No taxation without a nice chocolate coating
And cookies--we love those, too (except we call them biscuits. Or bickies. As in, "Would you like a nice choccy bickie?").
But the distinction between the former and the latter is not always clearly drawn. The Jaffa Cake is an example of this: it says "cake" right there on the box. It's made from spongecake topped with chocolate, with an orangey filling. But you usually find them alongside HobNobs and Chocolate Digestives (the original choccy bickie).
I know, I know. You're wondering why it matters. What's the big deal, anyway?
The big deal, my Yankee Doodle friend, is in that which comes to all of us: taxation.
From Teacake mistake could cost Treasury, The Guardian, December 14:
Confusion over the chocolate-covered teacake--a dome of marshmallow on a biscuit swathed in milk chocolate--could cost the British government £3.5m after an EU court adviser said the retailer Marks & Spencer should get a refund of the tax it paid during the decades that tax authorities insisted they were biscuits.HM Customs and Excise states that cakes and biscuits are exempt from VAT (think sales tax). However, chocolate-covered biscuits are considered a luxury item, and must be priced to include the 17.5% VAT.
So in this case, M&S had been pricing the teacakes as luxureh biscuits until "Britain saw the error of its ways in late 1994, agreeing that the items were cakes."
1) Don't you love that the government of My People takes the time to deliberate such issues?
2)Rorschach time: What does this look like to you? Cake or biscuit?
(Imagine biting through the crisp chocolate shell, feeling it yield and break, the soft, sweet marshmallow springing up willingly against the roof of your mouth, the chocolate now melting slightly, warm and rich on your tongue, and then the biscuit base, feigning resistance but falling apart under pressure, filling your mouth with generous, buttery crumbs ...)
Uhh ... sorry, what?