TC09497 - [2025] UKFTT 00460 (TC)

On behalf of GM, Mr Khokhar sought to argue that Officer Stephenson had not exercised best judgment as required by s73 VATA when issuing the Assessment. Mr Khokhar’s argument was that Officer Stephenson had not gone through an objective fact-finding exercise, had not carried out a reasonable analysis, considered all relevant material or had a transparent basis for the Assessment.

In considering this issue, we applied the test set out in the decision of the High Court in Van Boeckel. We considered whether Officer Stephenson had fairly considered all material placed before her and, on that material, come to a decision which is reasonable and not arbitrary as to the amount of tax due. Officer Stephenson’s evidence on this issue was clear and compelling. She had taken into account the information she had been given by GM (including a letter sent to her by GM dated 15 May 2018) and the other sources available to her, and reached the conclusion that the supplies were of education. Officer Stephenson formed her view on the basis that she regarded GM's supply as consisting of various elements which included assessments. She considered that the assessments were an ancillary part of a single supply and that the overall supply was not one of examination services but rather was a supply of mathematics tuition. That was a reasonable conclusion. She had then applied an appropriate method to calculate the VAT due.

On this point, we regarded Mr Khokhar’s argument to be essentially an alternative way of putting his principal argument, that GM was supplying examination services rather than educational services. It was clear from Officer Stephenson's evidence that she had considered all the evidence before her, provided both by GM and other sources (see [9(3)]) she had identified herself. These were relevant sources for Officer Stephenson to have considered. The conclusion she had come to was not arbitrary. Mr Khokhar’s objection to her conclusion was at its heart not founded upon her having taken into account irrelevant matters or not taken into account relevant matters but rather that he did not agree with the conclusion that she had come to because he considered the supply by GM to be a supply of examination services. That is an issue which is examined fully elsewhere in this judgment.

Accordingly, we considered that the Assessment did meet the best judgment requirements of s73 VATA and had been notified to GM within the time limits in s77 VATA.