Latest from the courts
In the seemingly never-ending series of cases on hot/cold food comes the latest instalment in the Eat Limited (Eat) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case.
Issue
Via VAT Act 1994 Schedule 8, Group 1, the sale of certain food is zero rated. However, there is an exception for supplies in the course of catering. Anything coming within the definition of catering reverts to the general rule and is taxable at the standard rate.
The definition of catering includes “any supply of hot food for consumption off those premises…” Note 3 (b).
So, the issue here was whether grilled ciabatta rolls and breakfast muffins which were heated by Eat were hot… or not. HMRC decided that the relevant sales were the standard rated sale of hot food and disallowed a retrospective claim by Eat that they should have been correctly zero rated.
The issue here was whether the products had been heated for the purpose of enabling them to be consumed at a temperature above ambient air temperature. In considering the purpose of the heating, the Tribunal needed to ascertain the common intention of Eat and the customer.
Background
Eat sells a range of hot and cold food and drink products through its outlets in the UK. The food and drink can either be consumed at the outlet or be taken away for consumption elsewhere.
The breakfast muffins are filled bread rolls. The rolls are supplied to the appellant by a bakery in a condition that enables Eat to finish baking the rolls at their outlets. The specification requires the rolls to be “pale and 90% baked”. The muffin is assembled at a central kitchen from various ingredients, bagged, and then distributed to Eat’s retail outlets. The ciabatta rolls are also supplied to Eat part-baked and a similar process applied. If a customer purchases a breakfast muffin or a ciabatta roll, the product is “finished-off” in the outlet’s grill.
For zero rating to apply, Eat had to prove that its intention and that of its customers, was that the breakfast muffins and grilled ciabatta rolls were not supplied to customers in order to be eaten “hot”.
The products are treated as “hot” if:
- They have been heated for the purposes of enabling them to be consumed at a temperature above the ambient air temperature; and
- They are above that temperature at the time they are provided to the customer.
It was not disputed that the products were above ambient air temperature at the time they were provided to customers,
Case law
There has been considerable litigation on the meaning of hot food. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Sub One Limited (t/a Subway) (in liquidation) v 30 HMRC [2014] EWCA Civ 773 reviews the meaning of the legislation, and in particular whether the “purpose” test in the legislation should be construed objectively or purposively.
Submissions
Eat contended that the common intention of the parties was that the supply of the products was to be finished as being “fresh” rather than partially complete. Any residual heat in the products was merely incidental to that common intention.
HMRC submitted that it was part of the deal between Eat and its customers that the products should be sold hot (and obviously so). Further, that no customer seeks to enter into a bargain in a takeaway restaurant containing a term that the food he or she is to purchase is “to be finished as fresh rather than partially complete”. The customer either wants hot food or does not. Either the supplier proposes to supply hot food, or it does not. It was also noted that in Eat’s advertising (at the point of sale and on its website) that the products were described as “hot”
Decision
The judge decided that this was a “hopeless appeal” and that it was the common intention of Eat and its customers that the products were heated for the purpose of enabling them to be consumed at a temperature above ambient air temperature. Further, that they were wrapped in foil-backed sheets that keep them warm. This showed an intention on the part of Eat that the products should be consumed whilst they were hot. So, they were hot and standard rated.
Commentary
Only in the world of VAT can something too hot to touch be treated as cold (as certain foods are). However, in this case common sense prevailed and not unsurprisingly, food which was sold hot was treated as hot food! There is a lesson here however. In such cases, the outcome depends on the precise facts of the relevant transactions and that it is unhelpful to make assumptions.
Now, about that proposed pasty tax…