On April 28, 2022, the ECJ issued its decision in the case C-637/20 (DSAB Destination Stockholm).
Context: Reference for a preliminary ruling – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Taxable transactions – City card – Directive (EU) 2016/1065 – Concept of ‘voucher’
The Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court) seeks clarity on how the terms ‘voucher’ and ‘multi-purpose voucher’, used in the VAT Directive, are to be interpreted and what is meant by them. The question referred for a preliminary ruling has arisen in the context of proceedings in which an advance ruling was sought by a company established for the purpose of selling a card, referred to as the ‘city card’, which gives the cardholder the right to obtain certain services in certain places for a limited period of time and up to a certain value.
The provisions relating to vouchers in the VAT Directive are relatively new and are applicable to vouchers issued after 31 December 2018. It seems that the Court is yet to have the opportunity to take a position on how the terms ‘voucher’ and ‘multi-purpose voucher’ are to be interpreted. The parties disagree as to whether a card such as the one at issue in the main proceedings is to be regarded as a multipurpose voucher. The question of how cards of that type are to be treated was the topic of discussions within the EU VAT Committee, but no consensus was reached in that regard. According to information in the main proceedings, a similar card has previously been considered to be a multi-purpose voucher in Denmark.
Article in the EU VAT Directive
Article 30(a) of the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC.
Article 30(a) (Taxable transaction)
For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) ‘voucher’ means an instrument where there is an obligation to accept it as consideration or part consideration for a supply of goods or services and where the goods or services to be supplied or the identities of their potential suppliers are either indicated on the instrument itself or in related documentation, including the terms and conditions of use of such instrument;
(2) ‘single-purpose voucher’ means a voucher where the place of supply of the goods or services to which the voucher relates, and the VAT due on those goods or services, are known at the time of issue of the voucher;
(3) ‘multi-purpose voucher’ means a voucher, other than a single-purpose voucher.
Facts
The company in question sells cards to tourists visiting Stockholm. Those cards give cardholders the right to be admitted to around 60 attractions, such as sights and museums, for a limited period of time and up to a certain value. They also entitle cardholders to use around 10 passenger transport services, such as tours provided by the company’s own Hop-on-Hop-off buses and boats, as well as sightseeing tours with other organisers. The services are either subject to tax, at various rates, or are tax exempt. The cardholder uses the card to pay for admission or use and merely presents the card to a special card reader, without paying anything further. In accordance with an agreement concluded with the company, the organiser then receives consideration from the company for each admission or use up to a certain percentage of the ordinary admission or use price. The organiser is not obliged to admit the cardholder more than once. The company does not guarantee a minimum number of visitors. Once the value limit has been reached, the card is no longer valid.
There are various versions of the card with different validity periods and value limits. A card for an adult with a 24-hour validity period costs SEK 669. During the validity period, the cardholder can use the card to pay for services having a value [Or. 6] of up to SEK 1 800. The validity period starts to run when the card is used for the first time. The card must be used within one year of purchase.
The Skatterättsnämnden (Revenue Law Commission) found that the card is not a multi-purpose voucher. The Skatterättsnämnden concluded that it follows from the definition of ‘voucher’, in conjunction with the provisions relating to the calculation of the taxable amount, that a voucher must have a certain nominal value or relate to certain specified supplies of goods or services. According to the Skatterättsnämnden, it must emerge clearly from a voucher what may be obtained in return for that voucher even though – when dealing with a multi-purpose voucher – there may be uncertainty as to, for example, the rate of tax or the country of taxation
Questions
Must Article 30(a) of the VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that a card, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which gives the cardholder the
right to receive various services at a given place for a limited period of time and up to a certain value constitutes a voucher and, in such circumstances, constitutes a multi-purpose voucher?
AG Opinion
A card that suppliers are obliged to accept as consideration for the supply to cardholders of the goods or services included in that card at a given place for a limited period of time and up to a certain value, falls within the scope of the concept of ‘voucher’ within the meaning of Article 30a of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax. That is so even if all services covered by such a card cannot be used within a given time by an average consumer. Such a card is a ‘multi-purpose voucher’ within the meaning of the same provision, whenever the tax on the supply of goods and services for which it must be accepted as consideration is not known at the moment of transfer of that card.
Decision
Article 30a of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016, must be interpreted as meaning that an instrument which gives the bearer thereof the right to benefit from various services at a given place, for a limited period and up to a certain amount, may constitute a ‘voucher’ within the meaning of Article 30a(1) of that directive, even if, on account of the limited validity period of that instrument, an average consumer cannot benefit from all the services offered. That instrument constitutes a ‘multi-purpose voucher’ within the meaning of Article 30a(3) of that directive, since the value added tax due on those services is not known at the time of issuance of that instrument.
Source
Similar ECJ cases
Newsletters
