Reply to: Training course expense

[SueEllen]

As I said I agree. However I fail to see a difference. A co paying for a work permit allowing one to work in the UK.

This WP brings a lot more benefit personally to this person (working in UK vs not allowed to work) than a citizenship over permanent residence (only difference is to be able to vote for parliament).

Investment wise one's own co may invest in a citizenship of employee to get more contracts in the future.

You can't do that.

HMRC can lift the corporate veil if need be.

Where there are 15 non-family member employees it can be proven there is a business need. The role has to be advertised in the EU for months before an non-EU citizen can take it.

When there is only one employee or in a very small company where the employee is also a family member then it can be proven there isn't a business need simply because you won't do the advertising.

[Contreras]

I've never really understood this training stuff. If a permie is sent by employer on a French course to enable them to do business with a French client, is it a BiK?

No - they have the client, so they are skilling someone up to do the work. Same as if you already had a contract with a French client, you could argue that the training is required for the business.

I believe the distinction is actually that the employer has employees. HMRC are happy for an employer to "skill up" its employees in the pursuit of new business, but not directors as they have a controlling say and so obviously cannot be trusted.

Also, that BigCo may occasionally expense training without incurring BiK and without (even the prospect of) a business need, does not make it right. They are BigCo, so unless the malpractise is blatent or widescale avoidance it will fly straight under Hector's radar.

OTOH, when it comes to personal taxation, directors are employees.

[northernladuk]

But it's not wholly and exclusively as already pointed out.

[garnet]

There is paying for it as an investment to the business and the tax situation. There is a difference.

As I said I agree. However I fail to see a difference. A co paying for a work permit allowing one to work in the UK.

This WP brings a lot more benefit personally to this person (working in UK vs not allowed to work) than a citizenship over permanent residence (only difference is to be able to vote for parliament).

Investment wise one's own co may invest in a citizenship of employee to get more contracts in the future.

[northernladuk]

I agree.
However long time ago first company I started as perm for paid similar amount for me to the state to get me a work permit. And this was not out of CEO's pocket. Company of 15 it was.

There is paying for it as an investment to the business and the tax situation. There is a difference.

[garnet]

No personal benefit there at all is there :

Honestly, no. Not for someone who is permanent resident here anyway.

[garnet]

I agree.
However long time ago first company I started as perm for paid similar amount for me to the state to get me a work permit. And this was not out of CEO's pocket. Company of 15 it was.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

What is you opinion on one claiming the cost of becoming UK citizen (£1500), because the client only allows UK citizens to carry out the contract (e.g in defence sector)?

Puts you in the position to do the job, not wholly, exclusively and necessarily for the purposes of your job IMO.

[northernladuk]

What is you opinion on one claiming the cost of becoming UK citizen (£1500), because the client only allows UK citizens to carry out the contract (e.g in defence sector)?

No personal benefit there at all is there :

[Old Greg]

What is you opinion on one claiming the cost of becoming UK citizen (£1500), because the client only allows UK citizens to carry out the contract (e.g in defence sector)?

Not allowable.

[garnet]

What is you opinion on one claiming the cost of becoming UK citizen (£1500), because the client only allows UK citizens to carry out the contract (e.g in defence sector)?

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

That this often comes up for debate just shows how unclear the rules are IMO.

At a high level, my understanding is if the training directly relates to your job and is simply an improvement or embellishment of an existing skill as it relates to your job, then it's allowable (it has to pass the wholly, exclusively and necessarily test).

If the training is to put you in the position to do your job then it wouldn't be allowable.

The tricky thing is determining whether or not it relates to your job. If you're a contractor then IMO your job is to be able to competently perform the role that your employer (YourCo) has currently contracted you to do with ClientCo or may reasonably be expected to contract you to do in the future based on your current skillset.

So if you're an IT contractor and YourCo decided it wants to branch out into photography and you haven't got the first clue about photography then any photography course would not be claimable IMO as its putting you in the position to do your changing role.

Where the lines get blurred is if you're a Java programmer and decide you want to start doing iOS development, would a course be allowable? To some it's a new skill, to others it's all IT/software related so it should be allowable. Is your role "Java programmer" or is it just "programmer". If you already know and use 3 different languages in different contracts does one more really significantly change your role?

It's a matter of interpretation but as a software developer I would have no problem claiming for any programming related courses.

[TheFaQQer]

I've never really understood this training stuff. If a permie is sent by employer on a French course to enable them to do business with a French client, is it a BiK?

No - they have the client, so they are skilling someone up to do the work. Same as if you already had a contract with a French client, you could argue that the training is required for the business.

[SueEllen]

Wow, what an unclear subject! Thanks for the replies, I'm going to put the course through, if a BA on a BA contract can't expense a BA course then I'd struggle to think of any situation in which someone could!

Don't worry my accountants have issues with me claiming travel expenses to conferences in the UK even if they are free and I have no accommodation costs. They haven't worked out tech conferences have workshops and give you useful free stuff like books so aren't a jolly like in many other areas.

[BAMike]

Wow, what an unclear subject! Thanks for the replies, I'm going to put the course through, if a BA on a BA contract can't expense a BA course then I'd struggle to think of any situation in which someone could!