When it comes to indirect taxes, the food and beverage industry is infamously complex. Whether it’s Jaffa Cakes justifying their status as cakes, or Pringles arguing their product is not a crisp, the liability of many food stuffs have been, and continue to be, debated across UK tribunals.
While the debate of the VAT liability of a cake may seem trivial and over-egged, the outcome of such a decision could pose a large commercial risk to any business.
By default, most goods sold in the UK are liable to 20% VAT, with the exception of the food and beverages market, in which the VAT zero rate (0%) is available for certain goods. There are of course legal guidelines as to which goods are eligible for the zero rate but, as is common place with tax law, there are grey areas, which can create issues for businesses, when their current VAT treatments of their products is challenged.
Where a product is being sold at the zero rate, but is challenged by HMRC, the result may be 1/6th of the revenue due as VAT on said products. For many businesses, this 1/6th carving-out would represent significant erosion of its profit margin.
Conversely, where a business is incorrectly selling foodstuffs at the default rate of 20%, this represents a huge opportunity missed, not just again in potential profit margins, but also in their ability to price competitively.
Recent proof that this area of risk and opportunity is ongoing is that of the recent First Tier Tribunal case of Glanbia Milk Ltd (‘Glanbia’).
In this case, Glanbia, a manufacturer of various foods, was challenged by HMRC on the nature of their ‘flapjack’ products. Glanbia claimed that, as VAT law allows for the zero rating of cakes, which by extension should include flapjacks, that their goods should be eligible for the zero rate.
HMRC challenged this, claiming that Glanbia’s flapjacks were not what they claimed to be and, therefore, not zero rated for VAT, as they were wrongly shaped, of a different consistency, and marketed as something other than a classic cake product.
Glanbia were unsuccessful in defending their argument, meaning they now face the consequence of having to carve out from their revenue the VAT now deemed to be due on their products (subject to a further tribunal appeal by Glanbia).
Despite the loss for the taxpayer, the Glanbia tribunal serves as a good reminder of what to consider when classifying your food products, for VAT purposes.
As you can see from the above, extensive yet not exhaustive list, there is a huge range of considerations which should be considered when determining the correct treatment of foods, from a VAT perspective.
We suggest that any business involved in the selling of foods, which have not reviewed their VAT interpretation in recent years, undertake a review of the relevant considerations which would be applied by HMRC, were its products scrutinised in an inspection.
As mentioned above, this also presents opportunities for savings to be made, or retrospective claims to be filed, where VAT is found to have been overcharged.
For more information, please contact Robert Marchant or your local Crowe contact, who can arrange for a discussion on how we can help to identify the risks posed and opportunities made available by these issues.
The Impact of the Ukraine-Russia conflict
Preparing for the 12.5% VAT rate
What are the new EU rules for UK food exporters?