![TC09497 - [2025] UKFTT 00460 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
Evidence
Evidence
We heard oral evidence from Mr Alan Constable (Chair of GM), Mr Richard Hunter (Head of Marketing at GM), Mr Khokar and Officer Lynzie Stephenson of HMRC.
In addition, we had the following documents:
A bundle of hearing documents produced by HMRC of 353 pages (including the “Barbados Study” referred to in more detail below);
An authorities bundle produced by HMRC of 281 pages;
A supplemental bundle prepared by GM of 34 pages;
Skeleton arguments from HMRC of 8 pages and from GM of 9 pages; and
Two “screen grabs” from GM’s website.
We found Officer Stephenson to be a credible and reliable witness. Generally we found the GM witnesses (who were witnesses of fact) to be credible, but at times we considered that their desire to argue that ConquerMaths is an exempt supply of examination services led them to express opinions that were not issues of fact and gave rise to inconsistencies in their evidence which went to the question of its reliability as evidence (as is set out in more detail below).
- Heading
- We decided that the appeal should be dismissed introduction and Summary
- Evidence
- Findings of fact
- Law
- Case law – Best judgment
- Case law – education exemption – Consumer perspective and nature of supplies consisting of more than one element
- Burden of proof
- What is GM’s product?
- Mr Constable’s evidence
- The Barbados Study
- Mr Hunter’s Evidence
- Consumer Perception
- The role of assessments in learning
- Conclusion on the nature of ConquerMaths
- Meaning of “examination services”
- Is an assessment a self-standing concept in Schedule 9 VATA?
- Meaning of “Assessments”
- Consumer perception test
- Alternative test – functional analysis
- Best Judgment
- other matters
- Conclusions