Private schools and parents lose High Court challenges over VAT on school fees
The Treasury defended the challenges over the policy, which was introduced on January 1, with HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Education (DfE) also taking part.
Three judges at the High Court dismissed the three challenges in a decision given on Friday.
Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain said in a 94-page decision that while the legislation does interfere with some of the group's human rights, there is a 'broad margin of discretion in deciding how to balance the interests of those adversely affected by the policy against the interests of others who may gain from public provision funded by the money it will raise'.
The three judges at the High Court later said the parts of the European Convention on Human Rights referenced in the case 'go no further than the right of access to whatever educational system the state chooses to provide… and the right to establish a private school'.
They continued: 'They do not include any right to require the state to facilitate one's child's access to a private school, even if the parent's reason for preferring a private school is a religious one.
'Nor do they impose any general obligation on the state not to hinder access to private education.'
The High Court previously heard that pupils with SEN who have education health and care plans (EHCPs) naming a private school placement, the responsible local authority will pay the fees of that school and can reclaim the VAT paid.
Discussing an exemption for children with SEN without EHCPs, the judges said there is 'no real dispute that the system was in the very recent past in a parlous condition due to a chronic lack of funding' and that the main justification for not creating an exemption is that it would be unfair to children with SEN in state schools.
They continued: 'As we see it, the fundamental difficulty with the claimants' case is that the clear evidence they rely on, which is now materially agreed, shows not only how bad it might be for them if they had to transfer to the state sector, but also how bad it currently is for many of the 1.1 million children with SEN who are already being educated in that sector.'
The judges added that the exemption would mean the Government would lose out on 'a very substantial slice of the revenue it hopes to raise', which could be used for SEN provision in state schools.
Nearly 20 families and several faith schools brought the legal challenge (Aaron Chown/PA)
'The aim was redistributive — and unapologetically so,' the judges said.
As well as religious beliefs and SEN, the High Court was told that some children are privately educated because of a need for a single-sex environment because of previous abuse, including one of the pupils in the claim, who was bullied at her local state school.
In their ruling, the judges said the evidence of the mother of the pupil indicated that she had moved her child to a single-sex school for academic reasons, adding 'we do not think that there is any evidence to show that AMB 'needs' to be educated in a single-sex environment, although we accept that her mother would prefer that'.
The three judges added: 'While sexual harassment of girls at school is undoubtedly a problem, we do not consider that the evidence establishes more generally that there is a significant cohort of girls who, as a result of having suffered such harassment, can only be safely educated in a single-sex environment.'
Sophie Kemp, partner and head of public law at Kingsley Napley, who represented the claimants, described the ruling as a 'disappointing decision'.
Julie Robinson, chief executive officer of the Independent Schools Council (ISC), said it was an 'unprecedented tax on education'.
She added: 'The ISC is carefully considering the court's judgment and next steps. Our focus remains on supporting schools, families and children.
'We will continue to work to ensure the Government is held to account over the negative impact this tax on education is having across independent and state schools.'
Caroline Santer, headteacher at The King's School, Fair Oak, in Hampshire, one of the schools that brought the legal challenge, said: 'After over two months of waiting, this judgment comes as a huge disappointment, but we will continue to challenge the legality of this policy.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
28 minutes ago
- Times
How an inheritance tax raid could work — and what you can do about it
Rachel Reeves has already shown that she is not afraid to use inheritance tax as a revenue raiser. In her first budget, in October, the chancellor declared that from April 2027 pension savings would for the first time be pulled into the scope of inheritance tax — a change expected to raise billions for the Treasury. Now, with an ever deepening fiscal shortfall ahead of the next autumn budget, the Treasury is again rumoured to be targeting inheritance tax. On the table are said to be plans to tighten the rules around lifetime transfers of wealth and to end many widely used exemptions. It wouldn't be the first time that a government has gone further than simply taxing estates after death. The capital transfer tax introduced by the Labour government in 1974 applied to lifetime gifts and inheritances, and was generally unpopular. It was replaced by today's inheritance tax system in 1986. But with more estates falling into the inheritance net because of frozen tax-free allowances and decades of rising property values, the political calculation has changed. • We all should worry about this underhand attack on wealth Ian Dyall from the wealth manager Evelyn Partners said: 'Many households could regard this as a rather intrusive tactic, aimed at raising revenue from the very basic desire to pass on to one's own family hard-earned wealth that has usually already been taxed in some form or other.' Here's what could be on the cards, and what you can do to prepare for it. The Treasury has several levers it could pull to increase inheritance tax receipts, and one involves extending or scrapping the well-used seven-year rule. At the moment, if you away an asset — whether cash, property or shares — and live for seven years or more after making the gift, it will be exempt from inheritance tax. If you die before then, the value of the gift will be counted as part of your estate, the rate of tax due on it falling on a sliding scale after three years. Officials are reportedly considering extending the seven years to ten, or abolishing the rule entirely. Ollie Saiman, a co-founder of the advice firm Six Degrees, said that while a ten-year period would make planning more complicated, it may not be catastrophic 'as long as taper relief continued to exist'. But if all gifts made within the window could be taxed at the full 40 per cent inheritance tax rate it could have a huge impact on families. The Office of Tax Simplification previously recommended scrapping the taper relief on gifts made within four years of death and cutting the seven-year rule to five years, to make the rules simpler. A new time limit would be unlikely to be applied retrospectively. A gift made five years ago, for example, should fall under the old rules. But you would need to live for the remaining years of the original period for it to be inheritance tax-free. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts This little-known but highly valuable rule allows you to make regular gifts out of surplus income without them being counted as part of your estate for inheritance tax purposes. The amount you can give is unlimited as long as the gifts are genuinely from income (not savings or the sale of assets) and do not affect your standard of living. You need to keep records of everything you give, and your income. Dyall said that many families who had taken out insurance to cover potential inheritance tax bills could be caught out if the gifts from income rule was scrapped. He said: 'Regular gifts from income are a small part of the system, and scrapping the relief wouldn't raise much but could cause problems for families who have planned around the system as it is.' Saiman said that while the relief was not widely used compared with other inheritance tax strategies, it could be in the government's sights as part of a general clampdown. The biggest change the chancellor could make would be to introduce a value cap on all gifts made during your lifetime, regardless of when they were given. Rachael Griffin, a tax and financial planning expert at the wealth manager Quilter, said: 'Such a cap would bring more gifts into the scope of inheritance tax and could capture not just large transfers designed to reduce tax bills but also modest, routine support between family members. The UK has never had such a limit, and if it were set too low it could affect a large number of middle-class estates, particularly in areas where property wealth alone can easily breach the frozen tax-free allowances.' She said that a lifetime cap could lead to 'unintended behavioural shifts', with families rushing to make large transfers earlier in life, potentially before they were financially ready. It would require HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) to track gifts over decades, adding complexity and cost and increasing disputes. Saiman said that if the cap were set at US-style levels (around $14 million) 'it would only affect a small proportion of the population', while a lower cap would have huge political and practical impacts. • A ham-fisted inheritance tax grab on the middle class would end in tears A decade ago inheritance tax was seen as an almost voluntary tax because the wealthy and financial astute could avoid it through planning. That is becoming harder to do as more middle-class families face being caught in the net. All estates get a £325,000 inheritance tax-free allowance known as the nil-rate band. If you leave your main home to a direct descendant, and your estate is worth less than £2 million, you also get a £175,000 residence nil-rate band. Anything left to a spouse or civil partner is inheritance tax-free, and they also inherit each other's allowances, meaning that a couple can pass on £1 million between them. The nil-rate band, however, has been the same since 2009, while the residence band is unchanged since 2020. As a result, the number of families liable for inheritance tax is projected to double by 2030. Further pressure is on the way: from April 2027 the value of your pension pot will be included in your estate for inheritance tax purposes, while Labour's recent tightening of agricultural and business property reliefs is expected to draw more family enterprises into the tax net. The so-called great wealth transfer, in which an estimated £5 trillion is set to pass from baby boomers to younger generations over the next 30 years, is also in full swing. A government looking for extra revenue will be tempted to take a slice. Financial planners emphasise two golden rules when it comes to inheritance tax planning: avoid making irreversible decisions based on speculation, and never give away more than you can afford. This is particularly important given that the wealth manager Charles Stanley advises budgeting for costs of £100,000 a year for the last three years of your life. So, make the most of the rules now, and use up your annual allowances. You can give away up to £3,000 a year inheritance tax-free, plus carry over one year's unused allowance. You can make unlimited £250 gifts to different people, and wedding gifts of up to £5,000 for a child, £2,500 for a grandchild. These may sound small, but over time they add up significantly. If you have more income than you spend, consider setting up a pattern of regular gifts — while you still can. Keep meticulous records, including a note of intent and evidence of your annual income and expenditure to satisfy HMRC. Trusts are becoming more popular for passing on wealth while retaining some control over your assets. Discretionary trusts in particular allow assets to be distributed at the trustees' discretion, helping to protect against divorce or bankruptcy in the family. Trusts can be used in combination with life insurance policies to ensure that your family can cover inheritance tax bills. Life cover, including whole of life or gift inter vivos policies can provide lump sums to avoid your heirs having to sell assets to pay tax. Demand for such policies spiked after the chancellor announced her plan to tax pension pots. Saiman said they are a 'simple and highly effective' hedge against a 'disaster scenario'. Whatever changes come in the budget, clear documentation will be key. Keep receipts, bank statements and formal letters for significant transfers. If you have made gifts in the past few years, note the date and terms so it's clear that they should fall under existing rules.
ITV News
3 hours ago
- ITV News
Tulip Siddiq brands corruption trial in Bangladesh a ‘farce' as case opens
A former Government minister has labelled a trial into her alleged corruption a 'farce' as it got under way in Bangladesh. Tulip Siddiq, who resigned in January as Treasury minister, said the case being heard in Dhaka was 'built on fabricated accusations and driven by a clear political vendetta'. Ms Siddiq, the Labour MP for Hampstead and Highgate, is the niece of the former Bangladeshi prime minister Sheika Hasina, who fled the country in August last year after ruling for 15 years. Ms Hasina had previously held the post for five years and she is the daughter of Bangladesh's founding president. She was ousted amid student-led protests that were met with violence by government forces, which saw nearly 300 people killed. She is now exiled in India. In April, it was reported that Bangladesh's Anti-Corruption Commission had sought an arrest warrant for Ms Siddiq over allegations the MP for Hampstead and Highgate illegally received a 7,200sq ft plot of land in the country's capital. Bangladeshi anti-corruption officials gave evidence in court on Wednesday, the Associated Press reports. Ms Siddiq has claimed she has not had any official communication about the trial. In a post on X on Wednesday as the case got under way, Ms Siddiq said: 'The so-called trial now under way in Dhaka is nothing more than a farce – built on fabricated accusations and driven by a clear political vendetta. 'Over the past year, the allegations against me have repeatedly shifted, yet I have never been contacted by the Bangladeshi authorities once. 'I have never received a court summons, no official communication, and no evidence. 'If this were a genuine legal process, the authorities would have engaged with me or my legal team, responded to our formal correspondence, and presented the evidence they claim to hold. 'Instead, they have peddled false and vexatious allegations that have been briefed to the media but never formally put to me by investigators. 'Even my offer to meet Bangladesh's Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus during his recent visit to London was refused. Such conduct is wholly incompatible with the principles of a fair trial that we uphold in the UK. 'I have been clear from the outset that I have done nothing wrong and will respond to any credible evidence that is presented to me. Continuing to smear my name to score political points is both baseless and damaging.' The MP had resigned in January after six months in Government after an investigation by the Prime Minister's ethics adviser Sir Laurie Magnus into her links to Ms Hasina's regime. Lammy refers himself to authorities after breaking law on Vance fishing trip She came under scrutiny over her use of properties in London linked to her aunt's allies. She stepped down and said she had become 'a distraction' from Labour's agenda. Campaigners from her aunt's party, the Awami League, had campaigned and canvassed for her during previous general elections. In an interview with the Guardian before the trial began, Ms Siddiq said she had been 'collateral damage' in the long-standing feud between Mr Yunus and Ms Hasina. She said: 'These are wider forces that I'm battling against… There's no doubt people have done wrong things in Bangladesh, and they should be punished for it. It's just I'm not one of them.' After an outcry over the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of people demonstrating against what they said was an increasingly autocratic and cruel administration, Ms Hasina and Siddiq's mother, Sheikh Rehana, who was in the country at the time, fled the Bangladeshi capital in a military helicopter to India. It was, Ms Siddiq admits, a scary time. Ms Hasina's entire family, apart from her husband, children and sister, were murdered during the August 15 1975 Bangladeshi coup d'etat in which Ms Siddiq's grandfather, the first president of Bangladesh, was assassinated.
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Why Gers figures will play a prominent role in the Scottish election
Gers-day, every August, is a statistical festival to add to Edinburgh's other colourful offerings. It gives performers a wide variety of creative options to attract into them, and you'll find Scotland's public finances benefit a lot from the generosity of the Treasury in London. Spending per head last year was nearly £2,700 ahead of the figure for the UK as a you may find, as the Office for National Statistics told us for 2022-23, that spending per head is higher in same set of figures showed us that the net transfer of funds was not as big as the ones for north-west England, Wales, Yorkshire and Humberside or the West Midlands. Just because Scotland is the only part of the UK to go through this annual analysis does not mean it's the outlier. Dig a bit deeper, as the Scottish government has done, and you'll find that devolved revenues have been rising faster than devolved expenditure. That was the first choice of interpretation by Holyrood's Finance Secretary Shona may be so, but expenditure is a much bigger number than devolved revenue, so the growth rates don't matter as much as the actual minister added that Scotland raises more money per head than other parts of the UK except London and south-east puts it in that position is oil and gas tax revenue, which is on a long-term downward trend. Even if it weren't, it's widely recognised as an unreliable way to balance the nation's on the bright side of independence doesn't answer the awkward questions this raises, where there would be no division between devolved and reserved finances and a future with not much oil and gas revenue flowing. What choices would an independent Scottish government make? An independent Scotland would, last year, have had to borrow – if it could persuade the bond markets – more than one ninth (11.7%) of the economy's annual total output. The UK last year was borrowing one-twentieth (5.1%), while the European Union tells it members that less than one-thirtieth (3%) is more like the maximum sustainable answer from supporters of independence is that they could unleash the potential of the Scottish economy to grow faster and fill Holyrood's coffers with more tax revenue. That is preferable to setting out where the spending axe might have to figures, they remind us, reflect the slow growth you get under the current constitutional arrangements, and it should be possible to do much already finding that faster growth, sought by ministers in Westminster and Holyrood, is hard to achieve. It depends on the choices a newly independent Scottish government would make. There are trade-offs between growth and independent future may not seem imminent. But First Minister John Swinney has made that his chosen battleground for the Holyrood election next May. These Gers figures will surely feature in that debate.
