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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll