A VAT Tribunal decided they were, a High Court judge said they were not.

The appeal judges have now reinstated the tribunal decision, leaving Procter and Gamble, makers of the snack, liable for £100 million of past VAT and £20 million a year in the future.

But a spokesperson for Procter and Gamble said the company had an agreement with HMRC while the appeal was pending and continued to pay VAT on the product and so there were no back taxes to pay.

Food products are usually zero-rated for VAT, but one of the exceptions is the humble potato crisp.

The VAT Act 1994 singles out the snack for tax purposes with the words:

“Any of the following when packaged for human consumption without further preparation, namely, potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch, and savoury products obtained by the swelling of cereals or cereal products; and salted or roasted nuts other than nuts in shell.”

And the Brits wonder why our ancestors braved disease and famine on a couple of rickety old boats? Everyone knows that Pringles are not potato chips, and this is merely an attempt by the British government to extort money from Proctor & Gamble via a tax loophole.

In related news, I’m 100% sure that the Pringles guy is standing next to a gay bee.