3 ms·

Right, I was just trying to provide some context to the number. My regular sponge mix is equal weights of flour, sugar, butter and egg. So the proportion of s

by soneil 6y ago

Right, I was just trying to provide some context to the number. My regular sponge mix is equal weights of flour, sugar, butter and egg. So the proportion of sugar would be described as 100%, but it's actually 25% of the wet weight. Yes, 10% is high for bread, which is precisely why this court ruling. But it's a misleading number if you're not used to reading this as a ratio rather than a volume. (Although they didn't say it's not bread, they said it's not bread as defined in tax law. There's a very specific tax exemption for bread, and 10% doesn't meet it. You can see this exemption in Part F of http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/31/schedule/2/enacted/en/html#sched2 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/31/schedule/2/en... )

JdeBP 6y ago
That's the wrong Act, too. The appeal was of a tax decision taken in 2006, to which a law passed in 2010 could not possibly have applied. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24654601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24654601
- soneil 6y ago
  You might like to address your corrections to the supreme court, as they're citing the 1972 Value-Added Tax act verbatim; https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/fad40678-a172-44c7-9f84-66f8c102c0f0/2020_IESC_60%20(Unapproved).pdf/pdf#view=fitH https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/fad40678-a172-44c7-9f84-66f8c... It appears the Finance Act doesn't replace the Value-Added Tax act; a large part of the case verbiage came down to the VAT Act citing "food or drink" vs and the Finance Act citing "food and drink". I believe both acts implement EU directives so the same exception had to be carved into each; one doesn't replace the other. It's actually a fairly interesting judgement to read. It's almost entirely either balancing one act against another, or nitpicking the grammatical constructs towards the principle of doubtful penalisation. I especially liked the detours into whether hot tea and cold tea are the same thing, and whether tea and coffee can be said to have been cooked. Whether bread is bread is a relatively small part of the argument, with the percentages only being relevant to 2 points of the 99 (and it wasn't disputed, they were rather disputing the legal construct of a sandwich. I kid ye not.) "This seems a very cumbersome and unnatural description of a hot meatball sandwich."
  - JdeBP 6y ago
    The judgement actually references the Finance Act too, and says as I did that this stuff dates from 1985. Here's the VAT Act 1972: * http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1972/act/22/schedule/2/enacted/en/html#sched2 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1972/act/22/schedule/2/en... Zero mention of food, drink, or bread. As I said, those are in the Finance Act 1985 (and in an earlier Finance Act, sans bread, if I recall correctly). The Finance Act 1992, also referenced by the judgement, tweaks the Finance Act 1985 wording, and doesn't alter the definition of zero-rated "bread", except to extend it to bread that is uncooked or fried, rather than baked. * http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1992/act/9/section/195/enacted/en/html#sec195 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1992/act/9/section/195/en... The definition of "bread" was disputed, moreover. It was the whole of III(C) of the judgement. And your 2010 Act does not apply, and isn't mentioned in the judgement at all. (-:

by soneil 6y ago

JdeBP 6y ago

That's the wrong Act, too. The appeal was of a tax decision taken in 2006, to which a law passed in 2010 could not possibly have applied. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24654601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24654601

soneil 6y ago
You might like to address your corrections to the supreme court, as they're citing the 1972 Value-Added Tax act verbatim; https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/fad40678-a172-44c7-9f84-66f8c102c0f0/2020_IESC_60%20(Unapproved).pdf/pdf#view=fitH https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/fad40678-a172-44c7-9f84-66f8c... It appears the Finance Act doesn't replace the Value-Added Tax act; a large part of the case verbiage came down to the VAT Act citing "food or drink" vs and the Finance Act citing "food and drink". I believe both acts implement EU directives so the same exception had to be carved into each; one doesn't replace the other. It's actually a fairly interesting judgement to read. It's almost entirely either balancing one act against another, or nitpicking the grammatical constructs towards the principle of doubtful penalisation. I especially liked the detours into whether hot tea and cold tea are the same thing, and whether tea and coffee can be said to have been cooked. Whether bread is bread is a relatively small part of the argument, with the percentages only being relevant to 2 points of the 99 (and it wasn't disputed, they were rather disputing the legal construct of a sandwich. I kid ye not.) "This seems a very cumbersome and unnatural description of a hot meatball sandwich."
- JdeBP 6y ago
  The judgement actually references the Finance Act too, and says as I did that this stuff dates from 1985. Here's the VAT Act 1972: * http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1972/act/22/schedule/2/enacted/en/html#sched2 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1972/act/22/schedule/2/en... Zero mention of food, drink, or bread. As I said, those are in the Finance Act 1985 (and in an earlier Finance Act, sans bread, if I recall correctly). The Finance Act 1992, also referenced by the judgement, tweaks the Finance Act 1985 wording, and doesn't alter the definition of zero-rated "bread", except to extend it to bread that is uncooked or fried, rather than baked. * http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1992/act/9/section/195/enacted/en/html#sec195 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1992/act/9/section/195/en... The definition of "bread" was disputed, moreover. It was the whole of III(C) of the judgement. And your 2010 Act does not apply, and isn't mentioned in the judgement at all. (-: