Thread: Strict construction
June 5th, 2009, 07:02 PM #1
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- inside the Beltway
- Blog Entries
and Pringles: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.
The Supreme Court of Judicature reversed again, in an eloquent decision. Lord Justice Jacob, in an apparent swipe at the midlevel court, insisted the question was “not one calling for or justifying overelaborate, almost mind-numbing legal analysis.”
The VAT and Duties Tribunal took an eminently practical approach, he said. It considered Pringles’ appearance, taste, ingredients, process of manufacture, marketing and packaging, and concluded that “while in many respects” they “are different from potato crisps and so they are near the borderline, they are sufficiently similar to satisfy that test.”
The tribunal was not obliged, he said, “to go on and spell out item by item how each was weighed as if it were using a real scientist’s balance.” It came down to “a matter of overall impression.”
The Supreme Court of Judicature had little patience with Procter & Gamble’s lawyerly attempts to break out of the potato chip category. The company argued that to be “made of potato” Pringles would have to be all potato, or nearly so. If so, Lord Justice Jacob noted, “a marmalade made using both oranges and grapefruit would be made of neither — a nonsense conclusion.”
He was even more dismissive of Procter & Gamble’s argument that to be taxable a product must contain enough potato to have the quality of “potatoness.” This “Aristotelian question” of whether a product has the “essence of potato,” he insisted, simply cannot be answered.
In the Pringles litigation, three levels of British courts engaged in a classic debate over line-drawing, a staple of first-year law school classes. At some point, a potato-chip-like item is so different from a potato chip that it can no longer be called one — but when? Lord Justice Jacob invoked the wisdom of Justice Holmes: “A tyro thinks to puzzle you by asking you where you are going to draw the line and an advocate of more experience will show the arbitrariness of the line proposed by putting cases very near it on one side or the other.”
In other words, sometimes you just have to call them as you see them.
Conservatives like to insist that their judges are strict constructionists, giving the Constitution and statutes their precise meaning and no more, while judges like Ms. Sotomayor are activists. But there is no magic right way to interpret terms like “free speech” or “due process” — or potato chip. Nor is either ideological camp wholly strict or wholly activist. Liberal judges tend to be expansive about things like equal protection, while conservatives read more into ones like “the right to bear arms.”
In the end, as Lord Justice Jacob noted, a judge can only look at the relevant factors and draw an overall impression. His common-sense approach was a rebuke not only to Procter & Gamble, but to everyone out there who insists that the only way to read laws correctly is to read them strictly.I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
June 5th, 2009, 10:15 PM #2
By the way, yeah, they're potato chips.
June 5th, 2009, 10:27 PM #3
yep, Potato chip.
You can market them as potato chips in one country and then expect other countries to believe you when you say they're not.
June 5th, 2009, 11:25 PM #4
this had nothing to do with potatoes, this had to do with a company trying to weasel out of paying 160 million in taxes. Good on the judges, the ruling appears fair.Good job, friend-of-friends!
June 5th, 2009, 11:27 PM #5
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Hueco Mundo
- Blog Entries
Had nothing to do with taxes, it was about sotomayor.
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.
Conservatives like to insist that their judges are strict constructionists, giving the Constitution and statutes their precise meaning and no more, while judges like Ms. Sotomayor are activists.
Last edited by Shipuuden; June 5th, 2009 at 11:29 PM.You people are you satisfied with this kind of world? I'm not.
June 6th, 2009, 12:26 AM #6
oh, so Proctor & Gamble and the entire British government staged this event just to teach us a lesson?
It's an editorial, not a strict news piece.Good job, friend-of-friends!
June 6th, 2009, 12:36 AM #7
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Hueco Mundo
- Blog Entries
Well the editor is an idiot, trying to make an idiotic point.You people are you satisfied with this kind of world? I'm not.
June 6th, 2009, 09:08 AM #8
that is your opinion, which at this point is relatively worthless. Throw some fact behind it and explain why you feel that way, then we can have a real discussion.Good job, friend-of-friends!
June 6th, 2009, 09:37 AM #9
The justices should have asked, "Which is it Mr. P&G, are Pringles potato crisps or have you been fraudulently marketing a not-a-potato-crip as a potato crisp?" I'm sure the Queen's treasury would benefit greater from a fine for fraud, conspiracy, etc!
Last edited by RayH; June 6th, 2009 at 09:47 AM.
June 7th, 2009, 09:48 AM #10
Let them eat cakehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtab0BKOGY
The Nation which forgets it's defenders will itself be forgotten
You cannot make peace with dictators. You have to destroy them–wipe them out!
June 8th, 2009, 12:37 AM #11
I counter your potato chip offense with the chewbacca defense.
This is an attempt to obscure the line between judicial activism and constitutionalist judges - and not a very good one at that. Particularly against a backdrop of a government so gone haywire that they're levying extra taxes on what is traditionally the food of the poor.
Who here still argues that government is not too intrusive? Look where it's brought "Once Great" Britain.Usually, terrible things that are done with the excuse that progress requires them are not really progress, but just terrible things.
June 8th, 2009, 12:43 AM #12
June 8th, 2009, 08:22 AM #13
Cyphen Great Britain is about taxes! But they're still trying to collect royalties on our use of the language!
June 8th, 2009, 10:10 AM #14
My defense is more fundamental. If 40% potato content still qualifies Pringles as potato chips, where is the boundary? 35%? 20%? If they were made entirely of rice flour, would they still be a potato chip?Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
June 8th, 2009, 01:12 PM #15
They are taxing everything potato, and potato is the traidtional food of the poor. It grows easily and is versatile. Exempting from sales tax is not the same as not having extra taxes. And yeah, the boundary question is an issue as well. To me, the fact that they're taxing everything is the real issue.Usually, terrible things that are done with the excuse that progress requires them are not really progress, but just terrible things.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By TOAD6147 in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 6Last Post: December 12th, 2004, 09:57 PM
By jch216 in forum General Tech DiscussionReplies: 98Last Post: June 19th, 2003, 08:51 AM
By no1_vern in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 18Last Post: October 15th, 2002, 08:37 AM
By NeoStarO1 in forum Webmastering and ProgrammingReplies: 6Last Post: October 3rd, 2002, 09:30 PM
By Sixpac_XP in forum Applications and Operating SystemsReplies: 0Last Post: June 18th, 2002, 08:31 PM