Pluralsight Subscription - Expensable?

[Big Blue Plymouth]

Yay or Nay?

My understanding of thes issues is that if you learning a new skill then for some reason it isn't expensable. Can't remember where I had heard this one though.

But if I read this it says:

One often overlooked consideration is whether training provided by the employer is directly work-related. If it can be shown to be related, then the employee/director will not pay a benefit in kind charge by virtue of Section 250 ITEPA 2003. Work-related training is defined in this part of the Taxes Act which provides specific exemption for this type of expense paid for or on behalf of the employee/director.

In conclusion, certain training costs are an allowable expense for corporation tax relief as long as it directly relates to the services that your company currently provides. However a training course normally would not be classed as capital expenditure for flat rate VAT purposes so VAT would not be claimable.

So what I will do will be work related but PluralSight subscription also gives opportunities to learn non work related subjects too.

[SueEllen]

Do you learn non-work related subjects?

[malvolio]

"Directly provides" is the key. As a one man band you only provide one service, be it coding or Oracle consultancy or drain cleaning. You can claim training for better ways to clean drains, but not for washing cars or doing better book-keeping for the business. Or in other words, for keeping you current skills up to date and relevant but nothing else.

[Contreras]

"Directly provides" is the key. As a one man band you only provide one service, be it coding or Oracle consultancy or drain cleaning. You can claim training for better ways to clean drains, but not for washing cars or doing better book-keeping for the business. Or in other words, for keeping you current skills up to date and relevant but nothing else.

I beg to differ. Training must be in line with the duties of the employee. A "one man band" includes being an officer of the company with some degree of competence for the responsibilities that entails. Travel to an HMRC seminar can be expensed. A basic book-keeping course, say evening classes at a local college, can be expensed. Training for accountancy qualification, unless that is your trade, cannot.

[malvolio]

I beg to differ. Training must be in line with the duties of the employee. A "one man band" includes being an officer of the company with some degree of competence for the responsibilities that entails. Travel to an HMRC seminar can be expensed. A basic book-keeping course, say evening classes at a local college, can be expensed. Training for accountancy qualification, unless that is your trade, cannot.

Differ away. That point has been challenged in the past and defeated. It's marginal whether or not it will be a problem outside a compliance review of course.

[NotAllThere]

Differ away. That point has been challenged in the past and defeated. It's marginal whether or not it will be a problem outside a compliance review of course.

Trick is to describe your main trading skill as widely as possible. If you're a programmer (which is a generic skill, actual language being a second skill), would a compliance officer notice a C++ course for a C programmer? "Just keeping my skill current with the latest. That's what the ++ means..." But going on a plumbing, language or book-keeping course? No. I wonder though, do PwC and their ilk deduct the cost of training their accountants?

Frankly, if you think you can argue you're just maintaining your skills and keeping them relevant, then claim away. If it gets disallowed then you'll just have to cough up some tax. Personally, I think it's worth the risk.

[malvolio]

Trick is to describe your main trading skill as widely as possible. If you're a programmer (which is a generic skill, actual language being a second skill), would a compliance officer notice a C++ course for a C programmer? "Just keeping my skill current with the latest. That's what the ++ means..." But going on a plumbing, language or book-keeping course? No. I wonder though, do PwC and their ilk deduct the cost of training their accountants?

Frankly, if you think you can argue you're just maintaining your skills and keeping them relevant, then claim away. If it gets disallowed then you'll just have to cough up some tax. Personally, I think it's worth the risk.

Mostly so do I as long as it fairly justifiable.

Don't forget that BigCo has many strings to its corporate bow, so can justify almost anything it likes in terms of training: "we don't need any more coders so we're retraining our employees as drain cleaners". The difference is we, as company owners, have some say in the matter, unlike an employee, so the element of personal gain is much higher.

[itjobs]

Yes it is. They go under Subscription and Professional fees.

[Lance]

Yay or Nay?

It looks like a subscription to a portal. No books. No face to face training. So it's software rather than 'training'.

IANAL / IANAA

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Yes it is. They go under Subscription and Professional fees.

It would go under training costs.

Whether or not training can be expensed has been debated on here a lot but IMO if the subscription to Pluralsight gives you effectively unlimited access to training on a number of subjects including those which do not cover your current trade then there may be an element of BIK payable on the subscription.

Of course you could just stick it through if you feel you can justify the company paying for it to HMRC.