To ask if anyone is clued up on the challenge this week to VAT on school fees?

Well, let’s see.

But:

1. The Human Rights Act cannot override primary legislation – all a successful challenge would do is provide a “declaration of incompatibility” which simply asks Parliament to think again. Parliament is sovereign so they can decline to do so with no consequences.
2. No ECHR challenge has ever resulted in tax legislation being held to be incompatible with Convention rights. This is true even in the case of retroactive legislation (which is widely considered to be the most unfair as it’s effectively a change in law after the event). Example Court of Appeal decision here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/1744.html
3. Private schools already pay tax; they pay VAT on purchases and employer’s national insurance contributions. Many also pay business rates.
4. Age discrimination arguments haven’t stopped National Insurance only applying to people under retirement age. Or pensions only being available to those over 65. Or governments increasing the state pension age. Because national governments elected by their citizens, are allowed to decide how to raise tax revenue and how to spend it.

This thread was written by a widely respected tax lawyer and is a well referenced explanation of why this challenge is very unlikely to succeed. https://x.com/danneidle/status/1806732361838592115?s=61&t=Jj8VuAY2BOaQcdyUju3xeA

Not only will you likely pay VAT on fees but the business that you pay to educate your child will almost certainly put your fees up year on year by 5-15% and you’ll have no choice but to pay it. Not to mention all the extras like overpriced uniform, trips, music lesson, sports lessons,
exam fees, transport…

Yes, it’s all ridiculous. I don’t believe it was ever seriously meant to be implemented and was just a bit of election red meat fodder to get the spite inclined motivated enough to actually go to the polling office. The guidance on after school clubs not attracting VAT if they’re not educational is just mad. Seriously, a Government that would rather have kids sat in a room doing nothing than be educated!?! Madness.

The lady is bullshitting you to try to get you to use her business. Just as a used car salesperson will gloss over the shit bits of a dodgy car to get you to commit…

That's totally irrelevant to the scope of the ECHR. The margin of appreciation to the right to education is huge. Quite obviously to anyone who knows anything about HR law no international court or domestic court is going question the right of a democratically elected government to set their own tax policy.

It's just not a human rights issue. It's breathtaking that anyone could imagine it is.

When Labour introduced tuition fees for universities nobody argued that violated a right to education. The fact preschool provision has been largely private until the last decade or so can be a practical problem but no one sane has ever argued it's a human rights issue. There are many CoE states that still didn't fund universal education to 18 or even 16. As I say the margin of appreciation is huge. There's literally zero chance the fact some families may not be able to choose their preferred school but can still access free education for their kids will ever be an hr violation.

There is now also the suggestion of age discrimination as it specifies ages.
It is dragging nurseries and universities into the discussion due to the rushed nature of the legislation.
No impact assessment has been published, they have spent longer researching the sugar tax than this!

Yes, of course it is. But that’s not the state deliberately using tax to limit education choice. Lots of PS are non profit and only charge enough to cover the cost , you won’t hear about these from Labour.

I do agree with you about the fees, if the state part subsidised PS through tax deductible benefits or giving pupils their allotted cost of a state school then we would see a much wider education choice for everyone and less of burden on state schools. It’s what the majority of our European neighbours/competitors do. That won’t happen while people are being spite baited into a race to the bottom by backward identity politics.

Wrong. It is a test case so noone can say with any certainty whether it will succeed or fail. The law firm hired certainly believe it will succeed.
Also there isn't just 1 legal challenge, there are now 3

Ok, simmer. It quite obviously does have something to do with the ECHR, it’s written in black and white as a basic freedom. This is a silly typical pointless ‘random internet I’m an expert argument’ so as I said, let’s revisit in January and again in April and see who is correct.

If you are looking for something to keep you busy, you could research:
-How many of the 46 signatories of ECHR tax education.
-How many of the 46 signatories subsidise private education.

Have a little think about what you find out. See you in January.

But that has nothing to do with A2P1. It was to do with EU Vat rules which are no longer applicable.

This is part of the Brexit dividend. We are a sovereign nation now and have what items are and are not VAT exempt. It's a win for users of tampons and a loss for users of private education.

But it has nothing to do with the ECHR and the fact you think it's relevant tells me you know nothing about the ECHR.

Surely the fact that such schools charge fees at all is a far bigger barrier than the application of tax to those fees?

I know of no precedent other than the last time labour attempted this, where it was dropped under legal advice. Of course the U.K. was part of the EU then so it was more straight forward.

We’ll have to agree to disagree for now, let’s catch up in January and then again in April and see how things are looking.

What precedents from the A2P1 jurisprudence of the,ECtHR make you think they will find taxation, even a targeted form of taxation, amounts to unlawful breach of human rights?

The position of the European and to a much greater extent our domestic courts is always to treat tax as a matter of domestic policy incapable of amounting to a violation. If you can find any domestic or ECtHR precedents where tax law is find in violation of convention rights please do cite them

Otherwise no matter how strong your policy argument might be it's going nowhere in court. And I think the government lawyers know that

Sure it’s ‘State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions’. The state can’t hinder education choices in a targeted manner, for example targeting a group of people they don’t like (and don’t vote for them) who have opted out of state education. If the proposal was to tax all education including nurseries and universities then possibly it would get through, but as it stands .. no chance.

Labour will (prob already has) receive legal advice to drop it, it will be delayed from January under some spurious excuse and fully (quietly as they can manage) dropped by April.

OP, that it will happen is not really in doubt. However, the chances of it happening in January are almost nil.

The legislation isn't in place yet and schools have not yet been able to register for VAT. Spring term invoices need to be raised in about 7 weeks.

You need to assume VAT will be payable, but probably from September'25. This govt talk a good headline but clearly had not considered the logistics of such a mid year change.

Frankly, if they can spin you this sort of line I'd be looking for another school.

Doubt whether it will work.

If you are considering school fees and the extra VAT, it might also be worth considering how much extra you are going to be taxed in the forthcoming budget as that may well take a sizeable chunk out of your earnings, making school fees further unaffordable. I would be waiting until after the budget before making a decision if affordability was an issue.

The challenge will fail. The legal opinion that it’s based on was written by human rights specialists, not tax experts. A tax expert would have pointed out that no European court has ever struck down a tax based on the ECHR. They give governments huge latitude in their political decisions on how to raise domestic tax revenue. Also, a tax expert would tell you that it is extremely unusual for a government to take something out of the scope of VAT once it’s in. And that when it does happen (ebooks, sanitary products), prices don’t actually come down for consumers, the “VAT saving” is retained by the producer as they generally charge what the market will bear. taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/02/09/ebooks/

TLDR: don’t hold your breath on any of that.

Are tutors full of shit? Particularly the ones that help get you into grammar school? You don't need them either. What about dancing lessons, swimming lessons and sports clubs? You certainly don't need them. Full of shit? Nurseries? Universities? Full of shit! You don't need them!

Honestly, when this is approved in Parliament the can of worms will be well and truly open. Careful what you wish for.

There is a Private School board you can use for this question.

Half are charities and they haven’t/aren’t losing charitable status. Labour realised months ago that that was too difficult

Thank you, I’ve just read article 2 protocol 1. In your opinion which clause is contravened by the VAT proposals, because I’ll be damned if I can find it?

Yes, article 2 protocol 1. This forms the basis for the EU law governing legality of education taxes and it is the basis for the Christian faith independent school legal action against the Government. The ISC will be along the same lines, but they are waiting for the full details of the policy.

Contravenes ECHR?? Give over.. 😂

There are two current legal challenges and the ISC is launching a third after the budget. In my opinion, the policy will never be implemented as it contravenes ECHR and I’d imagine it will never even reach that stage. Worst case, if by some miracle it does go ahead then it’s a few years of VAT before the next government takes over or the U.K. adopts closer alignment with the EU. The policy is a dud on every level with it’s only aim being to get the spite/envy vote and throw some red meat to the far left in the election.

Saying all that, I do agree with other posters that you need to be able to afford the 20% if push came to shove. You don’t want to be in the situation where you are forced to move them from a school
where they are happy a year down the line, a friend of mine is going through that at the moment and it’s heart breaking for them. You also have to make sure the school is able to financially survive the shock of fees going up 20%.