[Herr]

Subway 'meatball' sub at centre of new VAT row
It is advertised as a “comforting, splodgilicious Sub with tasty meatballs,” but Subway’s Meatball Marinara sub could be about to cause the Government some serious indigestion.

The Subway sandwich is set to be the subject of a High Court battle that could reignite the VAT pasty row that caused the Government such pain earlier this year.

The case revolves around the heated Meatball Marinara “sub”, one of its most popular.

If the tax authorities lose the case, it would be another blow to the Treasury and its attempt to close the VAT loopholes on food.

The Subway sandwich is heated up before it is handed to customers, and in the eyes of the Treasury it is therefore “above ambient temperature” and liable for the full level of VAT at 20pc.

A test case was bought by a franchisee based in Huddersfield in 2010, who claimed that all of its toasted subs were heated in order to comply with food safety legislation.

It argued that the heating process was needed to stop the Marinara sauce from being “thick and glutinous”. The franchisee’s legal team employed a professor of surface metrology (the measurement of heat and surface changes) to measure the temperature of the sandwiches and the “ambient” temperature of the shop.

In 2010 a judge ruled in the tax authorities’ favour and Subway has been forced to carry on charging VAT on its toasted sandwiches.

However, a group of more than 100 Subway franchisees is appealing the decision and the case will be heard at the Upper Tribunal for tax, in the High Court next month.

Their solicitor, Dipak Jotangia, a partner at Diss Solicitors, said that the Government’s decision not to press ahead with the pasty tax gave them confidence they would win the appeal.

You heard it before, there was the pasty row and now you going to hear all about meatball row.

[SecretDuck]

This is like the Jaffa cakes vat row all over again...

[Aack]

I look forward to Ed Miliband and his team coming to a Sub Way near me.

[Genocidal]

These people are utterly pathetic. Just over 100 years ago the topic of the day was: "Should we go to war with Germany?" What do we have now? "MEATBALLS!!!"

[Aphotic Cosmos]

(Original post by Genocidal)
These people are utterly pathetic. Just over 100 years ago the topic of the day was: "Should we go to war with Germany?" What do we have now? "MEATBALLS!!!"

Incredibly, the nation is capable of being interested in more than one story at a time. Chill, bro.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Genocidal)
These people are utterly pathetic. Just over 100 years ago the topic of the day was: "Should we go to war with Germany?" What do we have now? "MEATBALLS!!!"

To be honest, I'd rather we were complaining about whether things should be taxed if they're heated up. () than whether we should have a war.

[Clip]

(Original post by Genocidal)
These people are utterly pathetic. Just over 100 years ago the topic of the day was: "Should we go to war with Germany?" What do we have now? "MEATBALLS!!!"

I think you'll find that throughout history there were just as many, if not more - debates about silly duties on everyday goods.

The term "Daylight Robbery" originates from the "Window Tax" that was in force in the 18th and 19th centuries.

About a century earlier, property levies were partly conducted by a very heavy tax on wallpaper - which was bypassed by buying plain rolls of paper and having it hand-decorated. This tax went on for over 100 years, and saw out the Napoleonic Wars.

[moonkatt]

Can't wait to see the awkward expression on George Osborne's face when he tries to ram a dripping foot long into his gob.

[Herr]

(Original post by Clip)
I think you'll find that throughout history there were just as many, if not more - debates about silly duties on everyday goods.

The term "Daylight Robbery" originates from the "Window Tax" that was in force in the 18th and 19th centuries.

About a century earlier, property levies were partly conducted by a very heavy tax on wallpaper - which was bypassed by buying plain rolls of paper and having it hand-decorated. This tax went on for over 100 years, and saw out the Napoleonic Wars.

I guess you do learn something from TSR after all.... I've known about window taxes and how people used to find ways to avoid them, but never quite realized the term daylight robbery originated from that tax.

Thanks for the informative post

[Squidgyness]

(Original post by Clip)
I think you'll find that throughout history there were just as many, if not more - debates about silly duties on everyday goods.

The term "Daylight Robbery" originates from the "Window Tax" that was in force in the 18th and 19th centuries.

About a century earlier, property levies were partly conducted by a very heavy tax on wallpaper - which was bypassed by buying plain rolls of paper and having it hand-decorated. This tax went on for over 100 years, and saw out the Napoleonic Wars.

I don't even like having my window, just think I could have saved a few quid by bricking it up...

This is ridiculous though, they won't win the appeal, and I'm sure they'll have spent a bit on legal costs arguing it.

This reminds me of the Jaffa Cake and Pringle tax wrangles. (Thank you QI!)

[Herr]

(Original post by Squidgyness)
I don't even like having my window, just think I could have saved a few quid by bricking it up...

This is ridiculous though, they won't win the appeal, and I'm sure they'll have spent a bit on legal costs arguing it.

This reminds me of the Jaffa Cake and Pringle tax wrangles. (Thank you QI!)

During the 17th, 18th and 19th century to have windows and the more you had the more it was as a symbol of wealth hence why you see a lot of old and listed buildings from that era having gigantic windows.

There are other side benefits of this Subway meatballs row. They already have a big huge legal team and pay huge amounts in retainer fees to some of the best solicitors in the world, to pay them a bit more to do file an appeal in reality is a lot less than taking out a front page ad in the papers. Now the more the press reports on it, the better it is for Subway as essentially it is absolutely bargain basement rates for publicity.

Even the Jimmy Carr issue, the reality of it is in UK there is this thing called taxpayer confidentiality, he could very well turn around and sue his accountants for breaching that confidentiality, in fact even the PM has opened himself up to getting hauled in with a nice big lawsuit if JC wanted. But it isn't happening obviously as the loopholes won't be closed but instead JC gets some big time publicity and am told that accounting firm that arranged this scheme has had their telephone go off the wall and is beyond capacity trying to deal with the thousands of calls that had come in, most of which are asking them for their services too.

[Snagprophet]

Should be called Faggot Row.

[thunder_chunky]

Once I went into a subway and due to a slip of the tounge I ended up asking for a "meatball marijuana."

[Empire08]

I don't even understand why some food is liable to tax anyway? Why should biscuits have VAT and cakes be exempt? Wouldn't it be simpler to just exempt all food from tax?

I thought the whole idea of VAT was to tax luxury items, not every day essentials. So much for simplifying the tax system.

[Stasiaxx]

(Original post by Empire08)
I don't even understand why some food is liable to tax anyway? Why should biscuits have VAT and cakes be exempt? Wouldn't it be simpler to just exempt all food from tax?

I thought the whole idea of VAT was to tax luxury items, not every day essentials. So much for simplifying the tax system.

Agree.

[B-Man.]

Why do they want to tax everything I love.

[L'onclesoul]

Who else was hear just for the meatballs?

[Psyk]

(Original post by Empire08)
I don't even understand why some food is liable to tax anyway? Why should biscuits have VAT and cakes be exempt? Wouldn't it be simpler to just exempt all food from tax?

I thought the whole idea of VAT was to tax luxury items, not every day essentials. So much for simplifying the tax system.

I think the reason is that some foods are every day essentials, some are luxury treats. Bread, rice, pasta, chicken, etc. are pretty basic foods, not really luxuries in themselves. But something like ice cream is more of a luxury.

Not quite sure why cakes and biscuits have different statuses though. I'd consider cake more of a luxury than a biscuit.

[Sephiroth]

I think it's ridiculous that whether your food is served hot or cold determines whether it should be taxed. I don't eat at Sub Way because their prices are extortionate for sandwiches. Perhaps they should be subsiding healthy food options rather than taxing it. But then the extortionate prices are due to the company being greedy rather than anything else. Even Tesco's sandwich prices are extortionate and they're generally half that of Sub Way's.

[geetar]

"Splodgilicious" is not a word.