Are Pringles crisps?

This is a question of vital importance to HM Revenue & Customs, and it has been rumbling through the courts for some years.  But it's now all over, and the verdict is...

Yes, Pringles are crisps.  This is bad news for Mr Pringle, but good news for the VATman, because it means that Mr Pringle needs to hand over some VAT every time he sells a tube of his delicious snack.

The central question in the dispute has been whether Pringles (which are around 42% potato, 33% fat and 25% other stuff) are "made of" potato.  For obscure reasons I won't go into, VAT rules mean that if they're "made of" potato then VAT is due on their sale but if they're not "made of" potato then it isn't.  Ironically, given that he's probably generally reluctant to boast about the small quantity of potato in his potato-based snack, Mr Pringle had taken the position that there is so little potato in his products that you couldn't really say they're made of potato.  On the other side, the VATman has been saying that the man on the Clapham omnibus would consider Pringles to be made of potato, regardless of the precise quantity of potato contained within.

To cut a very, very long story short the judges agreed with the VATman - that common sense says that Pringles are made of potato.  Their position can be summarised in this excellent passage from the judgement:

VAT legislation uses everyday English words, which ought to be interpreted in a sensible way according to their ordinary and natural meaning. The "made from" question would probably be answered in a more relevant and sensible way by a child consumer of crisps than by a food scientist or a culinary pedant. On another aspect of party food I think that most children, if asked whether jellies with raspberries in them were "made from" jelly, would have the good sense to say "Yes", despite the raspberries.

Although I'm not sure what the child would say if presented with a pudding that was 42% jelly, 33% fat and 25% other stuff.  I guess that's trifle, thinking about it, so they'd probably be quite happy.

Incidentally, while this case might seem trivial, the amounts of VAT that were at stake were certainly not trivial at all - in the first instance the cost to Mr Pringle of this verdict is £100m, with a further £20m a year cost from now on!

www.fizzhq.com