason not to pay out I take it?
          The question is: has it ever paid out?
          The material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.

          George Frederic Watts

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_Park

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by kal View Post
            Because they will come up with some reason not to pay out I take it?
            No - it's because the insurer will make pretty damn sure you aren't caught before offering you the cover. If you want to insure against something that the insurer is convinced won't happen then go ahead.

            There's another potential twist, come to that. If a reviewer says you are outside and you arrange your affairs accordingly, then you lose a case and have to pay out the back taxes, why wouldn't you then sue the advisor for the losses since it was their bad advice that created them?
            Blog? What blog...?

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by malvolio View Post
              No - it's because the insurer will make pretty damn sure you aren't caught before offering you the cover. If you want to insure against something that the insurer is convinced won't happen then go ahead.

              There's another potential twist, come to that. If a reviewer says you are outside and you arrange your affairs accordingly, then you lose a case and have to pay out the back taxes, why wouldn't you then sue the advisor for the losses since it was their bad advice that created them?
              Because any wise adviser would caveat their advice.
              The material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.

              George Frederic Watts

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_Park

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by speling bee View Post
                Because any wise adviser would caveat their advice.
                ...and ultimately the final decision always resides with the purchaser. Advice is exactly that - advice (just ask any accountant/lawyer).

                Although in the past we've had promoters on here laugh at the 'armchair warriors' on the forum, telling punters to ignore us and rely on the advice of 'tax specialists'; those specialists aren't the ones getting bitten on the bum today.
                "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
                - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by speling bee View Post
                  The question is: has it ever paid out?
                  Last time I spoke to QDOS about this (admittedly a little over a year ago) they said they'd never had to pay out on their TLC35 insurance...and perhaps more interestingly that they really wanted to.

                  Their attitude (believe it or not...I do) was that the cost of having to pay out on the policy would be dwarfed by the positive PR and additional sign ups they'd likely get afterwards.

                  Having said that, I agree with Malvolio's stance, that they will do some due diligence on you before accepting you onto the policy. If they're confident you wouldn't stand a chance in an IR35 enquiry, they'd be highly unlikely to offer the insurance (or insist on significant changes in your contract/working practices first)...but surely that's a good thing? At least you as punter know nice and early on you're high risk, whilst otherwise you might've been blissfully ignorant.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Maslins View Post
                    Last time I spoke to QDOS about this (admittedly a little over a year ago) they said they'd never had to pay out on their TLC35 insurance...and perhaps more interestingly that they really wanted to.

                    Their attitude (believe it or not...I do) was that the cost of having to pay out on the policy would be dwarfed by the positive PR and additional sign ups they'd likely get afterwards.

                    Having said that, I agree with Malvolio's stance, that they will do some due diligence on you before accepting you onto the policy. If they're confident you wouldn't stand a chance in an IR35 enquiry, they'd be highly unlikely to offer the insurance (or insist on significant changes in your contract/working practices first)...but surely that's a good thing? At least you as punter know nice and early on you're high risk, whilst otherwise you might've been blissfully ignorant.
                    So that was a question, not the question.

                    Next question is: Have they ever declined to pay out?
                    Last edited by speling bee; 26 June 2014, 11:20.
                    The material prosperity of a nation is not an abiding possession; the deeds of its people are.

                    George Frederic Watts

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman's_Park

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X