Source: FUTD (Dutch)
Unofficial translation/summary:
- BV X had organic stores and mainly sold products at the reduced VAT rate, but also products that were subject to the general VAT rate.
- The products were double priced: each product had a consumer price and a lower member price.
- To be able to buy the products at the member price, customers had to pay a monthly contribution to BV X, the amount of which depended on the composition of the household.
- Customers could choose to participate in the membership price system every month.
- BV X paid VAT at the general rate and subsequently objected.
- According to BV X, the monthly contribution was part of the compensation it received for the delivery of the products, so that the reduced rate applied to a large extent.
- Gelderland District Court and Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court did not agree with BV X.
- Advocate General (AG) Ettema concluded that the monthly contribution could not be considered as a prepayment for the delivery of the products because at the time of payment it was not yet clear which goods would be delivered (that month).
- There was also no preparatory action since the amount of the monthly contribution could not be used to purchase goods in the BV X store.
- Furthermore, the monthly contribution was not a (partial) payment for the delivery of products.
- According to the AG, the required direct link between the payment of the contribution and the delivery of the products was missing.
- The AG concluded that the right to be able to buy products at a lower price was a service that was not ancillary to the delivery of the products.
- The Court had rightly decided that participation in the membership price system was an end in itself and had independent meaning in addition to being able to do the shopping. The AG advised the Supreme Court to dismiss BV X’s appeal as unfounded. The Court had rightly decided that participation in the membership price system was an end in itself and had independent meaning in addition to being able to do the shopping. The AG advised the Supreme Court to dismiss BV X’s appeal as unfounded. The Court had rightly decided that participation in the membership price system was an end in itself and had independent meaning in addition to being able to do the shopping. The AG advised the Supreme Court to dismiss BV X’s appeal as unfounded.
