TC09497 - [2025] UKFTT 00460 (TC)

Mr Khokhar argued that HMRC had not offered a clear definition for “assessments” and that the word should be given a special educational meaning in Note 4. Mr Khokhar referred us to:

We noted that Mr Onac had not given a witness statement and was not available for cross examination.

While the publications and documents which Mr Khokhar referred us too were obviously important in his mind as to the argument he was advancing, we did not find them particularly helpful. We accepted GM’s argument that assessment may be an important part of a child's learning, especially in mathematics. We also accepted that ConquerMaths product includes many diagnostic tests that could be undertaken by the pupil. But we could see no authority for giving “assessment” a special meaning in Note 4.

Accordingly we considered the right approach was to adopt the ordinary and natural meaning of the word assessment, i.e. the process of testing, and making a judgment about, someone's knowledge, ability, or skills.

However, we considered that in the context of Note 4 which commences with the words “examination services”, that all the words of the Note take colour from the introductory words “examination services” and, in context, the word “assessments” although wider than examinations that lead to qualifications, is not so wide as to encompass “assessments” that are simply part of a learning/teaching/revision process.

In our judgment, the key question to consider was whether the ConquerMaths product was a form of teaching/revision product or not. We considered that it would be perceived as such and that it was indeed such a product. Accordingly, in our judgment it cannot be shoehorned into item 3 as an examination service merely because it involves (using our neutral words) diagnostic tests.

We considered whether anything turned on the description of ConquerMaths by the CM witnesses as providing “assessments”. We noted that the webpage we had been taken to (described by Mr Constable as an accurate summary of the product) used the words “diagnostic tests” not “assessments”, but the GM witnesses had consistently described the product as providing “assessments”. Officer Stephenson also accepted that the product included “assessments”, albeit she regarded that as an ancillary part of the supply. In our judgment nothing very much turned on this point, although we have been careful in this judgment to use a neutral term to describe the product to avoid any confusion that might arise by using the word assessments. If ConquerMaths can correctly be described as providing “assessments” then we did not think that would of itself bring it into the category of “examination services”. On the other hand, it was not fatal to whether the product was within Note 4 that the word “assessments” seemed not to be used in its description to consumers. As set out in [61] and the following paragraphs, in our judgment the key issue was how the product was perceived by consumers and/or the actual nature of the product. It made no difference what word was used to describe it. Accordingly, we did not find it necessary to form a definitive conclusion on the meaning of “assessments” in Note 4.

Having determined what GMs supplies consisted of, we considered what test we should apply to determine the nature of these supplies for VAT purposes.