TAX INSURANCE

[Phil Cooper]

I am sure you have all read of SARS just debiting accounts - unjustifiably - or just creating major problems with companies.

I have a type of Insurance for SARS problems.

It uses top lawyers and tax experts to take on SARS on your behalf - and when SARS deal with these guys things happen.

The way SARS are going could well now be worth looking at!

Anyone interested in cover details, please email me on phil@philcooper.co.za.

I will send you the brochure re the covers, etc. It is too large a file to post here.

I have the latest brochure / details of covers.

They say

What is Tax Insurance?

Tax Insurance protects you from the risks associated with a SARS audit assessment dispute, by covering the costs of specialist tax lawyers and accountants representing you.

What does our Tax Insurance offer you?

Access to a panel of tax accountants and tax lawyers for assistance when SARS audits you, from the point of the audit, until the matter is finally resolved

Full professional representation from Letter of Findings until the matter is finalized in ADR, Tax Court, or an Appeal Court, or by negotiated settlement with SARS

Key tax information to reduce tax risks in your business

Subscription to TaxTalk, SA’s leading tax journal

Most importantly, peace of mind.

Products

Tax Radar’s range of tax insurance products protects you or your business from the risks associated with a SARS audit assessment dispute, by covering the costs of specialist tax lawyers and accountants representing you.

Specifically, our Tax Insurance offers you…

Access to a panel of tax accountants and tax lawyers for assistance when SARS audits you, from the point of the audit, until the matter is finally resolved

Full professional representation should a dispute arise with SARS following a SARS audit

Key tax information to reduce tax risks in your business

Subscription to TaxTalk, SA’s leading tax journal

Bespoke policies for accountant practices and their clients

We presently have a range of six products, of which two are focused on individuals and four on commercial Businesses.


If you would like to know more, drop me an email and I will send you the full brochure...

[Dave A]

It's a sad day when you need to consider taking insurance to cover being screwed over by your government.

[Phil Cooper]

Yeah. Agreed.

But they way that they are just taking money they deem due from bank accounts, and the fact that they are often creating MAJOR queries when they owe YOU money (VAT audits, PAYE audits, etc.) could make this a worthwhile cost saving exercise.

[adrianh]

Phil, how about insurance against insurance companies not paying out. There are so many cases where insurance companies refuse to pay out for some or other obscure reason, why not insure that risk as well?

[Phil Cooper]

Adrian

The only reason that reputable Insurers do not pay out is because either the item is not covered, the wrong cover has been arranged / placed, or the client has not complied with a policy condition critical to the claim.

If they placed the covers correctly in the first instance this would not be necessary.

[Dave A]

Phil, how about insurance against insurance companies not paying out. There are so many cases where insurance companies refuse to pay out for some or other obscure reason, why not insure that risk as well?

In many ways it's an idea not far removed from the insurance against SARS's foibles.

Phil, think about it:

Santam offers an insurance cover against direct insureres not paying out a claim on thin grounds...

Even Nando's would be hard pressed to top that one as a marketing stunt.

[adrianh]

So many claims are rejected for all sorts of absurd reasons. Why not insure againts insurance companies. We gamgle that the insurance company will pay and the insurance company gambles that we won't claim. If we do claim they pull out the fine print, and then they hedge their bets by employing investigators so why can't we hedge our bets by insuring against them?

I honestly think that insurance is one of the worst ideas ever thought up. It is the ultimate form of gambling, it is legal, expensive and the house always wins (and if the house feels that its not winning enough it just hikes its prices)

[flaker]

The american banks did just that & got some of the more famous European banks into the net. The rest,as they say is history.

[Rafael]

Adrian

The only reason that reputable Insurers do not pay out is because either the item is not covered, the wrong cover has been arranged / placed, or the client has not complied with a policy condition critical to the claim.

If they placed the covers correctly in the first instance this would not be necessary.

I couldn't agree more Phil.

I had a client take out life cover about 2 years ago, and I went through the medical questions with him, it asks if you take or have ever taken drugs, Client ticked No.
He passed away last year and when the Insurer pulled his medical report, we found out that he had been admitted to rehab numerous times and there was a drug problem. The claim was repudiated and all premiums paid back, as the Insurer never would have insured him in the first place.

What story do you think his family tell their friends

Insurance companies always payout if everything is on order

[adrianh]

I went through the medical questions with him, it asks if you take or have ever taken drugs

I am speaking in general now and not about the specific case.

This is one of the grey area that I am talking about. So tell me:

1. if he smokes weed once a week would that be considered to be taking drugs?
2. if he smokes weed every day would that be considered to be taking drugs?
3. if he smokes Camel laced with Disprin would that be considered to be taking drugs?
4. if he drinks 6 beers a day would that be considered to be taking drugs?
5. if he drinks 24 beers a day would that be considered to be taking drugs?
6. if he drinks 2 cans of Red Bull a week would that be considered to be taking drugs?
6. if he drinks 20 cans of Red Bull a day would that be considered to be taking drugs?
7. if he drinks 55 cups of coffee a day would that be considered to be taking drugs?
8. what about if he smoked weed when he was 17 and he is now 30, he doesn't smoke weed anymore but he has a bottle of Jack Daniels every night.

The problem lies in the definition of the word Drug, the insurance companies are open to define the word whichever way they want.

Insurance is one of the biggest ripoffs ever devised.

[Rafael]

The question on the application is
"Have you ever taken any recreational drugs including cannabis (dagga), cocaine, ecstacy, anabolic steriods, etc"

Further down it asks
"whats the average alcohol consumption per week"

and there are many other questions.
The best thing for the client to do is disclose it, I submit to the insurer and they will come back with an answer if he is accepted or not.
If he is accepted, then there will be a payout.

Every one has their opinion about insurance and I'm not here to change anyone's minds. I've seen the good it in, while others have seen the bad.
All I'm saying is Companies will payout if you honest and you covered correctly.

[Mike C]

I once took out Hospital Insurance for me and my family and the questionnaire asked if anyone had suffered from Asthma. As it happened, my one daughter had suffered from asthma as a child, but had not had an asthma attack for about 10 years.

I was honest and disclosed it, and when it came back, the insurance would not cover any asthma related claim for her.

The message that was sent to me that day is that "we are happy to cover you when you are hale and hearty and there is very little chance of you needing to claim".

I know that the insurer has to take all kinds of things into consideration so that he comes out ahead, but for me - at that time - it was like a slap in the face.

So - to get to the previous posting and the matter that adrianh asked ... if the application asks "Have you EVER taken recreational drugs ... " it kind of leaves it open doesn't it. Shouldn't it rather ask - "Have you taken any recreational drugs in the last 5 years, and if so how often?" Something like that would make more sense.

[adrianh]

All I'm saying is Companies will payout if you honest and you covered correctly.

Maybe, but the statement is nothing more than opinion considering that the words "honest" and "correctly" are very open ended.

Insurance salesmen and economists have a lot in common, they sell a vague idea and refine the idea once reality proves itself one way or another.

I want insurance salesmen to take personal responsibility if the insurance company fails to pay. What should happen is that if a claim is repudiated then the insurance salesman should return all his commission to the client. You should be able to put your money where your mouth is.

All I'm saying is Companies will payout if you honest and you covered correctly.

Ok so, will you stake your commission on this statement, I gamble, so should you!

[Phil Cooper]

Adrian

Tell someone whose house has just been burnt to the ground, and whose insurance has re-built it, replaced the contents, and paid his and his family's temporary residence costs for a year whilst the house was being rebuilt that his insurance was a rip off.

Tell someone whose R375,000 car was hijacked, and been replaced, that insurance is a ripoff.

HOWEVER - deal with a "cheap" insurer, expect the same cover as with a reputable insurer, do NOT expect to get the same benefits when you claim. BUT - if you read and compare your wording to the other Insurer (which NOBODY will do) - you will KNOW the shortfalls and take an informed decision as to the covers you buy.

If you came to me, a Broker, to buy Insurance, I am EXPECTED (by Law) to do a needs analysis for you, and offer you options to cover your needs.

BUT - the Direct Insurers are NOT obliged to do a needs analysis. All they are there for is to sell you their product. Whether it fits your needs or not is immaterial. As long as they sell you their products, they are happy stop

Adrian, generally I find that people who are so anti-insurance as you have had a bad experience, often by buying from a cheap insurer or by taking shortcuts, and have this jaundiced idea that insurers are out to get them. I can tell you categorically, after more than 40 years in the industry, that the majority of reputable insurers go out of their way to pay your claim to the maximum that you are entitled, and only try to avoid claims when there is a very genuine reason.

You're being pedantic above. The reason for repudiation has to be material to the repudiation before it can be applied: for example, if your house burns down and your car is destroyed in the garage during the fire, the insurers could not repudiate your claim because the car was unroadworthy and all the tyres were smooth. It has no bearing on the claim.

[Rafael]

I once took out Hospital Insurance for me and my family and the questionnaire asked if anyone had suffered from Asthma. As it happened, my one daughter had suffered from asthma as a child, but had not had an asthma attack for about 10 years.

I was honest and disclosed it, and when it came back, the insurance would not cover any asthma related claim for her.

They could of put a three month waiting period on asthma, at the extreme 12 month. I would of fought the decision.
Today I removed a clients waiting period of 3 months on her medical aid, by querying why there was a waiting period and what was needed to remove it. They just needed her membership certificate from her previous medical aid.

What should happen is that if a claim is repudiated then the insurance salesman should return all his commission to the client. You should be able to put your money where your mouth is.

Ok so, will you stake your commission on this statement, I gamble, so should you!

I completely agree with you, it would encourage honest business from the Advisers side, but what if the claim is repudiated because the client lied to have cover in place.

Look I could of overstepped when i said "Companies" but who I represent does payout if everything is done correctly and with my clients I would stake my commission because the right job has been done even though I don't gamble