Institute of Information Security Professionals v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 11 December 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 365 (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 the Institute of Information Security Professionals' membership subscriptions were VAT‑exempt. The Tribunal rejected that the IISP was a "professional association" under Item 1(b) but found its primary purpose was fostering and advancing professionalism in information security, bringing it within Schedule 9 Group 9 Item 1(c), and allowed the appeal on that basis. The Tribunal also ordered costs against HMRC, with quantum to be addressed.
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: medium
The Tribunal treated Item 1(b) and Item 1(c) as distinct tests: Item 1(b) requires demonstrable, appropriate qualifications or comparable entry standards and evidentiary support such that an organisation is a recognisable profession, whereas Item 1(c) looks to the appellant’s primary purpose in practice and can cover bodies whose main activity is fostering or advancing professionalism even if standardised professional qualifications are not yet widely established. Applied to the facts, the IISP’s practical activities (codes of ethics, disciplinary procedures, competency frameworks and recognised role in the field) satisfied Item 1(c) though not Item 1(b).
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 that government recognition and practical measures (codes, disciplinary processes, competency schemes) are persuasive indicators of an association’s role in advancing professional expertise, while limited institutional provision for study, reliance on oral evidence alone, or multiple‑choice certification may weaken a claim that a field already constitutes a profession for Item 1(b). These observations were expressed as guidance rather than as binding ratio.