Senior VAT manager Grant Thornton
Share this content

Sweet success for HMRC in chocolate VAT case

25th Jul 2018
Senior VAT manager Grant Thornton
Share this content
the land of chocolate
istock_thomasvogel_aw.

Daniel Rice chews over another tasty first tier tribunal ruling on the intricacies of VAT law for food products. This time it’s chocolate - the pure, dark variety used for cooking.

Kinnerton Confectionery Ltd (TC06548) sells a range of products – predominantly confectionery and chocolate products aimed at children, most of which are standard rated as, funnily enough, confectionery. But then Kinnerton diversified, ever so slightly, and created an “allergen-free chocolate bar” that is “ideal for cakes and desserts”.

The law

For those with more than a passing interest in VAT food law (of whom I know there are at least three), you will know the chocolate-related rules:

  • confectionery is standard rated
  • chocolates and chocolate bars are confectionery, and thus standard rated
  • cakes are zero rated
  • ingredients for making cakes are zero rated

A bar of chocolate must, therefore, be standard rated when held out for sale as confectionery but may be zero rated when held out for sale overtly as cooking chocolate (ie an ingredient). I’m not going to delve into the cake/ biscuit argument.

The facts

Nobody seemed to worry about borderline anomalies back in 1973 when VAT came into force in the UK. Perhaps nobody back then envisaged a £258,000 liability arising purely as a result of a business erroneously zero rating a chocolate bar that wasn’t quite marketed overtly enough as a cooking chocolate.

This is where we find ourselves: Kinnerton developed the product as a nut, gluten, egg and dairy-free chocolate bar, and then developed some wording for the packaging that largely mirrored the wording used by other cooking chocolate manufacturers. It is on this basis that Kinnerton believed they had a strong argument for zero rating the product.

HMRC challenged the VAT treatment, essentially on the basis that the product wasn’t overtly marketed or sold as a cooking ingredient, and was often sold alongside items of confectionery – merely stating that it was suitable for use in cooking didn’t equate to cooking being the primary purpose of the product.

The outcome

I have sympathies with both sides on this, but the tribunal judge had far more sympathy with HMRC’s arguments and concluded the bar should be standard rated.

The judge summed things up well in paragraph 5: 

“VAT law does not prevent Kinnerton (or any other manufacturer) from making an allergen-free chocolate and holding it out for sale as cooking chocolate, but that is not what has happened in this case.”

The judge also commented that an advert for the product “did not say that it was 'cooking chocolate' but that it was 'ideal for cooking'”.

Is that a genuine reason to cost a business over a quarter of a million pounds, or is it just pedantic semantics?

This all suggests that, with a few tweaks to the facts, this case could easily have gone the other way – as any allergen-free chocolate bar that is genuinely held out for sale as cooking chocolate should be zero rated.

Analysis

HMRC and the tribunal also paid a surprising amount of attention to the fact Kinnerton’s company name is Kinnerton Confectionery Ltd. Having “Confectionery” in the title was suggested to mean the product was more likely to be confectionery, and more likely to be seen by consumers as confectionery. I personally give consumers slightly more credit than this.

However, if Kinnerton Confectionery had created a subsidiary company to develop and manufacture the product, and called it Kinnerton Bakery, perhaps zero rating would have been secured? But this may be teetering on the brink of tax avoidance these days…

It is also worth noting that the ingredients and quality of a bar of chocolate seemingly have no bearing on the VAT liability. An identical chocolate bar could be zero rated when wrapped in one type of packaging, and standard rated when wrapped in another. As indeed is exactly what HMRC has ruled should be the case with the sale of bicarbonate of soda. If bicarbonate of soda is sold in small tubs as a baking ingredient, it should be zero rated; where it is sold in larger quantities, or marketed for non-culinary purposes, it will remain standard rated.

At some point, somebody, somewhere, might make these VAT rules a touch more logical. Fingers crossed…

Replies (9)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By richards1
25th Jul 2018 14:39

Pretty unfair of HMRC to apply this in retrospect after all Kinnerton can't recover this from their customers.

Thanks (0)
Replying to richards1:
avatar
By BlueNose1812
27th Jul 2018 10:39

It would be interesting to know if the bar sold for cooking was sold at 5/6ths of the price of a bar sold for eating. Then I believe they would have had a very good case. If they were sold at the same price then a prudent accountant would have put the 1/6th into a reserve account until the VAT position was determined.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By seonaid anderson
27th Jul 2018 10:47

Presumably retailers also have an issue if they have not already been charging Vat to their customers?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mikanary
27th Jul 2018 10:46

Logical and VAT in the same sentence.....does not compute!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By [email protected]
27th Jul 2018 11:28

If they had marketed it as 'cooking chocolate' it would have been in the cooking ingredients section and would not have got as much exposure as if placed in confectionery section so the company gained an 'edge' in marketing.
If they had concerns over what the rating was they should have sorted it our before selling - that's the way the chocolate cookie crumbles!

Thanks (3)
avatar
By ruth.julian
27th Jul 2018 13:13

About 30 years ago a major cosmetics and toiletries company was caught by the VAT man in similar circumstances when they zero rated small bottles of olive oil stocked on the medicines shelves. The labels did not have the BP designation that medicinal bottles of olive oil have.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ahboal
28th Jul 2018 16:52

I am a bit surprised that you suggest:
"if Kinnerton Confectionery had created a subsidiary company to develop and manufacture the product, and called it Kinnerton Bakery, perhaps zero rating would have been secured? But this may be teetering on the brink of tax avoidance"
I would have thought they have every right to do that?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By C Graham
02nd Aug 2018 11:03

HMRC could easily avoid these sorts of situations which are ambiguous. if it takes a court case to determine the rules, HMRC should be addressing this and changing the rules so that they are fair and reasonable.

Should be changed simply to apply vat only where a product has less than 50% of a single raw ingredient. Would end the debate because how a consumer uses or intends to use the product is not relevant at the tax point of sale.

It never makes sense to pay vat on biscuits but not on cake. It might also encourage food manufacturers to make healthier products by using more raw natural ingredients in their products.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By AndrewV12
17th Sep 2018 09:33

Extract above
“allergen-free chocolate bar” that is “ideal for cakes and desserts”.

people do not buy chocolate bars to put on cakes, I would say Kinnerton Confectionery limited, looked and the rules, and came down on the side which suited them best. Though to be fair could HMRC overlooked the fine, it must have been hard for them to swallow (no pun).

Thanks (0)