SAE Education Ltd (Appellant) v The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) скачать в хорошем качестве

SAE Education Ltd (Appellant) v The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent)

[2019] UKSC 14 UKSC 2017/0158 SAE Education Ltd (Appellant) v The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) On appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division (England and Wales) The appellant, SEL, is an English company and part of the “SAE Institute” corporate group. The SAE Institute has provided audio engineering education and training in the UK through various organisations since 1985. Since 1998 SAE Institute courses have been provided in the UK in collaboration with Middlesex University (“MU”). SAE Institute had initially provided training in the UK through another of its companies which in 2009 transferred its assets and business to SEL. The First-Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) found that arrangements governing the collaboration between SAE Institute and MU were binding on SEL. Prior to 2009, SAE Institute courses counted towards an MU degree, even though they were not themselves MU qualifications. Following 2009, they led to the award by MU of either a diploma or degree qualification, awarded at a MU degree ceremony. Prior to 2010, MU had validated the SEL courses which led to MU awards but in 2010 it was agreed that SEL itself could validate, monitor and review certain courses leading to MU undergraduate awards. MU nonetheless retained supervisory powers over SEL. In 2011 MU undertook to ensure that “enrolled higher education students of SAE-UK are in every way possible also considered and shall be treated fully as students of Middlesex University from initial enrolment through to completion and graduation.” By its decision of 30 November 2010, HMRC concluded that SEL’s supplies of education were not exempt from VAT because it was not a “college” of MU. SEL successfully challenged that conclusion on appeal to the FTT. HMRC succeeded on its appeal to the Upper Tribunal (“UT”). The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the UT but disagreed with its reasons. The issue is: Whether the appellant was a college of Middlesex University and therefore an “eligible body” within the meaning of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6, Item 1, exempting its supplies of education from VAT. The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal.