TC09497 - [2025] UKFTT 00460 (TC)

Fecha: 08-Abr-2025

We decided that the appeal should be dismissed introduction and Summary

We decided that the appeal should be dismissed.

introduction and Summary

Generic Maths Limited (“GM”) appeals against a decision by The Commissioner of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) to issue an assessment under s73(1) Value Added Tax 1994 (“VATA”) for the periods 10/14 to 07/18. The assessment (the “Original Assessment”) was originally in the sum of £103,538 and was notified on 12 September 2018. Following a review, on 15 March 2019, the assessment was amended to the sum of £80,118.88. In this judgment the “Assessment” refers to that amended assessment.

The essence of GM's appeal was that the “ConquerMaths” product they supply is predominantly a tool that provides assessments enabling those using the product (referred to in this judgment as “pupils”) or their parents/teachers to determine what level of maths ability the pupil has reached and identify any gaps in knowledge. As such, GM argued that this product is an exempt supply for VAT purposes, since it falls into the category “examination services” exempt under Item 3 of Group 6 Schedule 9 VATA. HMRC argued that the product was an online mathematical tutorial tool, not a form of examination services; and accordingly the supply made by GM was standard rated. While we accepted that the GM product included diagnostic tests, we did not consider that the product was a supply of examination services within Item 3. We found that the Assessment had been made using best judgment by HMRC and accordingly that the appeal should be dismissed.

Dealing with each of the key points in turn we decided:

(1)

The correct test for deciding the character of GM’s supply was the consumer perception test (see [22]), and based on that test, ConquerMaths was a form of tutorial tool or revision aid (see [45]);

(2)

If the correct test for characterisation was not the consumer perception test, but instead some sort of functional test or expert perception test, the result was the same, because objectively ConquerMaths was a form of tutorial tool or revision aid (see [45]);

(3)

The term “examination services” in Item 3, is wider than formal public examinations, but not so wide as to include something that is a form of tutorial tool or revision aid (see [49]);

(4)

The word “assessments” in Note 4 of Group 6 cannot be read independently of the rest of Note 4 and takes context from the rest of the words of Note 4 (see [52]);

(5)

Accordingly, the word “assessments” does not allow for a form of tutorial tool or revision aid to be brought into the definition of “examination services” (although we considered something short of a public exam might be capable of falling within the definition) (see [59]);

(6)

Merely because a supply is, or is described as, an “assessment” does not mean it will fall into the definition in Note 4 – rather the nature of the supply needs to be considered to determine what it is and what it is perceived as (see [59]);

(7)

The Assessment had been made using best judgment, HMRC having fairly considered all material placed before them and, on that material, come to a decision which was reasonable and not arbitrary (see [69]); and

(8)

We did not have jurisdiction to deal with GM’s argument that they had a legitimate expectation that the supply of ConquerMaths would be treated as exempt, but even if we had had, the test for showing a legitimate expectation was not remotely met (see [72]).

At the hearing GM was represented by Mr Khokhar and HMRC by Ms Donovan.