InSub One (t/a Subway) v HMRC(A3/2012/3400 – 10 June 2014) the Court of Appeal dismissed Subway’s appeal against HMRC’s decision to treat its supplies of toasted sandwiches and meatball marinara as standard rated rather than zero rated.
‘As Arnold J [in the UT] put it human beings have to eat but they don’t have to eat in restaurants or to have their food cooked by others.’ These were the opening remarks of the court which explained why food supplied in restaurants or hot ‘take away’ food is standard rated whereas other food is zero rated (VATA 1994 Sch 8).
Subway argued that by treating its supplies as standard rated HMRC infringed the European law principle of fiscal neutrality as similar products had been found to be zero rated in previous decisions. The court agreed that...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
InSub One (t/a Subway) v HMRC(A3/2012/3400 – 10 June 2014) the Court of Appeal dismissed Subway’s appeal against HMRC’s decision to treat its supplies of toasted sandwiches and meatball marinara as standard rated rather than zero rated.
‘As Arnold J [in the UT] put it human beings have to eat but they don’t have to eat in restaurants or to have their food cooked by others.’ These were the opening remarks of the court which explained why food supplied in restaurants or hot ‘take away’ food is standard rated whereas other food is zero rated (VATA 1994 Sch 8).
Subway argued that by treating its supplies as standard rated HMRC infringed the European law principle of fiscal neutrality as similar products had been found to be zero rated in previous decisions. The court agreed that...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
