VAT on private school fees does not infringe human rights.

[CrocusesFlowering]

So the Court of Appeal have rejected the appeal by parents.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/private-school-vat-appeal-high-court-ruling-human-rights-b2928803.html
Can it be taken further now?

Odd - given how much expertise was saying the case was a slam dunk, nobody seems to be commenting now.

The next step could be the Supreme Court, if they (or if the appeal judges) feel there is a point of law that needs clarifying.

If the Supreme Court choose not to take the case, then it may be possible to go direct to the ECtHR. However because the UK currently has the HRA, that is very unlikely.

Also the next government - Reform or Tory will scrap human rights anyway. So time is running out.

Odd - given how much expertise was saying the case was a slam dunk, nobody seems to be commenting now.

Id seen the opposite - I thought the general view was that the case was very unlikely to succeed. It would make it very hard to govern if tax policy could be expected to be overturned by the courts.

Given that we have to pay VAT on so many other things which are a lot more essential that private education (energy and food, for example) I am amazed anyone thought this was worth pursuing.

But maybe the Supreme Court will take a different view!

To be honest I think if Reform or the Tories form the next govt, vat on school fees will be scrapped anyway, so the case may attract less time.

I believe PP was being a smidge tongue in cheek there.

Oh sorry! Ignore me, you're right.

They should take their case to the United Nations..

Nah, they should appeal to the Board of Peace.

Maybe ask this guy?

Excellent idea. And if still no joy, then the Coalition of the Willing

In my opinion, the strongest argument (which hasn’t been presented in court) is that VAT on SEND support at private schools is discriminatory.

I think it’s an absolutely batshit policy but it’s not a human rights issue and this outcome does not surprise me.

Not sure how it is discriminatory? If the LA deems that only a private school can meet the needs then the EHCP will specify that school regardless of the VAT. And if the LA deems a mainstream school with TA support or whatever meets the needs, then the cost of the private school isn’t relevant.

there are plenty of disabled kids without EHCPs. Labour is abusing this reality with their VAT raid.

Taxing disabled kids is just rancid.

I understand that you disagree with the policy.

i agree that fewer children have EHCPs than probably should.

But I still don’t see how that might make this VAT policy fall foul of discrimination law, as you noted this as a stronger argument that hadn’t been presented in court.

VAT is not usually charged on goods and services disabled people require. Therefore adding it to learning support (in my view) is discriminatory.

Thanks for clarifying, I can see that is a potential argument.

From the perspective of a court though, the state is providing free educational services to all children, including those with SEN, either in the state sector or by buying such services from private providers. Wouldn’t that be the counter argument ie that the required service is already available through the state?

ETA not saying the state is doing a perfect job of such provision of course!

The definition of services eligible for VAT zero rating seems pretty tight and largely linked to goods (eg installation costs for ramps being exempt from general building services VAT)

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/reliefs-from-vat-for-disabled-and-older-people-notice-7017#whentozerorate

does a SEND child meet this definition?

• physical or mental impairment which has a long-term and substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out everyday activities

I think it could.

ECHR article 2 guarantees the right to non state education. VAT is a barrier to that right.

But aren't fees generally a barrier to that right in that case. Why would just the VAT element be unlawful? As opposed to the state not covering the full fee in all circumstances?

But that’s not what’s happening.

I think it was a tricky argument in the first place really. I'm not against private schools and may end up sending dd to one, but I see no reason why I shouldn't pay tax on that luxury if I do so. Even if it would be nice to pay less.

Please explain how a right to life (Article 2) = a right to non state education.

Oh yes, I agree on the definition being applicable.

I was looking through the exemption list, it’s mostly goods (mobility aids etc) and just services linked to supplying or maintaining those goods.

I didn’t, for example, see that a cleaning company could exempt VAT for cleaning at the house of a disabled person.