Training and tax position

[Unix]

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.

I know how search any site using Google so didn't need the FAQ, I was speaking on behalf of all abused newbies. You are the Jimmy Saville of Newbie bashing.

[TheFaQQer]

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.

If you adopt that approach rather than using the same four phrases ad infinitum, however can you hope to get to 17000 posts?

[northernladuk]

If you adopt that approach rather than using the same four phrases ad infinitum, however can you hope to get to 17000 posts?

Exactly!!! Eh.. Hang on a minute...

[JB3000]

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.

If the training is work-related, i.e. "defined as any training course or other activity which is designed to impart, instill, improve or reinforce any knowledge, skills, or personal qualities which:

are, or are likely to prove, useful to the employee when performing his/her duties or
will qualify or better qualify the employee to undertake the employment, or to participate in charitable or voluntary activities arising through the employment."

The training will not be subject to any benefit in kind tax charges as the training would qualify under the S.250, ITEPA 2003 exemption:

Employment income: work-related training: meaning of

Employment income: work-related training: general

[malvolio]

If the training is work-related, i.e. "defined as any training course or other activity which is designed to impart, instill, improve or reinforce any knowledge, skills, or personal qualities which:

are, or are likely to prove, useful to the employee when performing his/her duties or
will qualify or better qualify the employee to undertake the employment, or to participate in charitable or voluntary activities arising through the employment."

The training will not be subject to any benefit in kind tax charges as the training would qualify under the S.250, ITEPA 2003 exemption:

Employment income: work-related training: meaning of

Employment income: work-related training: general

Right. So whose employee are you?

[mudskipper]

I'm sure I read somewhere recently that this rule (IMO a stupid one) is due to change. Think it was on this site somewhere - off to foogle...

[mudskipper]

I'm sure I read somewhere recently that this rule (IMO a stupid one) is due to change. Think it was on this site somewhere - off to foogle...

Ah, it's should be overhauled, not will be overhauled.

Osborne told to update contractor tax rules on training :: Contractor UK

[tractor]

...

I refer back to my response to tractor. I put two posts up with links to the search and even did it for him as I often do. I hardly see that being a dick to anyone. Your very argument that no one reads them surely is more reason for me to mention it to every newbie which pisses Tractor of even more.

Being a dick to a more established poster that has already had his ass handed to him on a plate but is still carrying on is a different matter.

I already told you, it doesn't always pee me off. You don't need a FAQ for this, just read the bloody post!

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.

I think the phrase is; you can lead a horse to water but you have to put a straw up its ass and suck hard to make it drink.

You haven't handed anyone's ass anywhere, you are the one going on about it.

Most people put a title in the OP. If you see a title that is a repeat, just ignore it, your heart and blood pressure will love you for it

Quote Originally Posted by JB3000 View Post
If the training is work-related, i.e. "defined as any training course or other activity which is designed to impart, instill, improve or reinforce any knowledge, skills, or personal qualities which:

are, or are likely to prove, useful to the employee when performing his/her duties or
will qualify or better qualify the employee to undertake the employment, or to participate in charitable or voluntary activities arising through the employment."

The training will not be subject to any benefit in kind tax charges as the training would qualify under the S.250, ITEPA 2003 exemption:

To get back on topic, the OP has already stated early on that these are skills that need brushing up. I would say it's probably allowable if it's refresher training, which could include newer versions of old stuff.

[northernladuk]

You haven't handed anyone's ass anywhere, you are the one going on about it.
.

Firstly I wasn't speaking to you. All the quotes were to Unix and secondly if you read back its Unix that is going on about it, well actually you still are. I am merely responding to you both.

[Wanderer]

If the training is work-related, i.e. "defined as any training course or other activity which is designed to impart, instill, improve or reinforce any knowledge, skills, or personal qualities which:

are, or are likely to prove, useful to the employee when performing his/her duties or
will qualify or better qualify the employee to undertake the employment, or to participate in charitable or voluntary activities arising through the employment."

So if your business is IT, you could argue that pretty much any IT course is claimable. It it came to an investigation then with a good amount of arguing you would probably just have to pay the tax avoided if the expense was eventually disallowed.

I think the rule is to prevent people expensing something completely off the wall like an IT consultant doing a photography course or something.