Top 10 VAT cases 2025

Ingliston Driving Experience

Supercar experience takes pole position in VAT case

Ingliston Driving experience operated event days to provide a supercar experience which allowed customers to drive or be driven in supercars on private circuits. During the Covid pandemic, Ingliston applied the temporary 5% reduced rating to its supplies meant for “supplies of a right of admission to show […] and similar cultural events and facilities.”

HMRC hit the brakes, stating that the supplies were not right of admission to an event comparable to shows and fairs and didn’t qualify for the reduced rating.

However, the First Tier Tribunal floored it in Ingliston’s favour agreeing the primary supply was the entertainment experience. Although Ingliston’s facilities wouldn’t be classed as a fair or amusement park, Ingliston only needed to be akin to such attractions to qualify for the reduced rate.

This case underlines the wider importance of understanding the predominant nature of supply. It is a useful reminder how an experience is marketed, perceived and delivered can significantly influence its VAT treatment.

Walkers Sensations Poppadoms

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to: potato products are still potatoes

Food items are generally zero-rated for VAT, but there are some exceptions. HMRC decided that Walker’s Sensations Poppadoms should be treated as one of those exceptions because they contain potato, putting them in the category of “potato crisps… and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch.” That’s unusual, since poppadoms are normally VAT‑free.

Walkers took the fight to the Upper Tribunal. Their arguments included:

• Potato granules aren’t the same as potato
• The potato starch content is too small to matter
• The product is called a poppadom, not a crisp
• The flavours are distinctly different from crisps

The UT rejected Walkers’ arguments on all these grounds and therefore Sensations Poppadoms remain standard-rated for VAT purposes. Call them poppadoms, call them crisps, but if they’re snacks made from potato, they attract VAT (usually).

Get a Drip Limited

IV cures for taxing times

Get A Drip Limited prescribed its own tax remedy, insisting that vitamin IVs and booster shots deserved VAT‑free status as bona fide medical care. After all, patients were screened by doctors and nurses before infusion.

HMRC wasn’t convinced, diagnosing the service as mere wellness top‑ups with no illness identified, no treatment plan, no cure in sight. But the First‑tier Tribunal injected a different view, ruling the drips had therapeutic intent and did involve clinical diagnosis and treatment. Verdict: wellness infused, tax immunity achieved (the VAT exemption applied).

Telemara Ltd

Laughing gas fills balloons, not bellies

Telemara sold nitrous oxide canisters marketed for culinary use and treated them as zero-rated, arguing the gas was a food additive used for whipping cream. HMRC wasn’t laughing, stating the product was not food for human consumption.

The First-tier Tribunal concluded that nitrous oxide acts as a processing aid, comparable to gases introduced into beer to create a frothy head. It contributes no nutritional or consumable element to the final product, and an ordinary consumer would not consider a gas canister to be food.

The appeal was dismissed, and VAT at the standard rate was found to be payable.

This decision highlights the importance of caution when applying zero‑rating to items used in food preparation.

Anglia Ruskin Students’ Union

Food for thought, drinks for VAT: Student Union case spills over

Generally, when universities feed their students, it’s VAT‑free because it counts as “closely related” to education. HMRC even lets student unions off the hook… except when alcohol enters the picture.

That’s exactly what tripped up Anglia Ruskin Students’ Union. Their venue, ‘’92’’, was treated by HMRC as a bar, meaning standard rate VAT applied. The Union pushed back, saying 92 was more of a café since it sold lots of food.

The High Court wasn’t buying it. To them, a bar is simply a place where people go to drink alcohol, food or no food. Since ‘’92’’ advertised itself as a bar and looked like one, the concession didn’t apply.

Lesson learned: if your student union serves alcohol, don’t assume you’re safe from VAT. Burgers don’t cancel out beers – a bar is still a bar.

Align Technology

Deck the halls with VAT-free smiles!

The First Tier Tribunal has given Align Technology plenty to grin over, deciding that Invisalign clear aligners qualify as “dental prostheses”.

Previously, HMRC treated these aligners as standard-rated orthodontic appliances. Align Technology argued they restore dental function, they help mouths bite, chew, and function properly. In other words, they’re more than a pretty face, and should therefore fall within the exemption from VAT.

The tribunal bit down on that logic and agreed: Invisalign aligners are custom‑made devices designed to correct dental function, which fits the purpose of the VAT exemption.

The upshot? When supplied by registered dental professionals, Invisalign aligners are now VAT‑free and joining the “essential health-related products” club.

JD Wetherspoon

Cider isn’t soft. It’s strong!!

JD Wetherspoon’s bid to include cider in the scope of the pandemic-era reduced VAT rate has been corked.

The pub chain tried to advance a legislative drafting error that left cider out of the definition of “alcoholic beverage.” But the Tribunal sided with HMRC, submitting it would be “anomalous and absurd” for cider to be treated as a soft drink and confirming it belongs firmly in the standard rate VAT camp of an alcoholic beverage.

As a result, cider remained standard rated - no pandemic discount for your pint of apple fizz!

Advanced Hair Technology Limited

No VAT here, just follicles

The First Tier Tribunal has brushed off Advanced Hair Technology’s appeal, ruling that its follicle‑fixing procedures are subject to standard rate VAT, not exempt medical care. The company tried to comb through the argument that its treatments tackled genuine medical conditions under professional supervision, but the tribunal wasn’t persuaded. Instead, it snipped away at the claim, deciding the primary purpose was cosmetic rather than therapeutic.

Yes, there’s a narrow parting for exemption in exceptional cases (like illness‑related hair loss), but this appeal was cut short - meaning no VAT free makeover this Christmas!

United biscuits: Blissful Biscuits

Bliss in a bite, sealed right

United Biscuits has once again found itself in the VAT spotlight - this time over its indulgent Blissfuls: a biscuit with a hazelnut spread centre, topped with a decorative biscuit lid.

The company argued that the lid was more than ornamental; it was structural, covering most of the chocolate and giving the product its signature crunch. HMRC disagreed, maintaining that the visible chocolate meant the product was “partly covered” and therefore subject to VAT.

The First-Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) was unmoved by the biscuit’s architectural ambitions. It ruled that the average consumer would view the chocolate as the dominant feature, regardless of the lid’s coverage or crunch. The decision reaffirmed a key principle: VAT classification depends on what the product looks like to the everyday shopper - not the manufacturer’s design intentions.

So, despite Blissfuls being presented as a biscuit with a lid, United Biscuits ended up with a standard-rated snack and a bittersweet outcome. Never judge a biscuit by its cover, unless…

Ferrero UK Limited: Nutella Biscuits

Ferrero’s Sweet Victory: HMRC’s Chocolate Argument Crumbles

Ferrero scored a sweet win in the First-tier Tribunal: Nutella Biscuits are not “partly covered in chocolate” and therefore qualify for zero-rating.

HMRC argued the biscuits were “partly covered in chocolate” and VAT should be charged. But the First‑tier Tribunal wasn’t buying it. After inspecting the biscuits (a crunchy cup filled with Nutella, ringed with chocolate‑like filling, and topped with a heart‑stamped biscuit lid) the tribunal said they’re more like a sandwich biscuit than a chocolate‑coated one.

Ferrero’s point was simple: everyday shoppers wouldn’t see these as “partly covered.” The tribunal agreed

In its decision, the tribunal stated: “In our view, the two baked biscuit elements of the biscuit are not dissimilar to a traditional sandwich biscuit.”

This case reinforces the idea that the VAT rules on food are anything but straightforward and confirms that sometimes you can judge a biscuit by its cover!