Einde inhoudsopgave
The EU VAT Treatment of Vouchers (FM nr. 157) 2019/2.4.2
2.4.2 VAT: a tax on consumer expenditure
Dr. J.B.O. Bijl, datum 01-05-2019
- Datum
01-05-2019
- Auteur
Dr. J.B.O. Bijl
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS595916:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Omzetbelasting / Levering van goederen en diensten
Omzetbelasting / Bijzondere OB-regelingen
Omzetbelasting / Vergoeding
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
The concept elaborated on in this subsection is loosely based on the views of Joachim Englisch as described in his paper “VAT/GST and Direct Taxes: Different Purposes” in: Value Added Tax and Direct Taxation: similarities and differences by Michael Lang et al., IBFD, Amsterdam 2009, p. 1 et seq.
Joachim Englisch, “VAT/GST and Direct Taxes: Different Purposes” in: Value Added Tax and Direct Taxation: similarities and differences by Michael Lang et al., IBFD, Amsterdam 2009, p. 27.
Proposal for a Sixth Council Directive on the harmonization of Member States concerning turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: Uniform basis of assessment, COM(73) 950 of 20 June 1973, Bulletin of the European Communities 1973, Supplement 11/73, OJ C 80, 5 October 1973, p. 1.
“(…) it has been sought to put domestic transactions and importations on the same footing as regards the taxable amount, while endeavouring at the same time to retain the notion of ‘customs value’ for cases where the goods are subject to customs duties. Thus the expression ‘open market value’, which can apply both to domestic transactions and to importations, has been defined in such a way as to be virtually equivalent to ‘customs value’. Moreover, as is the case with ‘customs value’, the notion of ‘open market value’ will apply to importations only in those exceptional cases in which there is no ‘price paid or to be paid’.” Explanatory Memorandum to the first proposal to a for a Sixth Council Directive on the harmonization of Member States concerning turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: Uniform basis of assessment, COM(73) 950 of 20 June 1973, Bulletin of the European Communities 1973, Supplement 11/73, OJ C 80, 5 October 1973, p. 1.
The Commission of the European Communities’ Amendments to the proposal for a Sixth Council Directive on the harmonization of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: Uniform basis of assessment, as presented by the Commission to the Council pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 149 of the EEC Treaty, COM(74) 795 final, Brussels, 26 July 1974, in which all relevant conclusions from the European Parliament, Working Documents (1973-1974), Document 360/73 of 14 February 1974, Report drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Budgets on the proposal from the Commission of the European Communities to the Council (Doc. 144/73) for a sixth directive on the harmonization of the legislation of the Member States concerning turnover taxes – common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, also known as the Notenboom report, were included. The following reasons for not using the ‘open market value’ are mentioned: ‘open market value’ can only be applied if transactions take place under conditions of ‘fair competition’, it did nothing to clarify the Second Directive, it would be hard to distinguish subsidies and when an entrepreneur consumes his own goods or services in private it would seem fairer to base the taxable amount on the purchase price or costs price rather than on the open market value, for both practical and psychological reasons.
Article 401 of the EU VAT Directive.
See, for example, CJEU cases 27-74, Demag AG v Finanzamt Duisburg-Süd, ECLI:EU:C:1974:104, 295/84, SA Rousseau Wilmot v Caisse de compensation de l'Organisation autonome nationale de l'industrie et du commerce (Organic), ECLI:EU:C:1985:473, 252/86, Gabriel Bergandi v Directeur général des impôts, ECLI:EU:C:1988:112, joined cases 93/88 and 94/88, Wisselink en Co. BV and others v Staatssecretaris van Financiën, ECLI:EU:C:1989:324, cases C-109/90, NV Giant v Gemeente Overijsel, ECLI:EU:C:1991:126, case C-200/90, Dansk Denkavit ApS and P. Poulsen Trading ApS, supported by Monsanto-Searle A/S v Skatteministeriet, ECLI:EU:C:1992:152, C-347/90, Aldo Bozzi v Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed Assistenza a favore degli Avvocati e dei Procuratori legali, ECLI:EU:C:1992:200, joined cases C-370/95, C-371/95 and C-372/95, Careda SA (C-370/95), Federación nacional de operadores de máquinas recreativas y de azar (Femara) (C-371/95) and Asociación española de empresarios de máquinas recreativas (Facomare) (C-372/95) v Administración General del Estado, ECLI:EU:C:1997:327, cases C-130/96, Fazenda Pública v Solisnor-Estaleiros Navais SA, also represented: Ministério Pùblico, ECLI:EU:C:1997:416, C-318/96, SPAR Österreichische Warenhandels AG v Finanzlandesdirektion für Salzburg, ECLI:EU:C:1998:70, joined cases C-338/97, C-344/97 and C-390/97, Erna Pelzl and Others v Steiermärkische Landesregierung (C-338/97), Wiener Städtische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG and Others v Tiroler Landesregierung (C-344/97) and STUAG Bau-Aktiengesellschaft v Kärntner Landesregierung (C-390/97), ECLI:EU:C:1999:285, cases C-308/01, GIL Insurance Ltd and Others v Commissioners of Customs & Excise, ECLI:EU:C:2004:252, C-387/01, Harald Weigel and Ingrid Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg, ECLI:EU:C:2004:256, joined cases C-283/06 and C-312/06, KÖGÁZ rt and Others v Zala Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal Vezetője (C-283/06) and OTP Garancia Biztosító rt v Vas Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal (C-312/06), ECLI:EU:C:2007:598, cases C-151/08, N.N. RENTA SA v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC) and Generalidad de Cataluña, ECLI:EU:C:2008:662, C-156/08, Monika Vollkommer v Finanzamt Hannover-Land I, ECLI:EU:C:2008:663, C-119/08, Mechel Nemunas UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos respublikos finansų ministerijos, ECLI:EU:C:2009:53 and C‑139/12, Caixa d’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona v Generalidad de Cataluña, ECLI:EU:C:2014:174.
CJEU Case 252/86, Gabriel Bregandi and Directeur Général des impôts, ECLI:EU:C:1988:112, par. 16.
See Articles 16 and 26 of the EU VAT Directive. I will elaborate on the VAT consequences of supplies that are made for no consideration in Chapter 8.
However, there is a compelling argument for VAT not being a tax on consumption as such: the way that the taxable amount is determined.1 Article 1 of the EU VAT Directive states that VAT is “(…) a general tax on consumption exactly proportional to the price of the goods and services (…)”. In a ‘true’ consumption tax, where the actual individual consumption is the relevant indicator for taxation, one would expect consumption of similar goods and services to be taxed based the objective value of the consumed goods rather than the price that parties are prepared and have agreed to pay for these goods or services.2
In the first proposal for a Sixth Directive,3 the taxable amount for transactions where the consideration was not (solely) a sum of money was the ‘open market value’ of the subject of the supply. Prima facie, this looks like another argument for considering the EU VAT something different from ‘a general tax on consumption’. However, using the open market value as a taxable amount was proposed because the Commission sought to put domestic transactions and importations on the same footing as regards the taxable amount and not because the Commission wished the amount to be in line with the purpose of VAT.4 This part of the proposal was abandoned in the amended proposal and the final version of the Sixth Directive, for various reasons that did not have anything to do with the purpose of VAT.5
Another way of establishing the purpose of VAT is by examining the CJEU case law on the provision that precludes Member States to introduce or maintain taxes that qualify as a VAT.6,7 In one of these cases (the Bregandi case)8 concerning this provision, the CJEU holds that this provision does not preclude a tax that “does not display the characteristics of a general tax on consumption levied on the price charged for the provision of services”.
VAT therefore seems to be a tax on expenditure for consumption. As I mentioned before, it can be argued that the ‘consumption’ is a reflection of the legal character of the VAT, where the method of taxation, i.e. taxing expenditure, is a reflection of the general, objective character of VAT.
This raises questions about the provisions in the EU VAT Directive under which certain transactions, such as the application or use of business goods for private purposes and the movement of own goods to another country by a taxable person, without a payment being made for that application or transfer, are subject to VAT. If EU VAT is a tax on consumer expenditure, how can transactions for which no consideration is charged, be subject to VAT?
In case of the application or use for private purposes of business assets, the grounds for taxation can be found in the fact that private consumption takes place of goods and/or services for which expenditures have been made, although the expenditures were made by the taxable person acting as such. This taxable person will probably have deducted the VAT on the costs of these goods and/or services. In order to avoid untaxed consumption and to ensure neutrality (in the sense that similar transactions, in this case sales of goods and services that will be used for private consumption, are treated the same for VAT purposes), these transactions are treated as supplies of goods or services for consideration, and therefore subject to VAT.9