TC09497 - [2025] UKFTT 00460 (TC)

Fecha: 08-Abr-2025

Findings of fact

Findings of fact

We found the following facts which were not disputed:

(1)

GM is a taxable person for VAT purposes, registered with VAT number 894 9550 60;

(2)

On 11 October 2017 Officer Stephenson undertook a VAT Assurance check by visiting GM’s premises with her colleague Mr Rob Illingworth. During the visit Officer Stephenson met with Mr Hunter and Mr Alister Brown (an accountant from Addere Valorem);

(3)

During the visit Officer Stephenson viewed GM’s product and had a demonstration of it. She subsequently viewed GM's product on their website, although she did not log into the system in the way a paying customer would have done. In considering the nature of the product, she consulted with colleagues and examined a number of sources of HMRC guidance (including VAT notice 701/30) and case law (including The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Metropolitan International Schools Ltd [2017] UKUT 431 (TCC) (“MIS”)) to reach a view on the nature of GM's supply;

(4)

GM had treated some of their supplies as exempt examination services. Officer Stephenson formed the view that GM's supply was a composite supply the predominant element of which was education and that the supply was not one of examination services. In consequence she considered GM’s VAT returns were incorrect and therefore she issued the Original Assessment;

(5)

The Original Assessment (and the Assessment) was made in respect of accounting periods 10/14 to 07/18 inclusive and the Original Assessment was notified to GM on 12 September 2018, that being within four years of the prescribed accounting periods.

10.

We also found certain facts in relation to the nature of GM’s product and these are set out below for convenience under the heading “What is GM’s Product?”.

11.

We were not given convincing evidence as to what proportion of GM’s supplies were to eligible bodies and/or to pupils who were receiving exempt education or training and what proportion was to other persons (such as pupils not receiving exempt education or persons outside the UK) so it was not possible for us to make findings of fact on that issue. It was clear that some of GM’s supplies are to customers outside the UK (the “Barbados Study” made that plain). HMRC’s case was that GM’s supplies were not examination services. HMRC did not argue that GM’s supplies were not to eligible bodies and/or pupils who were receiving exempt education or training; accordingly, HMRC impliedly accepted that if the GM’s supplies dealt with in the Assessment were examination services, they would be exempt from VAT. Therefore it was not necessary for us to consider the issue of whether the customers were eligible bodies and/or to pupils who were receiving exempt education or training and where the consumers of GM’s services were located.