Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

The Commissioners for HMRC v Innovative Bites Limited

[2024] UKUT 95 (TCC)
HMRC argued giant marshmallows should be taxed as candy. The court decided that because they're mostly bought for roasting, not eaten straight from the bag like regular candy, they shouldn't be taxed as such. The court clarified the law on how to determine if something is candy, emphasizing that it often requires considering many factors beyond a simple definition.

Key Facts

  • HMRC appealed the First-Tier Tribunal's (FTT) decision that Innovative Bites Ltd.'s 'Mega Marshmallows' are zero-rated for VAT, not standard-rated confectionery.
  • The FTT found Mega Marshmallows are sold and purchased primarily for roasting, considering marketing, packaging, size, supermarket placement, and seasonal sales fluctuations.
  • The main issue was whether Mega Marshmallows fall under Excepted Item 2 (confectionery) of Schedule 8, Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA), considering its interaction with Note 5.
  • HMRC argued Note 5 is a deeming provision, automatically classifying items within its description as confectionery.
  • The taxpayer argued Note 5 is an inclusive definition requiring a multi-factorial assessment in all cases.

Legal Principles

Statutory interpretation requires considering the words in context and the provision's purpose.

R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13

Deeming provisions create statutory fictions; their extent depends on statutory construction and should avoid unjust or absurd results.

Fowler v HMRC [2020] UKSC 22

Inclusive definitions enlarge the meaning of a term but don't necessarily change its core meaning.

Bennion, Bailey and Norbury on Statutory Interpretation

In VAT classifications, a multi-factorial assessment is often necessary, considering various factors.

HMRC v The Core (Swindon) [2020] UKUT 0301 (TCC)

Appellate courts should be cautious when reviewing multi-factorial assessments; value judgments of the FTT should not be readily overturned.

R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28

Outcomes

The appeal was dismissed.

Note 5 is not a deeming provision but an inclusive definition. A multi-factorial assessment is permissible, even if a product initially seems to fit Note 5's description. The FTT's findings of fact, while not perfectly detailed, were reasonable and supported by evidence. The FTT correctly considered the 'typical consumer' perspective and relevant factors.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.