Training course and IR35

[FarmerPalmer]

If you think it would make good business sense to acquire the new skills then why not stipulate that your business will pay for the training and any costs incurred and that you will not charge the client for any time spent at the training.

[Mr.Whippy]

If you think it would make good business sense to acquire the new skills then why not stipulate that your business will pay for the training and any costs incurred and that you will not charge the client for any time spent at the training.

Your business can't pay for training for "new" skill(s).... if you're enhancing some level of knowledge that you already have, then you can.

[escapeUK]

Your business can't pay for training for "new" skill(s).... if you're enhancing some level of knowledge that you already have, then you can.

Of course your business can pay for training for new skills. You are running an IT business, you can have any IT related training regardless of it being new or extending existing knowledge.

[malvolio]

Of course your business can pay for training for new skills. You are running an IT business, you can have any IT related training regardless of it being new or extending existing knowledge.

Yes you can. Snag is, you can't offset it against CT unless it is directly in your existing line of business. Picking up a new language is out, but updating your existing knowledge of one is OK. Stupid but true.

[northernladuk]

@ kingcook + northern lad

Sounds like a bit of a paranoid scenario to me. Consider the case - I just had a bit of my house rewired. I was really happy with the workmanship and the finish.

I said to the sparky, "You did an awesome job, could you run a bunch of networking cables for me?"
"Well I can, but I don't know how to terminate them properly."
"Ok here's some instruction on how to do it."

How is that different to what's being described? He's not being forced into the work. It's being offered - at least that's how it reads.

I don't think pointing something out to the OP that he may not be aware of is paranoid, particularly when the potential fall out could be quite serious (although chance of it happening is miniscule to be fair).

What you are are describing there is a clear case of client direction so a very big flag for IR35. Couldn't have put it better myself so I think both our points are very valid.

[tractor]

...

It's a question of perception. Developing an opportunity to maximise business/corporate earnings is not D & C.

We are always being told to think big - what do you think Accenture would do in these circumstances? Turn the business away? Not on your nellie!

And training in a different front end to work with the same back end is line of business training in my book.

Do it. Charge for it. Document the reasoning including the cost/benefits (on the back of a fag packet if you must). Then you are prepared if the unthinkable happens. Simply by demonstrating that you have applied some commercial thinking in it all should render it outside IR35. IMHO of course.

[northernladuk]

It's a question of perception. Developing an opportunity to maximise business/corporate earnings is not D & C.

We are always being told to think big - what do you think Accenture would do in these circumstances? Turn the business away? Not on your nellie!.

You are correct, they would negotiate a new contract with defined deliverables and charge the earth for it. This is very different to being asked to do an extra bit of work outside the scope of your existing contract. What accenture wouldn't do is allow their guys to be drafted in to ad-hoc bits of work as the client requires willy nilly.

I see nothing here that is the OP doing anything to maximise his situation. He is going to do a bit of work the client wants to do. That is why we have client control clauses to differentiate what the OP is doing and what a business would do IMO.

[tractor]

...

You are correct, they would negotiate a new contract with defined deliverables and charge the earth for it. This is very different to being asked to do an extra bit of work outside the scope of your existing contract. What accenture wouldn't do is allow their guys to be drafted in to ad-hoc bits of work as the client requires willy nilly.

I see nothing here that is the OP doing anything to maximise his situation. He is going to do a bit of work the client wants to do. That is why we have client control clauses to differentiate what the OP is doing and what a business would do IMO.

He has been offered an opportunity. If he takes it, he maximises his turnover and hopefully profit. He is most certainly not being directed to do it. As long as this is all documented and perhaps the contract changed to facilitate a new piece of work, I don't see any issue. I think the differences in our perception are those of cup half empty or cup half full.

This is a commercial decision he is considering, not an order to do something.

This kind of dilemma is one of the fundamental reasons why IR35 as implemented is a crock!!

[northernladuk]

He has been offered an opportunity. If he takes it, he maximises his turnover and hopefully profit. He is most certainly not being directed to do it. As long as this is all documented and perhaps the contract changed to facilitate a new piece of work, I don't see any issue. I think the differences in our perception are those of cup half empty or cup half full.

This is a commercial decision he is considering, not an order to do something.

This kind of dilemma is one of the fundamental reasons why IR35 as implemented is a crock!!

This is true but I wonder how many new contractors (his first contract) and in fact older heads would look at it this way or just do as the client says.

[tractor]

..

This is true but I wonder how many new contractors (his first contract) and in fact older heads would look at it this way or just do as the client says.

He didn't

He sensibly came here and asked for advice. I would consider that as due diligence which passes yet another test.