getting your employer to pay for your training?

[pchappo]

ho all,

does anyone know if it is possible to get your employer to pay for flying training? - company i work for are willing to sponsor me on ANY course i choose (as long as there is a recognisable qualification <SIC> at the end of it)

im part way through my ppl and just wondering if this is possible?

cheers

[Whirlygig]

Ask them. I don't know of any that would pay for a PPL; some aviation operators may pay for type ratings and IRs.

If it's a non-aviation company, chances are you'd be taxed on it.

Cheers

Whirls

[IO540]

No way to get the employer to pay for your training unless it is a vital part of your job.

I have tried ;)

They can pay for it but you will get taxed on the benefit.

The other part of it is that if flying (for the firm) is a vital part of your job, then you are inevitably a paid company pilot, and you will need a CPL. You can fly on company business on a PPL but only if not contractually required to fly and if the HRMC inspector becomes aware of this piece of the ANO then he might question the payment for the training.

I would speculate that another problem is if you fly privately anyway, so can benefit from the training privately; this will really make the HMRC man smell blood.

[Fuji Abound]

does anyone know if it is possible to get your employer to pay for flying training? - company i work for are willing to sponsor me on ANY course i choose (as long as there is a recognisable qualification <SIC> at the end of it)

im part way through my ppl and just wondering if this is possible?

From the question I assume:

1. You are not related to the owner(s) of the business (inferred from the question),

2. They will pay for the course if it meets the criteria.

3. You don’t say if your employer is in an aviation related business, or if you will use an aircraft in your employment - eg business travel.

Under current legislation the expense will be disallowed for your employer if it is not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of his business. The key is it is the purpose of the expense and not the result that is important. Thus if some non business benefit arises for the employee this does not cause the expenditure to be disallowed for the employer.

It would thus seem very difficult to envisage circumstances where expenditure on staff training and development could be disallowed. This would include circumstances where the training may not be directly relevant to your current job but would be relevant if you were promoted. Moreover the expenditure does not cease to meet the statutory test just because the employee may derive considerable personal enjoyment or satisfaction from training.

So far as the employee is concerned the rules are rather different. The cost of the training will be subject to a benefit in kind if there is an intention to reward you, or it is entirely for your enjoyment, however if the training will benefit your ability to perform your job and you also derive some recreational enjoyment then the cost will be apportioned.

You may like to consider some of the leadership skills and development training that has become popular which encompasses some surprisingly wide ranging activities.

In summary the legislation is more widely drawn that you might imagine if you are or will be able to fly yourself as a means of travel for business and your employer is willing to meet the cost of training.

The manager of a company that attends various business meeting in the UK and Europe and is able to fly himself to those meetings after having been trained to do so by his employer comes to a mind as a happenstance with which I have some familiarity.

Good luck.

[IO540]

Fuji

That's an interesting reply.

I assume it is important that the trainee is not a Director or similar.

I am a Director of mine and the advice I got (that training costs are not usefully recoverable) came from at least two accountants (which doesn't mean they were right of course).

[eharding]

company i work for are willing to sponsor me on ANY course i choose
You'll be wanting this one then....
http://www.qinetiq.com/home_etps/grad_courses/fixed_wing_courses0.html
....could be a tad on the pricey side though.

[Whirlygig]

Yes, there are different rules for employees and directors.

Directors have the authority to make decisions i.e. my company will pay for my training whereas an employee (only) has to have approval and cannot influence the running of the company in that respect.

Cheers

Whirls

[Fuji Abound]

"Directors have the authority to make decisions i.e. my company will pay for my training whereas an employee (only) has to have approval and cannot influence the running of the company in that respect."

I think that is nearly it. Put another way, it is more likely a director or relative of a director could be provided with training solely for the personal benefit they derive. However, the test does not change only the way you might need to satisfy the test. If you were the director, do you offer the same training opportunity to one of your "unconnected" employees?

It is worrying that if you incurred the expenditure personally in order to do your job better or to progress your career then you would be denied the relief (there have been several recent cases including that of a dermatologist). It all fits a little uncomfortably with a Government that would promote personal skills development. So if you intend a commercial career in aviation get your employer to pay!

Hope that also answers your question IO.