Education Training Collective v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 2 October 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1381 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether s 80 VATA could be read conformingly (Marleasing) to allow a purchaser, who paid VAT later found to be zero-rated and whose supplier was insolvent, to claim repayment from HMRC and thereby give the First-tier Tribunal jurisdiction. The Tribunal held it was bound by the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Earlsferry UT that purchaser "Reemtsma" claims are pursued in ordinary courts and that VATA need not be read to confer Tribunal jurisdiction. The First-tier Tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction and struck the appeal out under rule 8(2)(a).
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The binding ratio identified is that although Marleasing permits a conforming interpretation to give effect to retained EU principles, such an interpretation cannot be adopted where it would conflict with the grain or a cardinal feature of the statute; Earlsferry UT determines that permitting purchasers to bring ordinary court proceedings against HMRC satisfies EU law, so VATA should not be construed to confer First-tier Tribunal jurisdiction for purchaser Reemtsma claims.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal noted (obiter) that FA 2024 preserves retained general principles of EU law for VAT interpretation but does not necessarily create a cause of action or expand Tribunal jurisdiction, and that any challenge to Earlsferry UT would need to be made before the Upper Tribunal or a higher court because the First-tier Tribunal is bound by that authority.