Einde inhoudsopgave
The EU VAT Treatment of Vouchers (FM nr. 157) 2019/9.8.5.1
9.8.5.1 Arguments in favour of the application of a VAT exemption
Dr. J.B.O. Bijl, datum 01-05-2019
- Datum
01-05-2019
- Auteur
Dr. J.B.O. Bijl
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS597171:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Omzetbelasting / Levering van goederen en diensten
Omzetbelasting / Bijzondere OB-regelingen
Omzetbelasting / Vergoeding
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
See, for example, CJEU case C-288/94, Argos Distributors Limited and Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ECLI:EU:C:1996:398, paragraph 19 (“... instead of money …”), CJEU case C-398/99, Yorkshire Co-operatives Ltd and Commissioners of Customs & Excise, ECLI:EU:C:2003:20, paragraphs 16 and 18 (“…to settle the sales price … by means of a … coupon …”) and CJEU case C-270/09, MacDonald Resorts Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, ECLI:EU:C:2010:780, paragraph 21 (“… while constituting in a way the means of payment that customers use …”).
See O. Henkow, Financial Activities in European VAT, (Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International, 2008), 211.
CJEU Joined cases C-259/10 and C-260/10, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group plc, ECLI:EU:C:2011:719.
More examples of CJEU case law on fiscal neutrality requiring transactions similar to VAT exempt transactions to also be treated as VAT exempt, unless the transaction is absolutely prohibited, are: CJEU case C-343/89, Max Witzemann v Hauptzollamt München-Mitte, ECLI:EU:C:1990:445, CJEU case C-381/95, Karlheinz Fischer v Finanzamt Donaueschingen, ECLI:EU:C:1998:276and CJEU case C-381/09, Gennaro Curia v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze et Agenzia delle Entrate, ECLI:EU:C:2010:406.
CJEU case C-18/92, Chaussures Bally SA and Belgian State, ECLI:EU:C:1993:212, paragraph 9.
Services based on instruments that can be used to acquire goods or services only under a commercial agreement with the issuer within a limited network of suppliers are excluded from the application of the Directive on payment services within the internal market, Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, OJ L 319, 5.12.2007, p. 1–36, Article 3(k).
European Banking Federation’s response to the European Commission’s Consultation Paper on modernising the VAT treatment of vouchers and related issues, 31 January 2007 (“The payments rather than the MPV should be at the centre of the debate”) and British Bankers’ Association Response to European Commission Consultation Paper on Modernising the Value Added Tax Treatment of Vouchers and Related Issues”, 26 January 2007 (“There is therefore a very fine line between what can be construed as actual legal tender and what essentially ‘equates’ to being legal tender”).
Memorandum submitted in March 2007 by the Tax Faculty of the Chartered Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to the European Commission in response to an invitation to comment in a consultation paper published on 13 November 2006 (“All other vouchers (i.e. all vouchers except ‘single-purpose vouchers’, JB) for which consideration has been given should be treated as means of payment (…)”).
Many consider vouchers to be a substitute for money,1,2 albeit only for the parties to the agreement with the issuer of the vouchers.
The principle of neutrality, in the sense that similar transactions should be treated the same for VAT purposes, dictates that transactions regarding ‘payment vouchers’ should also be considered VAT exempt. In a recent case where a Member State applied a different VAT treatment to similar gambling services,3 the CJEU ruled that the principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as meaning that a difference in treatment for the purposes of value added tax of two supplies of services which are identical or similar from the point of view of the consumer and meet the same needs of the consumer is sufficient to establish an infringement of that principle. Such an infringement thus does not require in addition that the actual existence of competition between the services in question or distortion of competition because of such difference in treatment be established. In order to assess whether, in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, two types of services are similar and require the same VAT treatment it must be established whether the use of those types of services is comparable from the point of view of the average consumer and meets the same needs of that consumer.4
Support for the view that transactions regarding some vouchers are similar to VAT exempt payment services can be found in CJEU case law and from comments on this topic from various parties involved in these types of transactions. For example, the CJEU has pointed out that services provided by a credit card company don’t only consist of guaranteeing payment for the goods purchased by means of the card, but also the promotion of the supplier's business by enabling him to acquire new customers, possible publicity on his behalf or the like.5 This means that ‘means of payment’ can also have more than just a financial component. Besides that, it can also be argued that credit cards can also only be used to pay for transactions within a limited network of suppliers,6 because not all businesses accept payment by credit card and if they do, they do not always accept all credit cards. However, transactions concerning credit cards are exempt.
Also, various businesses that are involved in transactions regarding vouchers and that responded to the European Commission’s Consultation Paper on modernising the VAT treatment of vouchers and related issues, support treating transactions regarding ‘payment vouchers’ the same as payment services. The only two parties representing financial services providers that submitted their view on this matter are of the view that (certain) vouchers should qualify as means of payment,7 and so does the only body representing accounting organisations that submitted its view.8