DUNNES plastic bag appeal

cnoon

Glad to see Dunnes have appealled the 36.5m judgement plastic bag levy.
What do you think should the pay or not?

dudara

This not really a Consumer Issue - moved to Taxation

dudara

vicwatson

cnoon wrote: »

Glad to see Dunnes have appealled the 36.5m judgement plastic bag levy.
What do you think should the pay or not?

They pay we pay so.....

palmcut

Dunnes have appealed this decision to the supreme court. The judge in the High Court ruled that all "flimsies" are plastic bags and that consequently each customer should pay 22c per flimsy.

The flimsies are used for mince meat, rolls, cakes etc and are not carrier bags.

This ruling may have much wider repercussions than just Dunne's stores.

All other supermarkets will have the same problem.
The banks may also have a problem in that change is supplied in a plastic bag!
It is rumoured that the Dept. of the Environment are thinking of increasing this tax to 44c from the existing 22c.
This potentially could add 2 to 3 euros to the daily shopping.

jayteecork

palmcut wrote: »

Dunnes have appealed this decision to the supreme court. The judge in the High Court ruled that all "flimsies" are plastic bags and that consequently each customer should pay 22c per flimsy.

The flimsies are used for mince meat, rolls, cakes etc and are not carrier bags.

This ruling may have much wider repercussions than just Dunne's stores.

All other supermarkets will have the same problem.
The banks may also have a problem in that change is supplied in a plastic bag!
It is rumoured that the Dept. of the Environment are thinking of increasing this tax to 44c from the existing 22c.
This potentially could add 2 to 3 euros to the daily shopping.

Only if you're very stupid and very lazy.

barneystinson

palmcut wrote: »

Dunnes have appealed this decision to the supreme court. The judge in the High Court ruled that all "flimsies" are plastic bags and that consequently each customer should pay 22c per flimsy.

The flimsies are used for mince meat, rolls, cakes etc and are not carrier bags.

This ruling may have much wider repercussions than just Dunne's stores.

All other supermarkets will have the same problem.
The banks may also have a problem in that change is supplied in a plastic bag!
It is rumoured that the Dept. of the Environment are thinking of increasing this tax to 44c from the existing 22c.
This potentially could add 2 to 3 euros to the daily shopping.

Pretty much all of the above is factually incorrect.

Dunnes decided to continue using flimsies that exceeded the size permitted under the regulations and IIRC left them available for general use at the checkout (in some stores at least). Other supermarket chains didn't do this, and supply flimsies of smaller dimensions, only for the purpose intended to be exempt in the legislation.

palmcut

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/79a60a4f8679d5658025799d003f5148?OpenDocument

Have a look.

Judgment Title: Dunnes Stores -v- Revenue Commissioners & Ors


Neutral Citation: [2011] IEHC 469


High Court Record Number: 2010 56 JR

Date of Delivery: 13/12/2011

Court: High Court


Composition of Court:

Judgment by: Hedigan J.

Status of Judgment: Approved

Link to Memo on Judgment: Link

barneystinson

OK, I've read most of the argument, and all of the Decision, and

palmcut wrote: »

Dunnes have appealed this decision to the supreme court. The judge in the High Court ruled that all "flimsies" are plastic bags and that consequently each customer should pay 22c per flimsy.

No, he didn't! At point 6.3 of the decision he stated "In my view the levy is applicable to all plastic bags provided at supermarkets, shops and service stations save those that fall within the exemptions provided."
Ordinary flimsies will fall within the exemptions provided - the ones at issue were too large to be exempted.

palmcut wrote: »

The flimsies are used for mince meat, rolls, cakes etc and are not carrier bags.

Irrelevant if they are too large; they aren't exempt.

palmcut wrote: »

This ruling may have much wider repercussions than just Dunne's stores.
All other supermarkets will have the same problem.

No they won't, unless their flimsies are the wrong size.

palmcut wrote: »

The banks may also have a problem in that change is supplied in a plastic bag!

No they won't unless they're GIANT change bags!

palmcut wrote: »

It is rumoured that the Dept. of the Environment are thinking of increasing this tax to 44c from the existing 22c.
This potentially could add 2 to 3 euros to the daily shopping.

Only if you get through 7 carrier bags a day!

palmcut

The problem is that we do not know which way the Supreme court will go. If the Supreme court supports the High court ruling then Dunnes stores will have to make a large payment to revenue or to the local council.

At that stage Revenue would also send assessments to other retailers. These assessments would include interest and penalties.

Now may be the time for retailers to look at alternative products.

ted1

palmcut wrote: »

Dunnes have appealed this decision to the supreme court. The judge in the High Court ruled that all "flimsies" are plastic bags and that consequently each customer should pay 22c per flimsy.

The flimsies are used for mince meat, rolls, cakes etc and are not carrier bags.

This ruling may have much wider repercussions than just Dunne's stores.

All other supermarkets will have the same problem.
The banks may also have a problem in that change is supplied in a plastic bag!
It is rumoured that the Dept. of the Environment are thinking of increasing this tax to 44c from the existing 22c.
This potentially could add 2 to 3 euros to the daily shopping.

That's a nosense figure, who uses 5 to 7 plastic bags in a daily shop

jayteecork

Who does a "daily" shop anyway?

It's weekly surely for most people.

barneystinson

palmcut wrote: »

The problem is that we do not know which way the Supreme court will go. If the Supreme court supports the High court ruling then Dunnes stores will have to make a large payment to revenue or to the local council.

At that stage Revenue would also send assessments to other retailers. These assessments would include interest and penalties.

Now may be the time for retailers to look at alternative products.

Holy cow, WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT?!

Revenue DON'T have a problem with other retailers - Dunnes were using a larger flimsy than everyone else, that's what the issue is!

palmcut

ted1 wrote: »

That's a nosense figure, who uses 5 to 7 plastic bags in a daily shop

Some mince=1 bag.
2 chops=1 bag.
2 rolls=1 bag
2 apples=1 bag.
2 jam tarts=1 bag.

Many older couples shop daily.

If the supreme court rules against all plastic bags then revenue will come after all the shops that use plastic. It might be prudent to see if there are alternatives to plastic bags.

Victor

barneystinson wrote: »

Only if you get through 7 carrier bags a day!

Actually more, 9 to 14.

2/(.44-.22) to 3/(.44-.22)

Dunnes seem to only have medium and heavy duty bags at the tills now.

barneystinson

palmcut wrote: »

If the supreme court rules against all plastic bags then revenue will come after all the shops that use plastic. It might be prudent to see if there are alternatives to plastic bags.

Oh dear, the penny just isn't dropping for you on this one - clearly you need to follow your own advice and read the arguments and the Decision of the High Court.

What do you even mean by "If the supreme court rules against all plastic bags"?? The legislation that is the subject of the argument applies to "all plastic bags", apart from those specifically exempted (which includes normal flimsies).

If Dunnes' argument succeeds at the Supreme Court then they won't have to pay the levy on the bags in question.

If the State wins then nothing changes. Flimsies that have always been exempt (i.e. the ones that every other shop uses), will continue to be exempt.

palmcut

"Even were this not so, looking to the Act as a whole, it seems to me that the levy is clearly not limited to carrier bags as is contended by the applicants. The point of the statutory provision is to reduce as much as possible the presence of discarded plastic bags littering our towns and countryside. It would be most improbable that the legislature would exempt plastic bags that are supplied anywhere other than at point of sale. Such a provision would miss large numbers of plastic bags and diminish greatly the impact of the Act. It would also signally fail to meet the general requirements of Directive 91/156 EEC, Article 4 of which provides inter alia that:-

“Member States shall take appropriate measures to encourage (a) first, the prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness [and] (b) second (i) the recovery of waste by means or recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with a view to extracting secondary raw materials or (ii) the use of waste as a source of energy.”

In my view the levy is applicable to all plastic bags provided at supermarkets, shops and service stations save those that fall within the exemptions provided."
.................................from the high court judgement.

It is very hard to second guess the way the Supreme court might rule. The high court judge did say " save those that fall within the exemptions provided"; however the High court judge did also say that all plastic bags should be considered.

The point I am trying to make is that it might be wise to consider alternatives in case the supreme court goes against all plastic bags. Whilst this is not probable it is possible.
If there is a price equivalent product available that is not plastic it might be prudent to consider such an alternative.

barneystinson

palmcut wrote: »

Even were this not so, looking to the Act as a whole, it seems to me that the levy is clearly not limited to carrier bags as is contended by the applicants. The point of the statutory provision is to reduce as much as possible the presence of discarded plastic bags littering our towns and countryside. It would be most improbable that the legislature would exempt plastic bags that are supplied anywhere other than at point of sale. Such a provision would miss large numbers of plastic bags and diminish greatly the impact of the Act. It would also signally fail to meet the general requirements of Directive 91/156 EEC, Article 4 of which provides inter alia that:-

• • “Member States shall take appropriate measures to encourage (a) first, the prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness [and] (b) second (i) the recovery of waste by means or recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with a view to extracting secondary raw materials or (ii) the use of waste as a source of energy.”

In my view the levy is applicable to all plastic bags provided at supermarkets, shops and service stations save those that fall within the exemptions provided.
.................................from the high court judgement.

It is very hard to second guess the way the Supreme court might rule. The high court judge did say " save those that fall within the exemptions provided"; however the High court judge did also say that all plastic bags should be considered.

The point I am trying to make is that it might be wise to consider alternatives in case the supreme court goes against all plastic bags. Whilst this is not probable it is possible.
If there is a price equivalent product available that is not plastic it might be prudent to consider such an alternative.

It's not possible. Not as part of the proceedings in question anyway. I'll bet you €36.5m

palmcut

barneystinson wrote: »

It's not possible. Not as part of the proceedings in question anyway. I'll bet you €36.5m

I admire your optimism in the outcome of future legal events.
Personally I've noticed that legal outcomes are not always what we anticipate.

Dunnes may be able to afford the 36.5m. Many smaller shopkeepers may not be able to afford the 20 to 30k that might be assessed by Revenue if the supreme court rules against plastic bags.

Is there a product available that would do the same job as these plastic bags, that would be roughly the same price and that would not be plastic?
Is there a paper made product that answers those questions?

smeharg

palmcut wrote: »

I admire your optimism in the outcome of future legal events.
Personally I've noticed that legal outcomes are not always what we anticipate.

Dunnes may be able to afford the 36.5m. Many smaller shopkeepers may not be able to afford the 20 to 30k that might be assessed by Revenue if the supreme court rules against plastic bags.

Is there a product available that would do the same job as these plastic bags, that would be roughly the same price and that would not be plastic?
Is there a paper made product that answers those questions?

You really don't get this at all.

Certain plastic bags are expempted from the levy, ie flimsies used for meat, etc provided the bags are within certain size limits. The exemption is referred to by the High Court Judge.

The Revenue guide to the plastic bag levy states:

Is the levy charged on all types of plastic bags?
No. Certain types of plastic bags are excluded from the levy, as set out in the Regulations. Broadly the exclusions cover re-usable shopping bags which are sold for 70 cent or more, bags used solely to contain fresh meat, fish, ice or poultry (whether packaged or otherwise) and bags used solely to contain loose fruit and vegetables and other foods that are not otherwise packaged.

Dunnes Stores were supplying flimsies that were too big. Revenue raised an assessment and Dunnes appealed to the High Court. They appealed on the grounds that the legislation applies to bags supplied at point of sale only. The High Court ruled that it applies to all plastic bags whether supplied at point of sale or otherwise, except those that meet the criteria for the exemption.

The judgement of the High Court, or any subsequent Supreme Court judgement, is not going to remove or amend the exemption contained in the legislation regardless of the outcome.

So, provided retailers provide bags that meet the exemption criteria there isn't going to be a problem, unless scores of other retailers are also relying on Dunnes' interpretation of the legislation.

barneystinson

smeharg wrote: »

palmcut wrote: »

I admire your optimism in the outcome of future legal events.
Personally I've noticed that legal outcomes are not always what we anticipate.

Dunnes may be able to afford the 36.5m. Many smaller shopkeepers may not be able to afford the 20 to 30k that might be assessed by Revenue if the supreme court rules against plastic bags.

Is there a product available that would do the same job as these plastic bags, that would be roughly the same price and that would not be plastic?
Is there a paper made product that answers those questions?

You really don't get this at all.

Certain plastic bags are expempted from the levy, ie flimsies used for meat, etc provided the bags are within certain size limits. The exemption is referred to by the High Court Judge.

The Revenue guide to the plastic bag levy states:

Is the levy charged on all types of plastic bags?
No. Certain types of plastic bags are excluded from the levy, as set out in the Regulations. Broadly the exclusions cover re-usable shopping bags which are sold for 70 cent or more, bags used solely to contain fresh meat, fish, ice or poultry (whether packaged or otherwise) and bags used solely to contain loose fruit and vegetables and other foods that are not otherwise packaged.

Dunnes Stores were supplying flimsies that were too big. Revenue raised an assessment and Dunnes appealed to the High Court. They appealed on the grounds that the legislation applies to bags supplied at point of sale only. The High Court ruled that it applies to all plastic bags whether supplied at point of sale or otherwise, except those that meet the criteria for the exemption.

The judgement of the High Court, or any subsequent Supreme Court judgement, is not going to remove or amend the exemption contained in the legislation regardless of the outcome.

So, provided retailers provide bags that meet the exemption criteria there isn't going to be a problem, unless scores of other retailers are also relying on Dunnes' interpretation of the legislation.

Yay, I thought it was just going to be me... Welcome to the 2012 Brick Wall Talking championships...

palmcut

I do sincerely apologise, I do realise that my posts on this topic are exasperating.
Boards is a very public forum and has a wide readership particularly amongst state agencies.
At times it is difficult to explain a point without getting unnecessary attention.

Exempt products can be sold in a plastic bag of certain measurements or smaller without charge.

Non exempt products have to be charged for no matter what size of a bag they are sold in.

Four small packets of screws placed in a flimsy should attract a plastic bag tax of 22c.

A shampoo and conditioner placed in a flimsy should attract a plastic bag tax of 22c.

Two tins of beans and a tin of salmon placed in a flimsy should attract a plastic bag tax of 22c.

A pack of firelighters placed in flimsy should attract a plastic bag tax of 22c.

I am trying to find if there are price comparable products that can be used instead of plastic that would not attract a plastic tax of 22c.

For commercial reasons I have to be circumspect in my approach to this query.

barneystinson

palmcut wrote: »

I do sincerely apologise, I do realise that my posts on this topic are exasperating.
Boards is a very public forum and has a wide readership particularly amongst state agencies.
At times it is difficult to explain a point without getting unnecessary attention.

Exempt products can be sold in a plastic bag of certain measurements or smaller without charge.

Non exempt products have to be charged for no matter what size of a bag they are sold in.

Four small packets of screws placed in a flimsy should attract a plastic bag tax of 22c.

A shampoo and conditioner placed in a flimsy should attract a plastic bag tax of 22c.

Two tins of beans and a tin of salmon placed in a flimsy should attract a plastic bag tax of 22c.

A pack of firelighters placed in flimsy should attract a plastic bag tax of 22c.

I am trying to find if there are price comparable products that can be used instead of plastic that would not attract a plastic tax of 22c.

For commercial reasons I have to be circumspect in my approach to this query.

Exasperating ain't the word my friend! Now you're talking about something completely different from the possibility of the Supreme Court magically decreeing all plastic bags must be taxed.

The provision of flimsies as plastic carrier bags at point of sale, as you appear to be aware, can't be exempt, and the Supreme court ruling in this case won't change that either...

And yes, of course employees of State agencies read Boards... (But again I fail to see the relevance of that either!?)

smeharg

Here's your first post on this thread (my emphasis):

palmcut wrote: »

Dunnes have appealed this decision to the supreme court. The judge in the High Court ruled that all "flimsies" are plastic bags and that consequently each customer should pay 22c per flimsy.

The flimsies are used for mince meat, rolls, cakes etc and are not carrier bags.

This ruling may have much wider repercussions than just Dunne's stores.

All other supermarkets will have the same problem.
The banks may also have a problem in that change is supplied in a plastic bag!
It is rumoured that the Dept. of the Environment are thinking of increasing this tax to 44c from the existing 22c.
This potentially could add 2 to 3 euros to the daily shopping.

But now you say...

palmcut wrote: »

...
I am trying to find if there are price comparable products that can be used instead of plastic that would not attract a plastic tax of 22c.

For commercial reasons I have to be circumspect in my approach to this query.

As for the unnecessary attention all I can see is that you were both factually and interpretively incorrect in your posts and the "unnecessary" attention was merely to set the record straight. Very necessary, in my opinion.

Last time I bought screws they came in a paper bag