A company is paying for the managing director to have stress management courses. This is to manage stress that he says purely relates to his role and responsibility as director of the company. Is there any way I can argue that this is not a benefit in kind?
Replies (4)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Unlikely
I think you'd find it hard to argue the business benefit let alone not get it considered a benefit in kind. Any business benefit argument is likely to have the opposite effect in fact. If you argue that a calmer more controlled director will make better business decisions then you are clearly saying that he gets the personal benefit of feeling calmer and more in control as a result of the training.
I'd say it was exempt
It sounds like it would fall within the work-related training exemption.
Work-related training is defined (in paraphrase) as "a course or other activity, designed to instil, impart, improve or reinforce, skills or personal qualities, likely to prove useful in performing the duties of the employment."
Being less stress is an improvement is a personal quality likely to prove useful to your director.
Legal obligation to pay
In addition to Steve's comment you can also argue the employer has a duty of care towards the employee. If the employer is aware that the employee is stressed by work then the employer has a statutory duty to do something about it.
It's Training
I agree with the last two comments. It's training/staff development everyday of the week.