Latest from the courts.
In the Generic Maths Limited First Tier Tribunal case the issue was whether the appellant’s product; ‘ConquerMaths’ amounted to examination services so to be exempt via The VATA 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6, Item 3.
Background
Generic Maths provided an online tool which was intended to be of benefit to students or their parents/teachers. The following facts concerning ConquerMaths were found:
- it does not lead to any qualifications
- users can drop in and out of the offering (unlike the way they might have to proceed if following a course leading to a qualification)
- it includes many hundreds of available diagnostic tests that test students’ knowledge of the principles that will be taught on the various subjects
- several short tutoring videos are included, although the number of videos is small in comparison to the number of diagnostic tests
- the average user spends 75 minutes on diagnostic tests compared to five minutes on videos
- the appellant’s witnesses described the product as diagnostic assessments, formative assessments, and summative assessments
- in addition to the diagnostic tests, the product includes worksheets in an exam format. Pupils are encouraged to complete these offline and then feed the results into the system
The issue
Simply put; was the product predominantly a tool that provides assessments enabling those using the product to determine what level of maths ability the student has reached and identify any gaps in knowledge and therefore an exempt supply since it falls into the category “examination services”? Or, as HMRC contended, was it an online mathematical tutorial tool which was standard rated as it was a composite supply the predominant element of which was education and that the supply was not one of examination services? (There was no argument that these were exempt educational services).
The tests
The FTT considered that the correct test for determining the nature of the appellant’s supplies was an objective test, based on how they would be characterised by the typical consumer. On that basis, ConquerMaths was a teaching product designed to improve maths understanding, not an examination service.
Additionally, if the correct test was rather a functional test, the result would be the similar.
Decision
The Tribunal did not consider that the product was a supply of examination services within Item 3. It found that the assessment had been made using best judgment by HMRC and accordingly that the appeal should be dismissed.
Commentary
This is probably the correct decision, although the examination and education exemptions are open to interpretation. Care should be taken by taxpayers that the exemption is correctly applied. Although the definition of examination services is wider than formal public examinations, it was not wide enough to encompass ConquerMaths.