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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll