TC09534 - [2025] UKFTT 00594 (TC)

Each of these four appeals relates to the same exemption from VAT for private tuition in a subject ordinarily taught in a school or university. In each case, HMRC have taken the view that the exemption does not apply and has issued a decision that the appellant in question should be registered for VAT.

In the case of the first appellant, Rushby Dance and Fitness Centre (“Rushby”) and the second appellant, Jagers Dance and Event (“Jagers”), HMRC have also issued a VAT assessment and penalty. The present appeals however are only against the VAT registration decisions and do not relate to any VAT penalties or assessments.

All four of the appellants provide dance tuition. Rushby and Jagers operate as partnerships. DCI is a limited liability partnership. Mrs Hilton carries on a business on her own account as a sole trader.

Although it was directed that all four appeals should be heard together as they all relate to the same VAT exemption, there is in fact no overlap between the issues raised by the appeal made by the third appellant, Dance Consultants International LLP (“DCI”) and the key point at issue in the other three appeals.

As far as DCI is concerned, the issue is whether the members of the LLP who were giving the lessons were doing so as private tuition meaning that they were doing so at their own risk and for their own account. In relation to Mrs Hilton, Rushby and Jagers, it is accepted that the dance lessons constituted private tuition (in the case of Rushby and Jagers as long as they were given by partners in the partnerships). HMRC’s view however is that the activities of the various classes do not constitute a subject ordinarily taught in a school or university.

We should note that, in his skeleton argument and in his submissions, Mr Marks (representing HMRC) suggested that, in the case of the first three appellants, there was no evidence as to which classes the members of the relevant partnerships had taught and that, on this basis, the classes could not qualify as private tuition given that classes taught by individuals who were not members of the relevant partnerships could not qualify.

However, when it was pointed out to Mr Marks that this was not a point raised by HMRC in any of the three statements of case and that, in the statements of case relating to Rushby and Jagers, it was specifically noted that this point was not challenged, Mr Marks accepted that this was not an argument which he could raise at this stage. We therefore say nothing further about it.

Both parties invite the Tribunal at this stage only to make a decision in principle as to whether the exemption is available. Based on that decision, the parties anticipate being able to resolve any liabilities between themselves although they wish to be given liberty to apply to the Tribunal for a determination as to the effect of the Tribunal’s decision on the principles should it not prove possible to reach agreement. We indicated that we were happy with this approach.