header-logo header-logo

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

Lords serve up teacakes verdict

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll