IPSE and alternatives ?

[northernladuk]

what I mean is that I would expect that they would review your current and past situation and offer insurance if they thought you were outside of IR35. If examination of your history indicated that you were caught, then I guess they would not offer insurance going forward.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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 ...

[northernladuk]

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

Can someone point this out to mb31.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.