Crisps – spot the difference: Doritos, Monster Munch, Wotsits and poppadums are standard rated, however Pringles, Skips and Twiglets, are VAT free.
Tag Archives: vat-food
A VAT Did you know?
Kangaroo steak is sold as food in shops – food is zero-rated, but the sale of live kangaroos is standard rated.
VAT: Can Nitrous Oxide be zero-rated food? The Telamara case – no laughing matter
Latest from the courts
In the First-Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Telamara Limited the issue was whether Nitrous Oxide (N₂O) used exclusively for culinary use can be zero-rated.
Background
The appellant supplied N₂O canisters which were used as cream chargers. These were used for whipping cream and creating foams and mousses, and to infuse liquids. The relevant invoices described the product as; “Dairy products misc. Cream/beverage infusers 600 x 8g cylinder”. The chargers were not for medical use. The chargers were certified as Halal products.
Telamara’s customers were wholesalers and the units in which the chargers were sold were in boxes of 600. The packaging states that the contents of the chargers should not be inhaled. If consumed on its own N₂O is tasteless and all but imperceptible and its only effect is on the consistency of the whipped food.
The contentions
Telamara considered that the sale of the canisters should be zero-rated because they were for culinary use as food of a kind for human consumption via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8 VAT Act 1994, Group 1, Item 1. It was accepted that the N₂O would not be “eaten on its own” but it nevertheless was said to form an ingredient of all of the food substances into which it was incorporated by infusion or by use of the cream whipper, changing the state and nature of those foods. Furthermore, the appellant claimed unfairness because HMRC had been unable to provide clear guidance on the correct VAT treatment when the business started but HMRC subsequently became certain the supplies were standard rated.
Unsurprisingly, HMRC disagreed, formed a view that the supplies were not of food, and raised an assessment for the output tax it deemed to be due on the standard rated supplies.
Decision
The appeal was dismissed. It was found that the chargers were not food because N₂O:
- had no nutritional value
- is a food additive, not food
- does not add to the calories of food
- is odourless, colourless, and tasteless
- is a gas and therefore incapable of being either eaten or drunk
The Tribunal concluded that the gases were standard rated as they were not food of a kind used for human consumption. It concluded that no informed and broad-minded person considering whether the gases were food would conclude that they were.
Commentary
Yet another “Is it food?” case adding to a long list. The Tribunal helpfully set out (drawing from an extensive and thorough review of the very many cases which have considered the scope of zero-rating of food) the required exercise considering and weighing up the following factors to answer the question of whether something is food:
(1) Nutritional value
(2) Palatability
(3) Form of the product
(4) Manner of/directions for consumption
(5) Frequency of consumption
(6) Marketing
(7) Purpose of the product
(8) Range of uses
(9) Constituent ingredients
(10) Dictionary definition of food
Summary
Is it food? is not as a straightforward question as it may seem!
We recommend that any business which is involved in ‘food” or “food-like” products should undertake a review in light of this case. We can, of course, help with this .
A VAT Did you know?
Popcorn is standard rated. DIY popcorn – corn which is popped in a microwave is VAT free. Don’t be lazy! 🍿
A VAT Did you know?
Sweetened rice cakes are zero-rated, but savoury flavoured ones are VATable.
BUT… The problem area is salted rice cakes. Lightly salted cakes are considered to require further preparation before consumption (and are therefore zero-rated) whereas more heavily salted rice cakes do not and are standard rated. However, there is no guideline as to where this borderline falls .
A VAT Did you know?
Lugworms and maggots are standard rated, unless they are also suitable for human consumption, in which case they may be zero-rated – Yum.
VAT: Are poppadoms crisps? The Walkers Snack Foods case
Latest from the courts
In the Walkers Snack Foods Ltd Upper Tribunal (UT) case the issue was whether Sensations Poppadoms are similar to potato crisps and consequently excluded from the zero rating for food.
The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that the product was similar to crisps and that it was to be treated as being excepted items from zero-rating and was therefore standard rated.
Background
The salient matter was whether the poppadoms were “made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch” and were “similar” to potato crisps via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, item 1, excepted item 5.
Value Added Tax – excepted item 5 to item 1, Group 1, Part II, Schedule 8 Value Added Tax Act 1994 – whether First-tier Tribunal erred in law in finding Sensations Poppadoms were “made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch” and were “similar” to potato crisps
This sets out that the following is excepted from the zero rate for “Food of a kind used for human consumption”.
“5. Any of the following when packaged for human consumption without further preparation, namely, potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs, and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch, and savoury food products obtained by the swelling of cereals or cereal products; and salted or roasted nuts other than nuts in shell.”
Contentions
The appellant argued that the poppadoms should be zero-rated for VAT purposes because they fall within Item 1 of Group 1 as they are food, and that they are not included in the list of exceptions.
HMRC contended that that the product fell within excepted item 5 of Group 1, because they are products similar to potato crisps…
Decision
- The UT agreed with the FTT that the words “made from the potato” can extend to products made from potato granules and was neither untenable nor a plain misapplication of the law to the facts.
- The UT recalled that the FTT had concluded that Sensations Poppadoms contained “more than enough potato content” for it to be reasonable to conclude that they were “made from the potato… or from potato starch”. Sensations Poppadoms have a combined potato content (potato granules and potato starch) of 39%-40%, so the potato content is significant. The question for the UT was whether the FTT reached a conclusion which no reasonable tribunal properly construing the statute could have reached. The UT answered “no”.
- The UT noted that the FTT determined that Sensations Poppadoms were similar to potato crisps based on a multifactorial assessment of various factors, including; packaging, appearance, texture and taste. The FTT noted that while the manufacturing processes differ, the statute allows for similarity among products made from potato starch and flour. The FTT found that the potato content in Sensations Poppadoms contributed to a neutral flavour, which did not significantly distinguish them from potato crisps. Broadly, the UT agreed with this determination.
Consequently, for the above reasons the UT dismissed the appeal and the product is subject to the standard rate.
Commentary
Yet another case on the liability of ‘snack foods’. So now we know that: Doritos, Monster Munch, Wotsits and Poppadums are standard rated, however Pringles, Skips and Twiglets are VAT free. This demonstrates the complexity of classifying food and these decisions throw up more complications for producers as this market develops quickly as the public’s taste moves on.
A VAT Did you know?
The sale of ostriches is zero rated, but kangaroos are standard rated. Both are sold as food.
A VAT Did you know?
Oils and fats used for animal food is zero-rated, unless it is waste oil from a fish and chip shop – which is standard rated… even if it is used to feed animals.
VAT: When is a bar a bar? – The Anglia Ruskin Students’ Union case
Latest from the courts
A student union tried to argue that a bar is not a bar. It did not go well.
In the case of The Anglia Ruskin Students’ Union the High Court considered the appellant’s application for judicial review of HMRC’s decision that “92” which was operated on the university’s campus was a bar.
The importance of this description of the venue was that if it was indeed a bar, the supplies from it would be standard rated. This is because the supplies of catering to students by eligible bodies, including universities”, are exempt from VAT, on the basis that the supplies are closely related to exempt supplies of education, however, the exemption does not cover food and drink sold in bars.
The union contended that ‘bar’ means a place that does not supply catering, or, alternatively, predominantly or mainly serves alcohol.
HMRC, predictably argued that a bar is “somewhere where one can buy and drink alcoholic and other drinks, as well as food”, and that 92 met that definition.
The court agreed with HMRC that the bar was indeed a bar and did not grant permission to appeal.
So, now we know, a bar is a bar, not a café… or anything else really.
Technical
* Student unions often provide catering alongside universities. Since March 2002, HMRC has operated a published concession extending the exemption granted to supplies of catering made by universities to student unions.