Reply to: Pluralsight Subscription - Expensable?

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Not too sure about this; loads of companies, both consultancies and those that do "real work", pay for Pluralsight etc. for their employees without worrying too much about it.

I don't have Pluralsight at the moment, but I do pay for O'Reilly books online (to which I have also had a corporate subscription when I was a permie in the past), and put this through the company without giving it a second thought.

It's difficult to imagine Hector wanting to argue about the relevance or otherwise of the content in these subscriptions, especially given the small amounts of money involved; my bill from Safari wouldn't even cover the appetisers at the annual board meeting in Cancun, for instance.

As I said before if you think you can make a fair argument for the subscription being wholly, exclusively and necessary for your job then put it through the company.

It's not a black or white issue. If you're using it for stuff related to your job and in the event of a compliance check can demonstrate that to HMIT then you're right, I can't see much of a fuss being made about it.

The definition of work related training (which is generally exempt) is here:

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...anual/eim01220

[missinggreenfields]

Not too sure about this; loads of companies, both consultancies and those that do "real work", pay for Pluralsight etc. for their employees without worrying too much about it.

But those companies already have the work, they are skilling people up to meet that existing pipeline of work and is therefore an allowable expense.

[Ebenezer]

Hard to see how an ongoing subscription for a service that provides training on a wide range of subjects would not be a BIK. The benefit being, of course, the ability to make full use of the service even if some courses are of no relevance to your job.

The only way I think it could work is if you subscribed to access a specific course, kept records of your studies and then terminated the subscription once the course was complete on the basis that doing it that way was cheaper. However you would still need to demonstrate it was necessary to do your job for it to not be a BIK.

Not too sure about this; loads of companies, both consultancies and those that do "real work", pay for Pluralsight etc. for their employees without worrying too much about it.

I don't have Pluralsight at the moment, but I do pay for O'Reilly books online (to which I have also had a corporate subscription when I was a permie in the past), and put this through the company without giving it a second thought.

It's difficult to imagine Hector wanting to argue about the relevance or otherwise of the content in these subscriptions, especially given the small amounts of money involved; my bill from Safari wouldn't even cover the appetisers at the annual board meeting in Cancun, for instance.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

As a Director of the company it would be illogical to pay £x for just a couple of online courses when you can get more for the same £x. Therefore BIK is not applicable here.

Hard to see how an ongoing subscription for a service that provides training on a wide range of subjects would not be a BIK. The benefit being, of course, the ability to make full use of the service even if some courses are of no relevance to your job.

The only way I think it could work is if you subscribed to access a specific course, kept records of your studies and then terminated the subscription once the course was complete on the basis that doing it that way was cheaper. However you would still need to demonstrate it was necessary to do your job for it to not be a BIK.

[malvolio]

As a Director of the company it would be illogical to pay £x for just a couple of online courses when you can get more for the same £x. Therefore BIK is not applicable here.

You do understand what BIK means I take it...?

[itjobs]

... 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
...

As a Director of the company it would be illogical to pay £x for just a couple of online courses when you can get more for the same £x. Therefore BIK is not applicable here.

[malvolio]

What about something quite broad (compared to professional training courses), that could potentially increase the likelihood for the company to get work. I.e. an MBA?

Nope. An MBA is ussd as a specific example of what's not allowed since it is essentially a general qualification

[blackeye]

What about something quite broad (compared to professional training courses), that could potentially increase the likelihood for the company to get work. I.e. an MBA?

[Big Blue Plymouth]

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.

Yes, this was my thought.

I will put it through anyway. Thank you.

[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.

[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

[itjobs]

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

[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.

[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]

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.