Training and tax position

[tractor]

..

Like typing this in to google?
TLA site:forums.contractoruk.com

However I am still amazed at the energy some expend in their angst when if they feel so compelled to respond, a simple link would do. I do this often unless it's an obvious sockie or windup. It costs less than 30 posts berating the OP too. Just my view, you can take it or leave it.

To the OP, I didn't think you were trying it on. Your situation seems quite relevant to me and would bear more than the usual 'you cannot do it' from your accountant. Refresher training is different to training in a completely different field and you can prove you have revenue in that stream before.

[northernladuk]

However I am still amazed at the energy some expend in their angst when if they feel so compelled to respond, a simple link would do. I do this often unless it's an obvious sockie or windup. It costs less than 30 posts berating the OP too. Just my view, you can take it or leave it.

Two posts with just a couple of sentences including links to the relevant sections AND the link the OP needs. Hardly call that 30 posts berating the OP so I will leave it thank you.

[Unix]

Like typing this in to google?
TLA site:forums.contractoruk.com

So you need to go outside the site and use google by typing the whole url etc, yeah very intuitive, all these newbies using the search box above on this site are just clueless.

[Unix]

You would have though after making such a dick of yourself the sensible thing would be to stop posting on this topic.

But anyway, everyone is educated on the search so back to the OP's conundrum.

I raised the issue that the forums own search is lacking, which is true. Ok there are workarounds but a newbie isn't going to know that without some digging, so perhaps you should stop being a dick to newbies because you have a few contracts under your belt. We were all newbies once and your abuse towards them reveals much about your character.

[SueEllen]

I raised the issue that the forums own search is lacking, which is true. Ok there are workarounds but a newbie isn't going to know that without some digging, so perhaps you should stop being a dick to newbies because you have a few contracts under your belt. We were all newbies once and your abuse towards them reveals much about your character.

In the forum welcome/FAQs there is a sticky which tells you how to search.

Now most internet forums have a FAQ section and as a newbie to a forum you are expected to have a look at that area.

[Unix]

In the forum welcome/FAQs there is a sticky which tells you how to search.

Now most internet forums have a FAQ section and as a newbie to a forum you are expected to have a look at that area.

Nobody ever reads them, even if they did, when they found out its a palava, said newbie is likely just to post a question, to then receive the wrath of NLUK.

[SueEllen]

Nobody ever reads them, even if they did, when they found out its a palava, said newbie is likely just to post a question, to then receive the wrath of NLUK.

"I never read them"

[northernladuk]

"I never read them"

To be fair he also proved he didn't read the link I put up and continued to complain about the search even though I linked to it and demonstrated it. It's the old saying, you can lead a horse to water but if it's such a ******* moron that it refuses to drink then your ****ed.

Anyway, this has gotten boring and totally ruined the OP's thread so am out.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Certainly not the case ;-)

My main reason for my confusion is really this as it seems the situation is:

- YourComp blags its way into a contract that needs a skill it does not have: YourComp can claim back the training costs.
- YourComp wants to establish the skills first so it can generate business: YourComp cannot claim back the training costs.

... and this just seems wrong.

I can understand that there must be some way to prove business need - otherwise I will be on a 6 month intensive scuba diving and chocolate appreciation course - but why can that not be retrospective? YourComp pays £10k for training, if in the next *some suitable period* YourComp can prove it did have a business justification by showing revenue tied to the training then why is it not clear that it was directly related to the business? If YourComp cannot prove this then the investment is lost.

Here you go BIM42526 - Specific deductions: administration: own training courses These are the instructions regarding training costs that HMRC give their little inspector types.

HTH

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

To be fair he also proved he didn't read the link I put up and continued to complain about the search even though I linked to it and demonstrated it. It's the old saying, you can lead a horse to water but if it's such a ******* moron that it refuses to drink then your ****ed.

Shhhhhh there there NLUK it's alright