Posted on 06/02/2009 2:17:08 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Britain’s Supreme Court of Judicature has answered a question that has long puzzled late-night dorm-room snackers: What, exactly, is a Pringle? With citations ranging from Baroness Hale of Richmond to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Lord Justice Robin Jacob concluded that, legally, it is a potato chip.
The decision is bad news for Procter & Gamble U.K., which now owes $160 million in taxes. It is good news for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs — and for fans of no-nonsense legal opinions. It is also a reminder, as conservatives begin attacking Judge Sonia Sotomayor for not being a “strict constructionist,” of the pointlessness of labels like that.
In Britain, most foods are exempt from the value-added tax, but potato chips — known as crisps — and “similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour,” are taxable. Procter & Gamble, in what could be considered a plea for strict construction, argued that Pringles — which are about 40 percent potato flour, but also contain corn, rice and wheat — should not be considered potato chips or “similar products.” Rather, they are “savory snacks.”
The VAT and Duties Tribunal disagreed, ruling that Pringles — which have been marketed in the United States as “potato chips” — are taxable. “There are other ingredients,” the tribunal said, but a Pringle is “made from potato flour in the sense that one cannot say that it is not made from potato flour, and the proportion of potato flour is significant being over 40 percent.”
An appeals court reversed, in a convoluted opinion that considered four interpretations of the law before ultimately rejecting three of them. In the end, it decided that Pringles are exempt from the tax, mainly because they have less potato content than a potato chip.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“There are other ingredients,” the tribunal said, but a Pringle is “made from potato flour in the sense that one cannot say that it is not made from potato flour, and the proportion of potato flour is significant being over 40 percent.”
“VAT and Duties Tribunal”
Not even George Orwell...
Pringles are flavored cardboard.
It is also a reminder, as conservatives begin attacking Judge Sonia Sotomayor for not being a “strict constructionist,” of the pointlessness of labels like that.
What the hail does that mean and how is it possibly germaine to the story....except as a gratuitous swipe at conservatives.
Sorta like describing the story as being in the ny slimes, pointlessly labeled as a newspaper.
They shall get my “savory snacks” when they pry them from my salty cold fingers.
They don’t taste like regular potato chips to me. They taste grainy and mealy. Not a favorite. The Brits just wanted the cash.
This has not been true for almost 30 years thanks to a lawsuit brought by Lays when Pringles were introduced and cut into their market. Due to the lawsuit, Pringles are marketed as potato snacks or some similar phrase. It is on the can.
In Britain, most foods are exempt from the value-added tax, but potato chips — known as crisps — and “similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour,” are taxable. Procter & Gamble, in what could be considered a plea for strict construction, argued that Pringles — which are about 40 percent potato flour, but also contain corn, rice and wheat — should not be considered potato chips or “similar products.” Rather, they are “savory snacks.”The VAT and Duties Tribunal disagreed, ruling that Pringles — which have been marketed in the United States as “potato chips” — are taxable. “There are other ingredients,” the tribunal said, but a Pringle is “made from potato flour in the sense that one cannot say that it is not made from potato flour, and the proportion of potato flour is significant being over 40 percent.”
What the Times tries to make of this - that the law cannot be strictly constructed - is a commentary on the legislature which made the law, not on the principle that the people have a right to know what the law is.It is not too much to say that "liberals" systematically pass laws which are a muddle, precisely so that the people cannot know in advance what the law is. What is wanted is judges who will read the law as written - and who will, if that is not possible, say that it is not a law. Not a "Justice" Sotomayor who will decide based not on the law but on the identity of the defendant.
Pringles are not a favorite of mine, but I do buy them some times when I am going to pack food and dont want my rel chips coming out in pieces. I hate the broken chips in the bottom of the bag.
The packaging of Pringles is fairly sturdy and they travel well.
Flavor?
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.