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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll