Study

[cykophysh39]

I am thinking about going back to uni, i.e doing an open university course.
I was wondering whether I could get my limited company to pay for it?

[cojak]

Not sure - if you are allowed it must be directly related to YourCo's business. Your accountant will be able to tell you.

[Denny]

I am thinking about going back to uni, i.e doing an open university course.
I was wondering whether I could get my limited company to pay for it?

You won't be able to. Company sponsorship for tax relief purposes is only for training to carry out existing business services (stay ahead of best practice and so on so you don't slide backward and lose market credibility) not to help develop you personally even if it helps you develop your business into newly profitable areas that would otherwise not be open to you without this training or qualification.

Odd, I know, but that is the way it is.

[pickle]

So what about all the people that are put through mbas etc my their employer. They dont pay any tax on the "BIK" you speak of. Maybe the company pays the course fees AND the income tax due on the benfit to HMRC?

Sounds odd though, I was sure they write it off as a business expense.

[Denny]

So what about all the people that are put through mbas etc my their employer. They dont pay any tax on the "BIK" you speak of. Maybe the company pays the course fees AND the income tax due on the benfit to HMRC?

Sounds odd though, I was sure they write it off as a business expense.

That's probably different for employees of larger companies. However, you are the principal business developer of your own one man band business as Director. Therefore, it is viewed differently, as a personal development cost, than if you were employed and paid for by another purely for the benefit of your employer's company.

It's also worth noting that employees in some organisations are often contracted to repay training costs to their employers if they leave within a specified period of time after training is complete - because that too is viewed by the now disgruntled employer as a personal benefit for the employee courtesy of them that does not add value to their company but only to the employee moving on and to a potential future employer.

People need to really start moving from the 'schizophrenic' one-man band business model - by referring to themselves in the third person as if they are someone else other than the director (again themselves) when they are fee earning or trying to develop the business. It is very unconvincing and frankly, it is laughable, as far as the IR is concerned - which is one of the reasons IR35 was introduced in the first place. Unless the profits of a company are likely to remain in the company for future growth and investment risks are involved to grow the business (giving legitimate rise to such separation), the payment of dividends is not really appropriate (even if lawful) and are most of all used as disguised salary supplements to one-man band limiteds - hence the reason the IR insist on viewing each contract in turn, rather than taking the way the business in run as a whole. It is true that this assumption does stifle any possibility of growing - so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Someone on here recently even suggested writing themselves a contract of employment as if they were being given one by their own employer who was someone else other than themselves. It would carry absolutely no weight in law as no-one else's judgement is involved in any decision making regarding drawing up the contract and defining breaches in the contract. It's about a daft as asking yourself in the mirror if you may go to the kitchen and make yourself a coffee and answering back in the affirmative. If you did that and anyone was watching, they would conclude very quickly that you were an out and out nutter. Therefore, if such private behaviour is not viewed as healthy psychology, then it sure as hell isn't normal in the business world either.

That's why our true habitat in the business world should be that of sole traders (self employed) instead of limited companies. Nevertheless, the EB industry forces us to choose this path, whether we like it or not, or whether it is appropriate to our operating model.

[Sockpuppet]

You won't be able to. Company sponsorship for tax relief purposes is only for training to carry out existing business services (stay ahead of best practice and so on so you don't slide backward and lose market credibility) not to help develop you personally even if it helps you develop your business into newly profitable areas that would otherwise not be open to you without this training or qualification.

Odd, I know, but that is the way it is.

Depends how you word it.

I did my Class 1 & 2 through my company and got the VAT etc on it. It does allow me to do "new" work, but I can claim the VAT as I did it to gain an "appreciation" of how the vehicles handle

Also as a health and safety course

[Denny]

Depends how you word it.

I did my Class 1 & 2 through my company and got the VAT etc on it. It does allow me to do "new" work, but I can claim the VAT as I did it to gain an "appreciation" of how the vehicles handle

Also as a health and safety course

The law is often open to interpretation and 'words' are handy devices to altering perception and motives. However, I would err on the cautious side, as a one-man band because like anything, one man's meat is another man's poison and the IR could equally challenge you on the legitimacy of what you are doing when they are so convinced that we are all tax dodging (which, in all honesty, some of us are).

Same with solicitors - some will see your attempt at distortion as bona fide and advise you to go for it, others will say that it is not a good idea.

One thing is for certain - both solicitors will charge a whacking great fee for telling you different things.

They never seem to lose out, do they!

[timh]

I'd like to do this too. I don't really see how something like [ http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?C01B822 ] is different from being sent on a 3-day workshop by a permanent employer - except obviously that the OU course is vastly more useful and better value.

It benefits the company in both cases - investing in training in order to do more/better work and get more business.

Can a specialist tax person comment, maybe?

[hugebrain]

I did the same thing

I am thinking about going back to uni, i.e doing an open university course.
I was wondering whether I could get my limited company to pay for it?

I did this, MSc course relevant to contract work. I hope the taxman doesn't have any problem with it. Don't see why he should, client sends their employees on the same course.