Five dollar footlong.
Big bread news coming out of Ireland today.
The Supreme Court there has ruled that Subway sandwich bread is not actually bread. It contains too much sugar to be considered bread, and therefore I guess we would call it cake?
It’s a complicated and foreign story, literally and figuratively, but the gist is that a franchisee on the Emerald Isle was arguing that the chain’s sandwiches are a “staple food” and should be categorized that way for tax purposes.
“The court case itself is a slightly confusing one unless you’re well versed in Irish tax policies, but it started when a Subway franchise owner challenged the tax authorities’ decision not to issue a refund for value-added tax (VAT) on some takeout foods. Galway-based Bookfinders LTD said that it shouldn’t have to pay VAT on hot coffee and tea, or on the hot sandwiches that weren’t eaten inside the restaurant.
Its argument was that since the sandwiches contain bread, they should be considered a “staple food” and shouldn’t be taxed. But the five Supreme Court judges countered by suggesting that those sandwiches aren’t served on “bread” at all, at least not under the “statutory definition of bread.”
According to the Irish Independent, the judges ruled that Subway’s bread is not a staple food because its sugar content is 10 percent of the weight of the flour in the dough; the Value-Added Tax Act 1972 stipulates that sugar, fat, and “bread improver” cannot add up to more than 2 percent of the weight of the flour. (Those limits are in place to prevent things like pastries and other sweet baked goods from being labeled as “staple foods” and exempt from being taxed.)”
Huh. Interesting. I wonder if Wawa’s bread would have fared better with the Irish Supreme Court. Y’all are always complaining about they switched up their bread and meat and that the sandwiches aren’t very good these days. Then Russ Joy comes along blathering nonsense about Sheetz and it just gets out of control from there.
Subway, eat fresh.