Britain’s Supreme Court of Judicature which ruled with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and against Procter & Gamble U.K.. Just in case you thought this was small potatoes, the ruling means that Proctor & Gamble owes $160 million in taxes.
The company argued like an army of Philadelphia lawyers: insisting that Pringles are not potato chips and thus not potato products . . . and thus not part of a potato based exception from taxation. That might come as a surprise (or not) to Pringle consumers. It turns out that only forty percent of a Pringle is potato ( I am assuming that Pringles the plural refers to a collective of individual — albeit identical — pringle chips). The rest appears to come from a pringle animal slaughtered in captivity.
Lord Justice Robin Jacob rejected the argument, noting in true British fashion: ‘“a marmalade made using both oranges and grapefruit would be made of neither — a nonsense conclusion.” He further noted that thi is a simple matter of potato logic and “not one calling for or justifying overelaborate, almost mind-numbing legal analysis.”
Pringles usually is successful from the first nibble. Hence their slogan: Once you pop the fun doesn’t stop. Once you pop you can’t stop.” Well, Lord Justices it seems don’t pop.
For the full story, click here.