Reply to: Start-up costs.

[Beatrix Kiddo]

Yes, it's a director's loan. And it is worth paying for stuff (accountancy, IPSE, laptop, stationery etc) before you register for VAT (assuming you go onto the FRS) as you can then claim back the VAT when you do register.

Cool, thanks. (Also thanks for telling me the terminology- I'll do a search on director's loan.)

[SueEllen]

I do mainly Unix and Unix virtualisation, but this role is to build totally new environments, including the network etc so they are not far apart, one needs to understand vlans, NAT/PAT etc so it's an extension of what I do, not a complete new direction (hence my shed load of recent questions in Tech forum), at the end of the day it's only £79, if it goes wrong I'll stump up but I doubt it'll even get noticed, I've expensed more than that on an Evening Meal when I did a few days in CH....

You need to explain it in an abbreviated form of this then the fact your current client requires it.

Not that your client requires the skill first.

There is a subtle difference.

[mudskipper]

Yes, it's a director's loan. And it is worth paying for stuff (accountancy, IPSE, laptop, stationery etc) before you register for VAT (assuming you go onto the FRS) as you can then claim back the VAT when you do register.

[northernladuk]

Yep. You know your stuff so am sure you've got it covered. Just commenting on the way your original one read and not agreeing with the ' what the client needs' line.

[stek]

Hmm. Not so sure about that. Surely it should that would come under new skills. I dont remember the guidance saying anything about the client. It's about the skills to deliver what you are doing. You could be a coder and the client needs a manager so you could argue an MBA is required but that's a different skillet to yours.

I think looking at it from the perspective of the client is wrong and can flag up false positives. That particular example 'might' work (but i doubt it) but the rule of using the client as justification I think is not right.

In your example (not knowing what you already do) giving you new skills that you can bill for is a pretty clear example of what is not allowed.

At end of the day though expense what you want if you are prepared to argue it.

I do mainly Unix and Unix virtualisation, but this role is to build totally new environments, including the network etc so they are not far apart, one needs to understand vlans, NAT/PAT etc so it's an extension of what I do, not a complete new direction (hence my shed load of recent questions in Tech forum), at the end of the day it's only £79, if it goes wrong I'll stump up but I doubt it'll even get noticed, I've expensed more than that on an Evening Meal when I did a few days in CH....

[northernladuk]

+1

I've just expensed a set of Cisco online training courses, because my client needs someone to do the VPN/FW/Switch stuff and there is no-one else. Mind you it cost £79 off Groupon so it might be utter pants even though it said 93% off or something....

Hmm. Not so sure about that. Surely it should that would come under new skills. I dont remember the guidance saying anything about the client. It's about the skills to deliver what you are doing. You could be a coder and the client needs a manager so you could argue an MBA is required but that's a different skillet to yours.

I think looking at it from the perspective of the client is wrong and can flag up false positives. That particular example 'might' work (but i doubt it) but the rule of using the client as justification I think is not right.

In your example (not knowing what you already do) giving you new skills that you can bill for is a pretty clear example of what is not allowed.

At end of the day though expense what you want if you are prepared to argue it.

[stek]

1. you have previous skills in that area even if it's a GCSE or some other tulipty certificate
2. your current client requires those skills.

+1

I've just expensed a set of Cisco online training courses, because my client needs someone to do the VPN/FW/Switch stuff and there is no-one else. Mind you it cost £79 off Groupon so it might be utter pants even though it said 93% off or something....

[stek]

Oh I have and nowhere is it as blunt as the poster says it is. It is correctly clarified further in the thread. I should read the whole thing really.

Blunt? WTF are you on about - I said 'generally', that doesn't mean absolutely 100% not allowed.

[SueEllen]

I suppose if you have a web dev based contract and you start doing some very specific mobile training then you might have issues.

Easy way around it all is to go to something like Devweek and say you only went to the web dev talks...

Not necessarily.

Web dev and mobile dev are strongly linked especially nowadays e.g. smartphones so you are more likely to have a HMRC inspector, who won't be technical, allow that through without blinking but then question why you attended a conference regardless of the cost.

In fact I've been questioned more deeply by both the accountants I've used so far on conferences that have cost around £30 to attend simply because conferences in other professions are more about networking. Oddly enough I've expensed the travel costs and money for networking events when I've had to contribute to room hires etc but both never questioned me on it as the cost is under £15.

In regards to what is definitely not allowable - expensing any degree whether undergraduate, postgraduate or MBA in full isn't allowable.

However one or more modules in a degree are, but only if you can show that:
1. you have previous skills in that area even if it's a GCSE or some other tulipty certificate
2. your current client requires those skills.

Also unless your client works on accounting software or similar, no course that allows you to run your business more effectively can be expensed.

The reason medium and big business e.g. NHS, IBM can sponsor people to do full degrees and professional qualifications is because their businesses are large enough with multiple jobs so they can show that by giving someone those qualifications they can move into such a role even if the role doesn't exist at the moment.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

In some cases they are, if for example you need the skills to maintain your skillset/role ?

That's the general gist. It has to be wholly, exclusively and necessarily for your job and this test can only be met if the training relates in some way to what you're already doing. It can't be anything that puts you in a position to do your job.

[dx4100]

It can get a bit grey as you probably have seen in the threads but there are plenty of fairly black and white examples.

Yeah its all different shades of grey with some black and whites.

I just don't think its helpful to give people the impression the can't claim for training when they can. You just have to make sure its linked to your current engagement is my understanding.

HMRC will only ever ask for an half reasonable explanation. Some of the discussion on here have gone to crazy levels of detail.

As said above, consult an accountant.

[northernladuk]

Oh I have and nowhere is it as blunt as the poster says it is. It is correctly clarified further in the thread. I should read the whole thing really.

It can get a bit grey as you probably have seen in the threads but there are plenty of fairly black and white examples.

[LondonManc]

So basically if you go and do some training to be a plumber then you are going to run into issues... If you are contracting as a software developer...

Unless you are doing training in a vastly different area then I doubt its something to lose sleep over.

I suppose if you have a web dev based contract and you start doing some very specific mobile training then you might have issues.

Easy way around it all is to go to something like Devweek and say you only went to the web dev talks...

To reuse an oft-written phrase, if in doubt, ask your accountant.

[dx4100]

Says the legislative guidance. Try the search I've outlined and go have a read. It's pretty clear.

Oh I have and nowhere is it as blunt as the poster says it is. It is correctly clarified further in the thread. I should read the whole thing really.

[dx4100]

Correct to my understanding. Training on the 2016 version of the product you use would be allowable but training to go in a different direction wouldn't be.

So basically if you go and do some training to be a plumber then you are going to run into issues... If you are contracting as a software developer...

Unless you are doing training in a vastly different area then I doubt its something to lose sleep over.

I suppose if you have a web dev based contract and you start doing some very specific mobile training then you might have issues.

Easy way around it all is to go to something like Devweek and say you only went to the web dev talks...