header-logo header-logo

Lords serve up teacakes verdict

12 February 2009
Issue: 7356 / Categories: Legal News , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-detail

It’s a £3.5m question: “Is a teacake a biscuit or a cake?”

Marks & Spencer has finally resolved its 13-year legal tussle over the tax status of its teacakes, when the House of Lords said HM Revenue & Customs should repay tax claimed from the retailer in full.
In Marks and Spencer v HM Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2009] UKHL 8, the law lords last week reaffirmed an April 2008 ruling by the European Court of Justice that the Revenue should repay the full amount.
The dispute arose over the tax status of teacakes. M&S argued that its chocolate covered teacakes were incorrectly treated by the commissioners as subject to standard-rate VAT as chocolate covered cakes instead of being zero-rated as chocolate-covered biscuits, between 1973 and 1994. As M&S sold a lot of teacakes, the discrepancy accounted for £3.5m in tax that may have been incorrectly paid.
The commissioners then admitted their mistake, but refused to pay the full amount back. Instead, they offered 10%, and resisted the remaining 90% on the basis the burden of the tax had already been passed on by M&S to its customers, therefore were they to hand over the full repayment, M&S would be unjustly enriched.
Gary Harley, head of indirect tax at KPMG in the UK, said: “This decision was not unexpected in light of the very clear steer given by the ECJ. Although the Revenue could have taken matters further by asking the national court to explore whether there were other ways to remedy the inherent discrimination in our law, apart from repaying claims by payment traders in full, and whether M&S marketed similar goods to the repayment traders who were paid their teacake claims in full, they have taken the very sensible decision to draw a line under this litigation. Accordingly, the House of Lords’ judgment is very short, and ‘to the point’.”

Issue: 7356 / Categories: Legal News , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll