London College of Computing Ltd v HMRC
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Colin Bishopp |
| Judgment Date | 16 August 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] UKUT 0404 (TCC) |
| Respondent | THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S |
| Appellant | LONDON COLLEGE OF COMPUTING LIMITED |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Appeal Number | FTC/55/2012 |
[2013] UKUT 0404 (TCC)
Appeal number: FTC/55/2012
VAT — Exempt supplies — education — whether provided by “eligible body” — whether
college of a university — tests to be applied — appeal dismissed
LONDON COLLEGE OF COMPUTING LIMITED Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S Respondents
REVENUE & CUSTOMS
TRIBUNAL: Judge Colin Bishopp
Judge Charles Hellier
Sitting in public in London on 7 May and 20 May 2013
Michael Murphy, counsel, directly instructed by the Appellant, for the Appellant
Christiaan Zwart, counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM
Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
DECISION
JUDGE HELLIER
1. This appeal concerns whether the appellant (LCC) was an eligible body for
the purposes of Item 1 Group 6 Schedule 9 VAT Act 1994 and in particular 5 whether it is a college of a university. If it was then its supplies of education were
exempt.
2. The First-tier Tribunal (the “F-tT”) (Judge John Walters QC and Ms
Elizabeth Bridge) held that LCC was not an eligible body. At the forefront of the
F-tT’s decision was a conclusion that, despite an arrangement (the “MU 10 Arrangement”) between LCC and Middlesex University (“MU”) which permitted
LCC’s students to progress to MU’s degree programmes and to receive credits for
diplomas obtained at LCC, it was not convinced that LCC’s students “typically
progressed” to courses leading to an MU degree. As a result the F-tT said that it
was unable to find that the arrangements with MU were rendered realistically 15 substantial by the students’ careers or that the fundamental purpose of LCC was to
provide education services leading to the award of an MU degree. Thus the F-tT
found that LCC was not a college of a university, and so not an eligible body.
3. LCC appeals against that decision on the grounds (1) that the F-tT erred in
making the test of “typical progression” a condition for a conclusion that the LCC 20 was a college of MU, and (2) that the F-tT erred in failing to conclude on the facts
it had found that the arrangement with MU was rendered realistically substantial.
Permission to appeal was not given in relation to the factual findings of the
tribunal.
The Legislation 25
4. The relevant statutory provisions are in Articles 132 and 133 of Directive
2006/112/EC (which replaced article 13A(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive)
provide:
The Directive
5. Articles 132 and 133 provide: 30
“132(1). Member States shall exempt the following transactions: ...
(i) the provision of children’s or young people’s education, school or
university education, vocational training or retraining, including the supply
of services and goods closely related thereto, by bodies governed by public
law having such as their aim or by other organisations recognised by the 35 Member State concerns as having similar objects;…
133. Member States may make the granting to bodies other than those governed by
public law of each exemption provided for in point ... (i) ... of article 132 (1)
subject in each individual case to one or more of the following conditions:
(a) the bodies in question must not systematically aim to make a profit, and 40 any surpluses nevertheless arising must not be distributed, but must be
assigned to the continuance or improvement of the services supplied;”
To continue reading
Request your trial