The EU VAT Treatment of Vouchers in the Context of Promotional Activities
Einde inhoudsopgave
The EU VAT Treatment of Vouchers (FM nr. 157) 2019/5.4:5.4 The VAT consequences of discounts and rebates
The EU VAT Treatment of Vouchers (FM nr. 157) 2019/5.4
5.4 The VAT consequences of discounts and rebates
Documentgegevens:
Dr. J.B.O. Bijl, datum 01-05-2019
- Datum
01-05-2019
- Auteur
Dr. J.B.O. Bijl
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS594777:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Omzetbelasting / Levering van goederen en diensten
Omzetbelasting / Bijzondere OB-regelingen
Omzetbelasting / Vergoeding
Toon alle voetnoten
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
See CJEU case C- C-317/94, Elida Gibbs Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ECLI:EU:C:1996:400, paragraphs 19 and 24.
CJEU case C-69/11, Connoisseur Belgium BVBA v Belgische Staat, ECLI:EU:C:2011:825. The full text of the order is only available in French and Dutch.
Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.
A basic principle of the current EU VAT system is that it is intended to tax only the final consumer. According to the CJEU, this means that the taxable amount serving as a basis for the VAT to be collected by the tax authorities cannot – as a main rule – exceed the consideration actually paid by the final consumer which is the basis for calculating the VAT ultimately borne by him. It follows that the tax authorities may not in any circumstances charge an amount exceeding the tax paid by the final consumer.1 This means that if the final consumer pays less than the advertised price, e.g. because a discount is granted, no VAT should be levied on the amount of the discount. As I will explain in Section 5.5, in my view this is not a ‘basic principle of EU VAT’ at all. In my view, ‘consideration paid by the final consumer’ should include payments made by other person than the recipient of the supply, e.g. third-party payments. I refer to Section 5.5.
The fact that the taxable amount cannot exceed what is actually paid by or on behalf of the final consumer was confirmed on several occasions by the CJEU, also in a specific case where the Belgian tax authorities wanted to levy VAT on amounts that contractually could have been charged by a taxable business to its customer (the Connoisseur Belgium case).2 The taxable business had calculated its price without taking certain costs into account, even though the contract between the parties stipulated that certain cost elements should have been included in the price. The CJEU held (in an order) that value added tax is not due on costs or amounts that could contractually have been charged, but were not, by the taxable person to the other contracting party.
5.4.1 Discounts at the time of the supply5.4.2 Discounts in kind?5.4.3 Rebates (discounts granted after original payment was made) – ‘money off schemes’ and ‘cash back schemes’5.4.4 Rebates granted by another person than the party making the (direct) supply: leapfrogging.5.4.5 Elida Gibbs5.4.6 Other rebates granted by another person than the party making the (direct) supply