CJEU clarifies what a multipurpose voucher is: anything but a single-purpose one

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

CJEU clarifies what a multipurpose voucher is: anything but a single-purpose one

Sponsored by

logo.png
coupons-1086431.jpg

Fernando Matesanz of Spanish VAT Services welcomes a clear decision on how to categorise vouchers as the VAT treatment of such promotional schemes becomes ever more complex

The Court of Justice of the European Union issued a judgment on April 18 2024 (Case C-68/23, M-GbR) in which, among other things, a definition of a single-purpose and a multipurpose voucher is provided. Considering how complex promotional schemes can be and how common these types of programmes are today, it is expected that the court's decision will be of great practical importance.

Background to the case

The case concerns a company that marketed vouchers with a nominal value, enabling users to redeem them for the purchase of digital content through an online shop. When purchasing the voucher, the user had to communicate their country of residence. In this way, each voucher was assigned a country code and was intended exclusively for customers who had their domicile or habitual residence in that country.

The company considered the vouchers to be multipurpose for two reasons. Firstly, in some cases it was not possible to know with certainty the identity and domicile of the user. Secondly, and giving rise to one of the questions referred to the court, the company purchased the vouchers through suppliers established in different member states, which may raise doubts over the interpretation of the provisions of articles 30a and 30b of the VAT Directive in the context of a chain of taxable persons established in different member states purchasing and selling the vouchers.

Reasoning of the court

The court pointed out that the concept of a multipurpose voucher is a residual one and that only those vouchers that cannot be considered as single purpose can be considered as multipurpose. Accordingly, the focus should always be on determining whether we are dealing with a single-purpose voucher. If the answer is negative, it can be said that we would be dealing with a multipurpose voucher.

We must first determine whether we are dealing with a voucher according to the definition given in Article 30a of the VAT Directive. In some cases, this task will be easy, but in others it will not. The difference between vouchers and discount cards or means of payment (both should be excluded from the definition of a voucher) is not entirely clear in many situations.

As regards the above, classification as a single-purpose voucher depends on the fact that, at the time of issuance of that voucher, its VAT treatment can be determined. This can only be achieved, in the court's view, when two fundamental elements of VAT are known at the time of issuance of the voucher. According to the decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), these elements are:

  • The place of supply of the goods or services to which the voucher relates; and

  • The VAT due on those goods or service.

If both pieces of information are known, it can be concluded that we are dealing with a single-purpose voucher. When it is not possible to determine this, by mere discarding, we could affirm that we are dealing with a multipurpose voucher.

The above conclusions cannot be altered by some users circumventing the conditions of use of the vouchers by providing misleading data (on purpose or not).

All the foregoing applies even in the event that, pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 30b(1) of the VAT Directive, successive transfers of a voucher between taxable persons may give rise to supplies of services carried out in the territory of member states other that than where the voucher is going to be redeemed.

The court concluded by stating that in cases where we are dealing with a multipurpose voucher, the fact that VAT is not accrued at the time of its issuance because the terms of taxation of the transaction to which the voucher refers are not known does not mean that its transfer along a supply chain is outside the scope of VAT. Such transfers would be considered as promotional or distribution services, subject to VAT.

The reason for all the above, as explained in numerous recitals of Directive (EU) 2016/1065 (the Vouchers Directive), is ensuring uniform VAT treatment of vouchers, avoiding inconsistencies, double taxation, or non-taxation when they are issued and transferred between member states.

Clarity in a complex issue

The truth is that the VAT treatment of vouchers and promotional schemes in general is complex. It is increasingly complex if we take into account how these schemes have become more sophisticated over time with the help of new technologies. Today, few people have a voucher in a physical format, and everything is primarily delivered, exchanged, and redeemed through the internet. This makes the VAT treatment of these schemes even more complicated. Clear and straight-to-the-point ECJ decisions such as the one in this case are always welcome.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The ‘big four’ firm’s audit of gambling company Entain is under the spotlight; in other news, Ireland shrugs off Trump’s rejection of pillar two
Mid-market European private equity house Inflexion, which also backs law firm DWF, has agreed to acquire a minority stake in the Dutch tax advisory firm
Donald Trump’s inauguration, pillar two, APAs and TP were all up for discussion as ITR spoke to Baker McKenzie’s two newly minted US partners
In-house teams that want a balance of internal control and external expertise for pillar two should seriously consider co-sourcing models, Russell Gammon of Tax Systems argues
The OECD has vowed to continue working with the US despite the president effectively pulling the country out of the organisation’s global minimum tax deal
Norton Rose Fulbright highlights a Brazilian investment fund as a practical example of how new Dutch tax rules will require significant attention from foreign companies
Thomson Reuters now has ‘end-to-end capability’ for its tax workflow business, according to its president for tax accounting and audit professionals
Patrick O’Gara, who is rated as a ‘highly regarded practitioner’ by World Tax, had spent over 20 years at Baker McKenzie
If approved, it would become the first ‘big four’ firm to practise law in the US; in other news, Morrison Foerster hired a new global tax co-chair
The ‘birth date’ of the service, which will collect tariffs, duties and other foreign revenue, will be January 20
Gift this article