Our website uses cookies to enhance the visitor experience (what's a cookieCookies are small text files that are stored on your computer when you visit a website. They are mainly used as a way of improving the website functionalities or to provide more advanced statistical data.). Are you happy for us to use cookies during your visits?
Please note: continuing without making a choice equates to giving us your consent, which you can withdraw at any time via our cookies policy page.

Call us on 01892 552 696

Email us

Not all accountants are the same!

Request a Callback

Sign up for our newsletter

Find out how to Make more, Keep more and Work less

How big is your business?



  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on Facebook
  • Follow on Google+

FTT examines juicy VAT case

Newsletter issue - February 2019.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) were recently called upon to examine whether fruit and vegetable juices sold as meal replacements were beverages and therefore standard-rated for VAT.

The case (The Core (Swindon) Ltd [2019] TC 06874) concerned a juice bar and health café which supplied juice cleanse programmes (JCPs) consisting of fresh drinkable products made from juicing raw fruits and vegetables. Customers would participate in a programme over multiple days, for example a 5-day programme might be taken where meals were replaced by JCP juices and smoothies for five days with four servings per day. The marketing material showed that the JCPs were marketed as meal replacement programmes and not merely as healthy drinks.

In HMRC's opinion, standard-rating applied for VAT purposes, but The Core argued that what was important was what the consumer actually sees, which was more than just some drinks. They were marketed and sold totally differently. In addition, customers were provided with advice and encouragement, as well as the menu plan.

The FTT was called upon to decide whether the JCP product was a beverage within excepted item 4 of VATA 1994, Sch 8, Grp 1, and in doing so, it needed to make a multi-factorial assessment looking at:

  • how the product was marketed;
  • why it was consumed by the customer; and
  • what was the use to which it was put?

Overall, the key difference in this case compared to other cases cited at the Tribunal was that the product was specifically sold by The Core, and bought by its customers, as a meal replacement, and not as a beverage. Moreover, the JCPs were not marketed as beverages, but as meal replacements in liquid form. Although the JCPs appeared to be a kind of 'smoothie', they had a different function and so were regarded as a food.

The Tribunal was therefore able to allow the appeal and zero-rating applied to the JCPs.

In summary, this case was particularly interesting as it demonstrated how the FTT needed to look at many layers of information before being able to make their determination of the facts.

 

Shaikh & Co Accountants

10 Decimus Park, Kingstanding Way, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN2 3GP - Tel:01892 552696