Jarndyce vs M&S

[lovingboth]

In 1994, HM Customs & Excise decided that since the introduction of VAT in 1973, they had been wrong to categorise Marks & Spencer's tea cakes as 'biscuits wholly covered in chocolate' (hence liable to the full rate of VAT) rather than 'cakes wholly covered in chocolate' (and thus zero-rated).

In 1995, M&S asked for repayment of all the VAT, £3.5m, they had been wrongly charged. The Commissioners said, no, you passed the cost onto the customers so we're only giving you the VAT on your profit: £350,000.

Ten years on, the case still continues... and is heading off to the European Court of Justice.

I wonder what the total in legal fees will be?

... and if you've got a receipt for M&S tea cakes between 1973 and 1994, I'd ask for a refund of the excess money you were charged.

Comments

[skibbley.livejournal.com]

I wonder what they served the judges during their tea break...

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

Gotta love the legal mind. Someone who can deadpan:

So a cake covered in chocolate is zero-rated, but a biscuit covered in chocolate (or chocolate substitute) is within an exception to an exception to an exception, and attracts standard-rate VAT.

is a special sort of person.

I wonder what the total in legal fees will be?

Certainly more than £3.5m! I can follow the House of Lords' reasoning that it merits reference to the ECJ, because of the principles of law that need clearing up. I can also understand Customs & Excise wanting it cleared up too. But IMO the game doesn't seem worth the candle for M&S.