ICAS ICAS logo

Quicklinks

  1. About Us

    Find out about who we are and what we do here at ICAS.

  2. Find a CA

    Search our directory of individual CAs and Member organisations by name, location and professional criteria.

  3. CA Magazine

    View the latest issues of the dedicated magazine for ICAS Chartered Accountants.

  4. Contact Us

    Get in touch with ICAS by phone, email or post, with dedicated contacts for Members, Students and firms.

Login
  • Annual renewal
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Find a CA
  1. About us
    1. Governance
  2. Members
    1. Become a member
    2. Newly qualified
    3. Manage my membership
    4. Benefits of membership
    5. Careers support
    6. Mentoring
    7. CA Wellbeing
    8. More for Members
    9. Area networks
    10. International communities
    11. Get involved
    12. Top Young CAs
    13. Career breaks
    14. ICAS podcast
    15. Newly admitted members 2022
    16. Newly admitted members 2023
  3. CA Students
    1. Student information
    2. Student resources
    3. Learning requirements
    4. Learning updates
    5. Learning blog
    6. Totum Pro | Student discount card
    7. CA Student wellbeing
  4. Become a CA
    1. How to become a CA
    2. Routes to becoming a CA
    3. CA Stories
    4. Find a training agreement
    5. Why become a CA
    6. Qualification information
    7. University exemptions
  5. Employers
    1. Become an Authorised Training Office
    2. Resources for Authorised Training Offices
    3. Professional entry
    4. Apprenticeships
  6. Find a CA
  7. ICAS events
    1. CA Summit
  8. CA magazine
  9. Insight
    1. Finance + Trust
    2. Finance + Technology
    3. Finance + EDI
    4. Finance + Mental Fitness
    5. Finance + Leadership
    6. Finance + Sustainability
  10. Professional resources
    1. Anti-money laundering
    2. Audit and assurance
    3. Brexit
    4. Business and governance
    5. Charities
    6. Coronavirus
    7. Corporate and financial reporting
    8. Cyber security
    9. Ethics
    10. Insolvency
    11. ICAS Research
    12. Pensions
    13. Practice
    14. Public sector
    15. Sustainability
    16. Tax
  11. CPD - professional development
    1. CPD courses and qualifications
    2. CPD news and updates
    3. CPD support and advice
  12. Regulation
    1. Complaints and sanctions
    2. Regulatory authorisations
    3. Guidance and help sheets
    4. Regulatory monitoring
  13. CA jobs
    1. CA jobs partner: Rutherford Cross
    2. Resources for your job search
    3. Advertise with CA jobs
    4. Hays | A Trusted ICAS CA Jobs Partner
    5. Azets | What's your ambition?
  14. Work at ICAS
    1. Business centres
    2. Meet our team
    3. Benefits
    4. Vacancies
    5. Imagine your career at ICAS
  15. Contact us
    1. Technical and regulation queries
    2. ICAS logo request

Expensive breakfast: Tribunal lands taxpayer with HMRC costs

  • LinkedIn (opens new window)
  • Twitter (opens new window)
Philip McNeil By Philip McNeill, Head of Taxation (Tax, Practice & Owner Managed Business Taxes)

3 April 2019

Main Points:

  • Tribunal can award costs against the taxpayer at FTT.
  • Rigorously reality-check your case before going to Tribunal.
  • ADR may be cheaper for speculative issues.

Philip McNeill discusses a recent case about ciabatta rolls and breakfast muffins which cost the taxpayer dear.

VAT produces many conundrums. Is chocolate brownie a cake or confectionery? Is a ski-lift public transport? And is hot takeaway food ‘hot’?

In the recent case of EAT Limited we might have expected a repeat of the finely-balanced arguments over takeaway food.

But instead, we had a dramatic reversal. The taxpayer’s case was thrown out as a waste of time and an order given to pay HMRC’s costs. What went wrong?

Orders for costs

Under the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, rule 10, the First Tier Tax Tribunal, for non-complex cases, may award costs against one of the parties only in exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal may award costs where it ‘considers that a party or their representative has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings’ or where there are ‘wasted costs’. That is, costs incurred due to ‘improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative’.

Costs of unreasonable behaviour

Awards of costs are none too common at FTT and UT. In what sort of cases are costs likely to be awarded, and against whom?

A quick review of cases shows as many awards against HMRC as for it. And in all cases, the offending party’s behaviour seems wholly unreasonable, such as being based on non-existent transactions and legally-impossible claims.

For example, in Nicholas Deluca, HMRC had ‘pursued the wrong person for the tax’. PAYE regulations clearly made the employer liable and nothing could make Mr Deluca liable.

In a VAT case, Reddrock Ltd the taxpayer was made liable for HMRC’s costs after the Tribunal disallowed a claim for input tax because ‘supplies to which the invoices related had not taken place’. No transaction, no input tax.

So what went wrong with the breakfast muffins?

Partially cooked breakfast

EAT Ltd was claiming a refund of overpaid VAT of £486,215 on breakfast muffins and another £123,014 in respect of grilled ciabatta rolls, on the basis that the sales should have been zero-rated as food, not standard rated as hot takeaways.

The kernel of EAT Ltd’s case was that breakfast muffins and grilled ciabatta rolls were delivered to the food outlets ‘90% cooked’. The final 10% of the cooking was done on site. EAT even had a colour chart so outlets could check deliveries for paleness.

As regards this 10%, was the food heated ‘for the purposes of enabling it to be consumed hot’? In which case it should be standard rated, or could EAT Ltd provide a convincing alternative explanation?

Could this be viewed as similar to a supermarket selling pies which are baked on the premises, placed on racks and, potentially, bought by consumers while still warm?

What the law says - legally hot

VAT Notice 709/1: catering and takeaway food and Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA 1994) s30 (2) provides zero rating for food. The detailed list of what is covered is in VATA 1994 schedule 8 group 1.

For the purpose of standard rating hot takeaway food, ‘Hot food’ is now defined as ‘food which is hot when provided to the customer, and:

  • has been heated for the purposes of enabling it to be consumed hot, or
  • has been heated to order, or
  • has been kept hot after being heated,
  • is provided to a customer in packaging that retains heat … or in any other packaging that is specifically designed for hot food, or
  • is advertised or marketed in a way that indicates that it is supplied hot’.

‘Hot’ is defined as ‘above ambient air temperature’ and ‘kept hot’ includes re-heating or slowing down the cooling process.

Customer service

So, where did finishing off the 90%-cooked breakfast muffins and grilled ciabatta rolls fit? The process was described in the firm’s training manual under ‘Toasties’. A customer would purchase a muffin or ciabatta which would then be placed in the grill for two minutes, or longer if needed. As EAT’s staff acknowledged, ‘customers did not want cold bacon in a hot roll’.

The heated rolls were then placed in foil-lined bags labelled ‘EAT HOT’, before being given to the customer. The company said that this labelling should be read as ‘EAT’ being the firm’s name, and ‘HOT’ meaning that the food was hot. Not as an instruction to ‘EAT HOT’.

Checking off against our VAT checklist it looked rather as if the food had been heated for the purposes of enabling it to be consumed hot, and heated to order, and provided to a customer in packaging that retained heat …

Was it is also advertised or marketed in a way that indicated that it was supplied hot? HMRC thought so but did not produce evidence to prove the point.

Fresh not hot

EAT Ltd’s main argument was that the food was heated so it could be served ‘fresh’ rather than ‘hot’.

This is reminiscent of the Deliverance Ltd case. Here the business owners successfully argued that the food was heated in order to comply with health and safety rules and not in order for the customer to consume it hot.

But heated to be ‘fresh’? EAT outlets also sold baguettes and croissant that were cooked at the outlet and allowed to cool before sale. EAT staff confirmed that these products were fresh, even if they were not hot when sold.

At this stage it became clear that the taxpayer had lost the favour of the Tribunal: ‘Although not relevant to my decision (and I have not taken it into account), there is perhaps a certain irony in describing these products as "fresh", as they were prepared in a central kitchen, away from the retail premises, using pre-cooked or pre-prepared ingredients’.

The Tribunal decided that it was standard-rated hot takeaway food.

An unsurprising decision?

EAT Ltd’s case, and others had been stacked behind a case brought by a Subway franchise. This case went to the Court of Appeal and was decided in favour of HMRC – standard-rating the takeaway food

But there had been an earlier decision on John Pimblett (John Pimblett and Sons Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners - [1988] STC 358) concerning partially cooked pies ‘finished off’ on site, which was decided in favour of the taxpayer’s – zero rating the pies.

So following Pimblett, EAT’s case had at least a possibility of success, but looking at Sub One it seemed unlikely. How would the conflict be resolved?

Following Sub One

The Tribunal followed Sub One, setting aside the Pimblett judgement. It commented:

‘There has been considerable litigation on the meaning of "hot food", and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Sub One Limited (t/a Subway) (in liquidation) v HMRC [2014] EWCA Civ 773 reviews the meaning of the legislation, and in particular whether the "purpose" test in the legislation should be construed objectively or purposively.

The decision of the High Court in John Pimblett v HMCE [1987] STC 202 adopted a subjective interpretation. However, this is inconsistent with EU law, which requires an objective test.’

Adopting the approach from Sub One, the Tribunal looked at the common intention of EAT and its customers. Objectively, EAT had to show this common intention was ‘that the food ….. was not supplied in order to be eaten hot’.

Conclusion

Given the previous conflicting decisions, the taxpayer might have thought it had a chance of success. But this case clearly shows the risk of taking a case to FTT where a higher court has recently ruled otherwise.

The First Tier Tribunal get their teeth into a zero rating dispute

By Jan Garioch CA

23 January 2019

Is a genuine belief reasonable excuse for missing deadlines

By Philip McNeill, Head of Taxation (Tax, Practice & Owner Managed Business Taxes)

16 January 2019

2-23-marsh 2-23-marsh
ICAS logo

Footer links

  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions
  • Modern slavery statement
  • Privacy notice
  • CA magazine

Connect with ICAS

  • Facebook (opens new window) Facebook Icon
  • Twitter (opens new window) Twitter Icon
  • LinkedIn (opens new window) LinkedIn Icon
  • Instagram (opens new window) Instagram Icon

ICAS is a member of the following bodies

  • Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (opens new window) Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies logo
  • Chartered Accountants Worldwide (opens new window) Chartered Accountants Worldwide logo
  • Global Accounting Alliance (opens new window) Global Accounting Alliance
  • International Federation of Accountants (opens new window) IFAC
  • Access Accountancy (opens new window) Access Acountancy

Charities

  • ICAS Foundation (opens new window) ICAS Foundation
  • SCABA (opens new window) scaba

Accreditations

  • ISO 9001 - RGB (opens new window)
© ICAS 2022

The mark and designation “CA” is a registered trade mark of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS), and is available for use in the UK and EU only to members of ICAS. If you are not a member of ICAS, you should not use the “CA” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to accountancy, tax or insolvency services. The mark and designation “Chartered Accountant” is a registered trade mark of ICAS, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales and Chartered Accountants Ireland. If you are not a member of one of these organisations, you should not use the “Chartered Accountant” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to these services. Further restrictions on the use of these marks also apply where you are a member.

ICAS logo

Our cookie policy

ICAS.com uses cookies which are essential for our website to work. We would also like to use analytical cookies to help us improve our website and your user experience. Any data collected is anonymised. Please have a look at the further information in our cookie policy and confirm if you are happy for us to use analytical cookies: