Chocolate Forum

Chat => General => Topic started by: paulham on May 20, 2009, 08:21:25 pm

Title: Pringles lose Appeal Court case
Post by: paulham on May 20, 2009, 08:21:25 pm
Procter & Gamble will be forced to pay tens of millions of pounds in VAT after losing a legal battle with the taxman over its Pringles snack.

The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Revenue, which has long maintained that Pringles constitute a potato snack and are, therefore, liable for VAT.

A High Court judge ruled last summer that the snack was exempt from the tax.

Foods are usually exempt from VAT, but one of the few exceptions is the humble potato crisp.

'Reasonable view'

A High Court judge ruled last July that Pringles' packaging, "unnatural shape" and the fact that the potato content is less than 50% meant the snack was exempt form VAT.

The Appeal Court judges disagreed.

"There is more than enough potato content for it to be a reasonable view that it is made from potato," said Lord Justice Jacob.

Potatoes make up 42% of the Pringles' ingredients.

He added that the lawyer acting for the Revenue advised him the VAT due on the sale of Pringles was "as much as £100m of tax for the past and about £20m a year for the future."

But a spokesperson for Procter & Gamble said the company had been paying VAT on the snack pending the appeal process, and so was not liable for any back taxes.
While praising the "simplicity and common sense" of the judges, Toby O'Reilly, director in indirect tax at Ernst & Young, said an opportunity had been missed to provide "coherent guidance" on which snacks are, and which are not, subject to VAT.

At last year's High Court hearing, Procter & Gamble insisted that their best-selling product was not similar to potato crisps, because of their "mouth melt" taste, "uniform colour" and "regular shape" which "is not found in nature".

It also argued that potato crisps - unlike Pringles - did not contain non-potato flours, and were not packaged in tubes.

Pringles are more like a cake or a biscuit, it claimed, because they are manufactured from dough.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8060204.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8060204.stm)

Ha! A biscuit, yeh, sure.

Title: Re: Pringles lose Appeal Court case
Post by: drterror666 on May 21, 2009, 06:08:08 pm
Pringles are rubbish anyway!
Title: Re: Pringles lose Appeal Court case
Post by: wjp666 on May 21, 2009, 06:37:59 pm
pringles are goooooooooooood.
Title: Re: Pringles lose Appeal Court case
Post by: loulou on May 22, 2009, 08:11:37 am
I can live without pringles.
Title: Re: Pringles lose Appeal Court case
Post by: oldspice on May 22, 2009, 11:15:53 am
They are Ok when they are on special offer but otherwise they are too expensive for what they are.
Title: Re: Pringles lose Appeal Court case
Post by: wjp666 on May 22, 2009, 12:31:19 pm
our asda have them on a permanent price of 73p a tube. i think that's pretty good. i like the bbq ones.
Title: Re: Pringles lose Appeal Court case
Post by: loulou on May 23, 2009, 11:53:40 pm
I don't buy them but that is a good price.
Title: Re: Pringles lose Appeal Court case
Post by: wjp666 on May 24, 2009, 12:29:23 am
asda also so a sweet chili dipping sauce, which goes AMAZINGLY well with plain pringles. mmm...
Title: Re: Pringles lose Appeal Court case
Post by: loulou on May 24, 2009, 06:49:40 pm
I have found this brilliant sweet chilli sauce in a bottle called Mae Ploy. I pay £1.99 for it and it's ideal for crisp dipping.
Title: Re: Pringles lose Appeal Court case
Post by: wjp666 on May 25, 2009, 12:28:26 am
i'll have to look out for that. mainly because the last week i've gone into asda and the dip i mentioend appears to have been discontinued. SIGH!
Title: Re: Pringles lose Appeal Court case
Post by: loulou on May 25, 2009, 12:29:31 am
Typical.
Title: Re: Pringles lose Appeal Court case
Post by: DrWho on June 04, 2009, 01:37:37 pm
What about stackers?
Title: Re: Pringles lose Appeal Court case
Post by: drterror666 on June 04, 2009, 05:05:33 pm
What about Stackers?
Title: Re: Pringles lose Appeal Court case
Post by: DrWho on June 05, 2009, 08:51:00 am
Exactly