HvJ EG, 27-04-1999, nr. C-48/97

HvJ EG, 27-04-1999, nr. C-48/97

Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.

Uitspraak 27‑04‑1999

G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet

Partij(en)

ARREST VAN HET HOF

27 april 19991.

In zaak C-48/97,

betreffende een verzoek aan het Hof krachtens artikel 177 EG-Verdrag van het VAT and Duties Tribunal, Londen (Verenigd Koninkrijk), in het aldaar aanhangig geding tussen

Kuwait Petroleum (GB) Ltd,

en

Commissioners of Customs & Excise,

‘Zesde BTW-richtlijn — Verkoopbevorderende actie — Afgifte van goederen tegen inwisseling van waardebonnen — Levering onder bezwarende titel — Prijskortingen en -rabatten — Begrip’

om een prejudiciële beslissing over de uitlegging van de artikelen 2, punt 1, 5, lid 6, 11, A, lid 3, sub b, en 27 van de Zesde richtlijn van de Raad (77/388/EEG) van 17 mei 1977 betreffende de harmonisatie van de wetgevingen der lidstaten inzake omzetbelasting - Gemeenschappelijk stelsel van belasting over de toegevoegde waarde: uniforme grondslag (PB L 145, blz. 1),

wijst

HET HOF VAN JUSTITIE,

samengesteld als volgt: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, president, P. J. G. Kapteyn en G. Hirsch (rapporteur), kamerpresidenten, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, L. Sevón en M. Wathelet, rechters,

advocaat-generaal: N. Fennelly

griffier: D. Louterman-Hubeau, hoofdadministrateur

gelet op de schriftelijke opmerkingen ingediend door:

—

Kuwait Petroleum (GB) Ltd, vertegenwoordigd door J. Walters, QC, gemachtigde van P. Landon, FCA,

—

de regering van het Verenigd Koninkrijk, vertegenwoordigd door J. E. Collins, Assistant Treasury Solicitor, als gemachtigde, bijgestaan door P. Lasok, QC, en P. J. E. Whipple, barrister,

—

de Franse regering, vertegenwoordigd door K. Rispal-Bellanger, onderdirecteur internationaal economisch recht en gemeenschapsrecht bij

de directie juridische zaken van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse zaken, en G. Mignot, secretaris buitenlandse zaken bij die directie, als gemachtigden,

—

de Portugese regering, vertegenwoordigd door L. Fernandes, directeur van de juridische dienst van de algemene directie gemeenschapsaangelegenheden van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse zaken, en A. Cortesão de Seiça Neves, jurist bij deze dienst, als gemachtigden,

—

de Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen, vertegenwoordigd door P. Oliver, lid van haar juridische dienst, als gemachtigde,

gezien het rapport ter terechtzitting,

gehoord de mondelinge opmerkingen van Kuwait Petroleum (GB) Ltd, vertegenwoordigd door J. Walters, gemachtigde van P. Landon, de regering van het Verenigd Koninkrijk, vertegenwoordigd door J. E. Collins, bijgestaan door P. Lasok, de Franse regering, vertegenwoordigd door G. Mignot, en de Commissie, vertegenwoordigd door P. Oliver en H. Michard, leden van haar juridische dienst, en F. Riddy, bij deze dienst gedetacheerd nationaal ambtenaar, als gemachtigden, ter terechtzitting van 5 mei 1998,

gehoord de conclusie van de advocaat-generaal ter terechtzitting van 9 juli 1998,

het navolgende

Arrest

1

Bij beschikking van 15 januari 1997, ingekomen bij het Hof op 6 februari daaraanvolgend, heeft het VAT and Duties Tribunal, Londen, krachtens artikel 177 EG-Verdrag vijf prejudiciële vragen gesteld over de uitlegging van de artikelen 2, punt 1, 5, lid 6, 11, A, lid 3, sub b, en 27 van de Zesde richtlijn van de Raad (77/388/EEG) van 17 mei 1977 betreffende de harmonisatie van de wetgevingen der lidstaten inzake omzetbelasting - Gemeenschappelijk stelsel van belasting over de toegevoegde waarde: uniforme grondslag (PB L 145, blz. 1; hierna: ‘Zesde richtlijn’).

2

Deze vragen zijn gerezen in een geding tussen Kuwait Petroleum (GB) Ltd (hierna: ‘Kuwait’) en de Commissioners of Customs & Excise (hierna: ‘Commissioners’), die in het Verenigd Koninkrijk bevoegd zijn voor de heffing van de belasting over de toegevoegde waarde (hierna: ‘BTW’), inzake de onderwerping aan de BTW van bepaalde producten die Kuwait in het kader van een promotieactie tussen 1991 en 1996 als geschenk heeft aangeboden.

De nationale regeling

3

In bijlage 4 bij de Value Added Tax Act 1994 (wet van 1994 betreffende de belasting over de toegevoegde waarde) is bepaald wat moet worden verstaan onder levering van goederen, verrichten van diensten of daarmee gelijkgestelde handelingen, met het oog op de onderwerping daarvan aan de BTW. Paragraaf 5 van bijlage 4 luidt:

‘(1) Onverminderd subparagraaf (2) hierna, is sprake van levering van goederen, wanneer goederen die deel uitmaken van de bedrijfsactiva, al dan niet onder bezwarende titel worden overgedragen of daarover wordt beschikt door of op aanwijzing van de persoon die het bedrijf leidt, zodat zij niet langer deel uitmaken van deze activa.

(2) Subparagraaf 1 hierboven is niet van toepassing wanneer de overdracht of beschikking

(a)

inhoudt, dat goederen worden geschonken in het kader van verkoopbevordering (behoudens wanneer de context hiervan is, dat herhaaldelijk goederen worden geschonken aan één persoon over een zekere tijdsspanne), wanneer de kostprijs voor de schenker niet meer dan 10 UKL bedraagt (…).’

De gemeenschapsregeling

4

Artikel 2, lid 1, van de Zesde richtlijn bepaalt:

‘Aan de belasting over de toegevoegde waarde zijn onderworpen:

1.

de leveringen van goederen en de diensten, welke in het binnenland door een als zodanig handelende belastingplichtige onder bezwarende titel worden verricht;

(…)’

5

Artikel 5, lid 6, van de Zesde richtlijn luidt als volgt:

‘Met een levering onder bezwarende titel wordt gelijkgesteld het door een belastingplichtige aan zijn bedrijf onttrekken van een goed voor eigen privédoeleinden of voor privédoeleinden van zijn personeel, of dat hij om niet verstrekt of, meer in het algemeen, voor andere dan bedrijfsdoeleinden bestemt, ingeval met betrekking tot dat goed of de bestanddelen daarvan recht op volledige of gedeeltelijke aftrek van de belasting over de toegevoegde waarde is ontstaan.

Onttrekkingen van goederen om voor bedrijfsdoeleinden te dienen als geschenken van geringe waarde of als monster, worden niet als zodanig beschouwd.’

6

Artikel 11, A, lid 3, sub b, van de Zesde richtlijn bepaalt het volgende:

‘A. In het binnenland

(…)

3. In de maatstaf van heffing worden niet opgenomen:

(…)

b)

prijskortingen en -rabatten die aan de koper of de ontvanger worden toegekend en die zijn verkregen op het tijdstip waarop de handeling wordt verricht.’

Het hoofdgeding

7

Kuwait brengt haar motorbrandstof onder de merknaam ‘Q8’ in de detailhandel, hetzij rechtstreeks in ongeveer 110 tankstations die haar eigendom zijn of die door haar of voor haar rekening worden geëxploiteerd, hetzij via ongeveer 500 onafhankelijke wederverkopers waaraan zij als groothandelaar de Q8-motorbrandstof verkoopt.

8

Tussen 1991 en 1996 voerde Kuwait een promotiecampagne, waaraan haar eigen tankstations en ongeveer 160 onafhankelijke wederverkopers deelnamen. In het kader van die campagne ontvingen de klanten een ‘Q8 Sails’-waardebon voor elke aankoop van 12 liter brandstof. De brandstofprijs was steeds dezelfde, ongeacht of de klant de hem aangeboden Q8 Sails-waardebonnen (hierna: ‘Q8-zegels’) aanvaardde of niet. Wanneer een klant voldoende Q8-zegels had verzameld, kon

hij deze inwisselen tegen goederen die hij koos uit een ‘geschenkencatalogus’, of af en toe tegen diensten waarvoor een titel werd afgegeven (bijvoorbeeld entreekaarten voor een theatervoorstelling), en Kuwait verbond zich ertoe deze binnen een bepaalde termijn te leveren.

9

Alle onafhankelijke wederverkopers die aan de actie deelnamen, verbonden zich ertoe Kuwait tijdens de periode van de promotieactie een extra bedrag per liter te betalen, vermeerderd met de BTW over de totale hoeveelheid tijdens die periode verkochte brandstof. Dat extra bedrag, dat oorspronkelijk 0,22 pence per liter bedroeg, is in 1993 opgetrokken tot 0,33 pence per liter.

10

Bij brief van 16 juni 1995 besloten de Commissioners dat Kuwait, die was overgegaan tot aftrek van de als voorbelasting betaalde BTW over de goederen die zij met het oog op inwisseling tegen Q8-zegels had gekocht, de BTW diende te betalen over de aan de klanten gegeven goederen waarvan de prijs hoger was dan 10 UKL, op grond dat deze goederen door Kuwait ‘anders dan onder bezwarende titel’ waren geleverd.

11

Kuwait ging van dit besluit in beroep bij de verwijzende rechter, stellende dat zij de tegen inwisseling van Q8-zegels afgegeven goederen onder bezwarende titel had geleverd, nu de tegenprestatie bestond in een onbepaald deel van de prijs, BTW inbegrepen, die de consument zowel voor de levering van de brandstof als voor de latere afgifte van goederen in ruil voor Q8-zegels had betaald, zodat zij de BTW over deze handeling reeds had voldaan.

12

Het VAT and Duties Tribunal is van oordeel, dat naar Engels recht de afgifte van Q8-zegels aan de klant als een eenzijdige handeling moet worden aangemerkt, en onafhankelijk is van de hoofdtransactie die bestaat in de aankoop van brandstof. Deze rechterlijke instantie is ook van mening, dat de Q8-zegels gratis werden verkregen.

13

Het VAT and Duties Tribunal wijst er evenwel op, dat het begrip oorzaak (‘consideration’) in het Engelse contractenrecht een andere betekenis heeft dan het begrip tegenprestatie (‘consideration’) in het fiscaal recht, in de zin van de waarde van een levering als grondslag voor de BTW-heffing. Van oordeel dat een uitlegging van het gemeenschapsrecht noodzakelijk is voor de beslechting van het bij hem aanhangige geding, heeft het VAT and Duties Tribunal, Londen, besloten de behandeling van de zaak te schorsen en de Hof de volgende vragen voor te leggen:

‘Wanneer een leverancier van goederen een promotiecampagne voert die als volgt is georganiseerd:

(i)

in het kader van zijn handelsactiviteit schenkt de organisator overeenkomstig het reglement van de campagne voordeelartikelen;

(ii)

zulks geschiedt zonder enige betaling in geld bij de afgifte van de voordeelartikelen;

(iii)

deze artikelen worden ingeruild tegen waardebonnen die de koper van premieartikelen krijgt wanneer hij de volledige kleinhandelsprijs van deze goederen betaalt, zonder dat hij afzonderlijk betaalt voor de waardebonnen;

1.

Moet de uitdrukking ‘prijskortingen en -rabatten die aan de koper (…) worden toegekend en die zijn verkregen op het tijdstip waarop de handeling wordt verricht’ in artikel 11, A, lid 3, sub b, van de Zesde richtlijn van de Raad dan aldus worden uitgelegd, dat zij de volledige kostprijs van de voordeelartikelen omvat?

2.

Moeten de voordeelartikelen worden behandeld als ‘een levering onder bezwarende titel’ in de zin van artikel 5, lid 6, van die richtlijn?

3.

Indien de voordeelartikelen anders dan onder bezwarende titel of .om niet’ worden gegeven, moet artikel 5, lid 6, dan aldus worden uitgelegd, dat ingevolge die bepaling het schenken van de voordeelartikelen is te behandelen als een levering onder bezwarende titel, ofschoon die artikelen zijn geschonken in het kader van de handelsactiviteit?

4.

Luidt het antwoord op een van de vorige vragen anders:

a)

wanneer alle voor een van de voordeelartikelen ingewisselde waardebonnen zijn verkregen bij de aankoop van premieartikelen bij de organisator van de promotiecampagne;

b)

wanneer alle waardebonnen zijn verkregen bij de aankoop van premieartikelen bij een handelaar die een aan de promotiecampagne deelnemende wederverkoper was; of

c)

wanneer de ingewisselde waardebonnen gedeeltelijk zijn verkregen bij de aankoop van premieartikelen bij de organisator van de promotiecampagne en gedeeltelijk bij de aankoop van premieartikelen bij een of meer deelnemende wederverkopers?

5.

Indien vraag 3 ontkennend moet worden beantwoord, is het Verenigd Koninkrijk dan gerechtigd krachtens artikel 27 van de Zesde richtlijn van de Raad en krachtens de afwijking die het in 1977 verkreeg, de organisator van de promotiecampagne een outputbelasting op te leggen op basis van de kostprijs voor de organisator van de voordeelartikelen, bovenop de outputbelasting die begrepen is in de volledige detailhandelsprijs van de premieartikelen?’

De eerste vraag

14

Met zijn eerste vraag wenst de verwijzende rechter in wezen te vernemen, of artikel 11, A, lid 3, sub b, van de Zesde richtlijn aldus moet worden uitgelegd, dat de begrippen ‘prijskortingen’ en ‘prijsrabatten’ ook gelden wanneer waardebonnen gratis kunnen worden ingeruild tegen voordeelartikelen.

15

Dienaangaande zij om te beginnen opgemerkt, dat Kuwait zelf niet van mening is dat zij haar klanten prijskortingen of -rabatten in de zin van die bepaling heeft toegekend. Zij voert integendeel aan, dat haar klanten voor de tegen Q8-zegels ingewisselde artikelen een deel van de bij de aankoop van brandstof betaalde prijs hebben bijgedragen. Haars inziens is de eerste vraag derhalve niet relevant.

16

Zoals de regeringen van het Verenigd Koninkrijk, Frankrijk en Portugal terecht hebben opgemerkt, veronderstelt de toekenning van een prijskorting of -rabat de levering van een goed onder bezwarende titel. De uitdrukkingen ‘korting’ en ‘rabat’ verwijzen als zodanig immers naar een slechts gedeeltelijke vermindering van de overeengekomen volledige prijs. Wanneer de vermindering daarentegen betrekking heeft op 100 % van de prijs, is er sprake van afgifte om niet. De overdracht van een goed om niet valt evenwel onder artikel 5, lid 6, van de Zesde richtlijn.

17

Op de eerste vraag dient derhalve te worden geantwoord, dat artikel 11, A, lid 3, sub b, van de Zesde richtlijn aldus moet worden uitgelegd, dat de begrippen ‘prijskortingen’ en ‘prijsrabatten’ geen prijsvermindering kunnen omvatten die betrekking heeft op de volledige kostprijs van een levering van goederen.

De tweede, de derde, en de vierde vraag

18

Met de tweede, de derde en de vierde vraag, die tezamen moeten worden onderzocht, wenst de verwijzende rechter in wezen te vernemen, of artikel 5, lid 6, van de Zesde richtlijn aldus moet worden uitgelegd, dat de onttrekking door een petroleummaatschappij van goederen aan haar bedrijf, die aan een koper van

brandstof worden gegeven tegen inwisseling van zegels die hij, overeenkomstig het stelsel omschreven in de punten 7 tot en met 9 van het onderhavige arrest, naar verhouding van de gekochte hoeveelheid heeft ontvangen bij betaling van de volledige detailhandelsprijs van de brandstof aan de pomp, moet worden gelijkgesteld met een levering onder bezwarende titel in de zin van die bepaling.

19

Om te beginnen zij opgemerkt, dat de afgifte van goederen tegen inwisseling van Q8-zegels in casu is gebeurd ten behoeve van de onderneming, aangezien volgens de nationale rechter het doel van de promotiecampagne voor Kuwait, en voor de onafhankelijke wederverkopers die aan de actie deelnamen, bestond in een stijging van de verkochte hoeveelheid brandstof. Om die reden is een belastingplichtige die zich in de situatie van Kuwait bevindt, gerechtigd overeenkomstig artikel 17, lid 2, sub a, van de Zesde richtlijn, het bedrag van de in een vorig stadium bij de aankoop van die goederen betaalde BTW af te trekken.

20

Volgens Kuwait sluit de omstandigheid dat zij de goederen voor haar bedrijfsdoeleinden heeft overgedragen, de toepassing uit van artikel 5, lid 6, van de Zesde richtlijn. De eerste volzin van lid 6 doelt volgens haar niet op een dergelijke onttrekking van goederen aan een bedrijf. Aangezien de BTW een verbruiksbelasting is, zou immers een heffing in een verder stadium nodig zijn indien de goederen worden bestemd voor verbruik door de belastingplichtige. De levering van goederen tegen inwisseling van zegels vormt evenwel geen verbruik van die goederen door de onderneming.

21

Dienaangaande zij erop gewezen, dat het doel van artikel 5, lid 6, van de Zesde richtlijn er met name in bestaat, een gelijke behandeling te verzekeren van de belastingplichtige die voor privédoeleinden een goed aan zijn bedrijf onttrekt en een gewone consument die een soortgelijk goed koopt (zie arresten van 6 mei 1992, De Jong, C-20/91, Jurispr. blz. I-2847, punt 15, en 26 september 1996, Enkler, C-230/94, Jurispr. blz. I-4517, punt 33).

22

Uit de bewoordingen van artikel 5, lid 6, eerste volzin, van de Zesde richtlijn volgt evenwel, dat deze bepaling met een levering onder bezwarende titel gelijkstelt, en bijgevolg aan BTW onderwerpt, de onttrekking door een belastingplichtige van een goed aan zijn bedrijf, dat hij om niet verstrekt, wanneer met betrekking tot dit goed recht op aftrek van de voorbelasting is ontstaan, zonder dat het in principe beslissend is of deze overdracht al dan niet omwille van bedrijfsdoeleinden geschiedt. De tweede volzin van deze bepaling, waarbij de onttrekkingen van goederen om voor bedrijfsdoeleinden te dienen als geschenken van geringe waarde of als monster, van BTW-heffing worden uitgesloten, zou immers geen zin hebben indien de eerste volzin de onttrekking van goederen welke de belastingplichtige, zelfs voor bedrijfsdoeleinden, om niet verstrekt, niet aan BTW zou onderwerpen.

23

Zoals de advocaat-generaal in punt 26 van zijn conclusie heeft opgemerkt, wordt deze uitlegging bovendien bevestigd door de ontstaansgeschiedenis van artikel 5, lid 6, van de Zesde richtlijn. In punt 6 van bijlage A bij de Tweede richtlijn (67/228/EEG) van de Raad van 11 april 1967 betreffende de harmonisatie van de wetgevingen der lidstaten inzake omzetbelasting - Structuur en wijze van toepassing van het gemeenschappelijk stelsel van belasting over de toegevoegde waarde (PB 1967, 71, blz. 1303), en in artikel 5, lid 3, sub a, van het voorstel van Zesde richtlijn, door de Commissie aan de Raad voorgelegd op 29 juni 1973 (PB C 80, blz. 1), is onder meer bepaald, dat de onttrekkingen van goederen, bestemd om te dienen als monster of als geschenken van geringe waarde, welke in fiscaal opzicht tot de algemene kosten mogen worden gerekend, in strijd met de algemene regel niet als belastbare leveringen moeten worden beschouwd. Daaruit volgt, dat deze onttrekkingen, zelfs wanneer zij voor bedrijfsdoeleinden zijn verricht, als belastbare leveringen moeten worden aangemerkt indien de geschenken niet van geringe waarde zijn.

24

Kuwait betoogt overigens, dat artikel 5, lid 6, van de Zesde richtlijn niet van toepassing is, omdat er in de zaak die in het hoofdgeding aan de orde is, geen sprake is van verstrekking om niet in de zin van die bepaling. De tegenprestatie

voor de afgifte van de zegels, en derhalve voor de afgifte van de tegen de zegels ingewisselde artikelen, bestaat immers in een identificeerbaar deel van de prijs, BTW inbegrepen, die de klant bij de aankoop van brandstof heeft betaald. De klant betaalt dus ook voor de goederen die hij in het kader van de promotiecampagne ontvangt. Dat is volgens Kuwait de inhoud van de overeenkomst die in haar tankstations met de eindverbruiker is gesloten. Deze conclusie geldt in wezen ook, wanneer de distributie geschiedt via onafhankelijke wederverkopers, die terzake van de afgifte van de Q8-zegels en de inning van het desbetreffende gedeelte van de prijs, voor rekening van Kuwait handelen.

25

De regeringen van het Verenigd Koninkrijk, Frankrijk en Portugal menen evenwel, dat hoewel elke belastingplichtige ernaar moet streven met zijn inkomsten al zijn kosten te dekken, de klant in een actie als die welke in het hoofdgeding aan de orde is, bij de aankoop van brandstof geen betaling verricht als tegenprestatie voor de zegels en de geschenken die hij ontvangt.

26

Om te beginnen zij opgemerkt, dat goederen enkel ‘onder bezwarende titel’ in de zin van artikel 2, lid 1, van de Zesde richtlijn worden geleverd, wanneer tussen de leverancier en de koper een rechtsbetrekking bestaat waarbij over en weer prestaties worden uitgewisseld, en de door de leverancier ontvangen prijs de werkelijke tegenwaarde vormt voor het geleverde goed (zie, in die zin, inzake dienstverrichtingen, arrest van 3 maart 1994, Tolsma, C-16/93, Jurispr. blz. I-743, punt 14).

27

Hoewel het aan de nationale rechter staat, te onderzoeken of de klanten en Kuwait, in voorkomend geval via de onafhankelijke wederverkopers, waren overeengekomen dat een al dan niet identificeerbaar gedeelte van de voor de brandstof betaalde prijs de tegenwaarde vormde voor de Q8-zegels of de tegen die zegels afgegeven goederen, zij hier opgemerkt, dat uit het dossier niet kan worden

opgemaakt, dat de betrokkenen daadwerkelijk over en weer dergelijke prestaties hebben uitgewisseld.

28

Enerzijds moet worden vastgesteld, zoals de advocaat-generaal in punt 43 van zijn conclusie heeft opgemerkt, dat de verkoop van brandstof en de overdracht van goederen tegen inwisseling van zegels, twee verschillende handelingen vormen.

29

Anderzijds wijzen in de zaak van het hoofdgeding met name twee overwegingen, met betrekking tot de afgifte van goederen tegen inwisseling van Q8-zegels, op een verstrekking om niet in de zin van artikel 5, lid 6, van de Zesde richtlijn, zodat de onttrekking van die goederen aan het bedrijf wordt gelijkgesteld met een levering verricht onder bezwarende titel, die als zodanig belastbaar is.

30

In de eerste plaats werden de tegen inwisseling van Q8-zegels afgegeven goederen in de door Kuwait georganiseerde promotiecampagne als geschenken gekwalificeerd.

31

In de tweede plaats staat vast, dat de koper van Q8-brandstof, ongeacht of hij de zegels aanvaardde of niet, dezelfde detailhandelsprijs diende te betalen, en dat op de factuur van de brandstofaankoop, die Kuwait of de onafhankelijke wederverkopers krachtens artikel 22, lid 3, van de Zesde richtlijn dienden uit te reiken aan belastingplichtige klanten, enkel die prijs was vermeld. In die omstandigheden kan niet het argument van Kuwait worden aanvaard, dat, anders dan op haar facturen was vermeld, een gedeelte van de door de kopers van brandstof betaalde prijs in werkelijkheid de waarde vertegenwoordigde van de Q8-zegels of van de tegen die zegels ingewisselde goederen.

32

Op de tweede, de derde en de vierde vraag dient derhalve te worden geantwoord, dat artikel 5, lid 6, van de Zesde richtlijn aldus moet worden uitgelegd, dat de onttrekking door een petroleummaatschappij van goederen aan haar bedrijf, die aan een koper van brandstof worden gegeven tegen inwisseling van zegels die hij,

in het kader van een promotiecampagne als die welke in de hoofdzaak aan de orde is, naar verhouding van de gekochte hoeveelheid heeft ontvangen bij de betaling van de volledige detailhandelsprijs van de brandstof aan de pomp, moet worden gelijkgesteld met een levering onder bezwarende titel in de zin van die bepaling, wanneer die goederen niet van geringe waarde zijn.

33

Gelet op het antwoord op de tweede, de derde en de vierde vraag, behoeft de vijfde vraag niet te worden beantwoord.

Kosten

34

De kosten door de regeringen van het Verenigd Koninkrijk, Frankrijk en Portugal en de Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen wegens indiening van hun opmerkingen bij het Hof gemaakt, kunnen niet voor vergoeding in aanmerking komen. Ten aanzien van de partijen in het hoofdgeding is de procedure als een aldaar gerezen incident te beschouwen, zodat de nationale rechterlijke instantie over de kosten heeft te beslissen.

HET HOF VAN JUSTITIE,

uitspraak doende op de door het VAT and Duties Tribunal, Londen, bij beschikking van 15 januari 1997 gestelde vragen, verklaart voor recht:

1)

Artikel 11, A, lid 3, sub b, van de Zesde richtlijn van de Raad (77/388/EEG) van 17 mei 1977 betreffende de harmonisatie van de wetgevingen der

lidstaten inzake omzetbelasting — Gemeenschappelijk stelsel van belasting over de toegevoegde waarde: uniforme grondslag, moet aldus worden uitgelegd, dat de begrippen ‘prijskortingen’ en ‘prijsrabatten’ geen prijsvermindering kunnen omvatten die betrekking heeft op de volledige kostprijs van een levering van goederen.

2)

Artikel 5, lid 6, van de Zesde richtlijn (77/388/EEG) moet aldus worden uitgelegd, dat de onttrekking door een petroleummaatschappij van goederen aan haar bedrijf, die aan een koper van brandstof worden gegeven tegen inwisseling van zegels die hij, in het kader van een promotiecampagne als die welke in de hoofdzaak aan de orde is, naar verhouding van de gekochte hoeveelheid heeft ontvangen bij de betaling van de volledige detailhandelsprijs van de brandstof aan de pomp, moet worden gelijkgesteld met een levering onder bezwarende titel in de zin van die bepaling, wanneer die goederen niet van geringe waarde zijn.

Rodríguez Iglesias

Kapteyn

Hirsch

Mancini

Moitinho de Almeida

Gulmann

Edward

Sevón

Wathelet

Uitgesproken ter openbare terechtzitting te Luxemburg op 27 april 1999.

De griffier

R. Grass

De president

G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias

Conclusie 09‑07‑1998

FENNELLY

Partij(en)

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

FENNELLY

delivered on 9 July 19981.

Case C-48/97

Kuwait Petroleum (GB) Ltd

v

Commissioners of Customs & Excise

1

This case concerns whether ‘free gifts’, supplied as part of a scheme, using ‘stamps’, for the promotion of sales of fuel at petrol stations, come, for VAT purposes, within the consideration of the price paid at the pump or, if not supplied for that consideration, whether they are, in any event, covered by Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive.2.

I — The factual and legal context

A — The promotion at issue

2

The appellant in the main proceedings, Kuwait Petroleum (GB) Ltd (‘Kuwait‘), sells ‘Q8’ brand of fuel (the ‘premium goods’) as a retailer at 110 sites and as a wholesale supplier to independent retailers (hereinafter ‘the dealers’) at 500 other sites. The livery at both types of site is the same. On termination in 1991 of an earlier stamp promotion, Kuwait suffered a 15% fall in its market share. It then devised its own ‘Q8 Sails Collection’ scheme (hereinafter ‘the sails scheme’), which was initially applied only at Kuwait sites but soon extended to dealers who so desired.3. Dealers who opted to apply the scheme agreed to pay UK 0.22 pence (later, UK 0.33 pence) per litre (plus VAT) in addition to the normal wholesale petrol price. In return Kuwait supplied all of the required promotional literature and other necessities.4.

3

The sails scheme operated from 1991 to 1996. One Q8 sails stamp was supplied for each 12 litres of fuel purchased. Credit for partial stamp entitlement was facilitated in some cases, towards the end of the promotion, by the use of electronic swipe cards. To fill a ‘Collector Card’ required 30 such stamps. The number of complete cards needed to obtain a particular gift (the ‘redemption goods’) was set out in a gift catalogue. A high proportion, but not all, of the purchasers of fuel collected stamps.5.

4

To claim a gift, the customer had to complete an order form, verifying fulfilment of the conditions of the offer. Although stamps were stated to be

non-transferable, Kuwait tolerated a certain amount of ‘private pooling’ of stamps (for example by work colleagues), but excluded secondary trading in stamps. The stamps were stated to have a face value of UK 0.001 pence, but would be redeemed for cash only when their total cash value exceeded UK 25 pence, implying purchase of an extremely large amount of petrol. Though other figures have been suggested, Kuwait puts the redemption rate as being ‘well over 50%’.

5

The sails scheme was discontinued due to changes in the market, particularly as a result of price competition from the hypermarket petrol-retail sector. Although Q8 retail petrol prices fell by some UK 4 pence per litre, not all was necessarily directly attributable to the termination of the promotion. The Court is informed that the cost of gifts redeemed under the scheme had, by February 1995 alone, already reached UK £3 355 000, or UK 0.36 pence per litre of fuel sold at participating sites.6.

B — The legal context

6

It will be helpful to mention the principal provisions of Community law which have been debated in the observations submitted to the Court. Article 2 of the First Directive7. provides that value added tax involves ‘a general tax on consumption’ of goods and services.

7

In general, under Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive, only supplies of goods and services effected for consideration are subject to VAT. Article 5 defines the ‘supply of goods’ as ‘the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible movable property as owner’. However, Article 5(6) provides that certain supplies of goods, even in the absence of consideration, will be subject to VAT:

‘The application by a taxable person of goods forming part of his business assets for his private use or the use of his staff, or the disposal thereof free of charge or more generally their application for purposes other than those of his business, where the value added tax on the goods in question or the component parts thereof was wholly or partly deductible shall be treated as supplies made for consideration. However, applications for the giving of samples or the making of gifts of small value for the purposes of the taxable person's business shall not be so treated.’

8

The corresponding provision in respect of the supply of services, contained in Article 6(2), however, provides, in relevant part:

‘The following shall be treated as supplies of services for consideration:

…

(b)

supplies of services carried out free of charge by the taxable person for his own private use or that of his staff or more generally for purposes other than those of his business.

… .’

9

Article 11 of the Sixth Directive is concerned with the taxable amount for VAT purposes. Article 11A(1), in so far as is relevant, states:

‘1. The taxable amount shall be:

(a)

in respect of supplies of goods and services other than those in (b), (c) and (d) below, everything which constitutes the consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier from the purchaser, the customer or a third party for such supplies including subsidies directly linked to the price of such supplies;

(b)

in respect of supplies referred to in Article 5(6) …, the purchase price of the goods or of similar goods or, in the absence of a purchase price, the cost price, determined at the time of supply;

… .’

Article 11A(3)(b) provides that the taxable amount shall not include ‘price discounts and rebates allowed to the customer and accounted for at the time of the supply …’, while Article 11C(1) provides, inter alia, that ‘where the price is reduced after the supply takes place, the taxable amount shall be reduced accordingly under conditions which shall be determined by the Member States’.

10

The abovementioned Community rules are now implemented in the United Kingdom by the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (hereinafter the ‘1994 Act’). It is important to note that, during the currency of the sails scheme, the supply of business gifts whose cost on acquisition exceeded UK £10 (UK £15 with effect from 29 November 1995) was treated as a taxable supply, for the purposes of the national rules implementing the second sentence of Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive.

C — The dispute and national proceedings

11

The Commissioners of Customs & Excise (‘the Commissioners’), by a letter of 16 June 1995, ruled that, where the cost of an item supplied under the sails scheme exceeds UK £10, Kuwait was liable, pursuant to paragraph 6 of Schedule 6

of the 1994 Act, to account for VAT on the goods supplied. In the opinion of the Commissioners those goods were supplied ‘otherwise than for consideration’. Kuwait appealed against that decision to the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (hereinafter ‘the Tribunal’).

12

Kuwait submitted that the redemption goods were not supplied ‘free of charge’ within the meaning of Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive, whose purpose was to prevent the consumption of goods without the payment of VAT by taxable persons, who, if they had purchased as consumers, would have paid VAT. 8. Kuwait asserted that it did not consume the goods itself but, on the contrary, supplied them to motorists pursuant to a collateral contract which could be regarded as forming a single economic transaction along with the supply of fuel. Moreover, it was contended that consideration was provided for the supply of the redemption goods.9. The supply of fuel and the supply of the redemption goods constituted two interdependent contracts. The payment made for the fuel under the first contract included payment for the later supply of the redemption goods. Where Kuwait was not the retailer of the fuel, it was contended that the part of the payment for fuel to the dealer made in return for obtaining rights against Kuwait was the additional UK 0.22 pence/UK 0.33 pence per litre (plus VAT) which the participating dealers paid Kuwait for that fuel.10.

13

The Commissioners submitted that the two stages by which the customer obtained the gifts had to be analysed separately. Relying upon Boots v Commissioners of Customs & Excise,11. they submitted that the notion of ‘consideration’ requires the grant of some advantage or economic benefit which cannot consist merely of increased turnover. In this case the customer had no choice but to pay the price demanded for the petrol; he could not demand a better price on condition that the right to receive stamps would be waived. Thus, if any consideration had been paid, it was of a non-monetary kind. The

Commissioners contended that, under Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive, the giving of gifts, even for business purposes, is subject to VAT, unless the gifts concerned are ‘of small value’. Furthermore, the amount paid by the dealers to Kuwait in respect of the redemption goods was paid in order to participate in the sails scheme and, ergo, not as a contribution towards the goods supplied to their customers.

14

The Tribunal has decided, as a matter of national law, that the promotion involves the provision of the stamps pursuant to a unilateral offer separate from the principal transaction, namely the supply of petrol. That unilateral offer was transformed into a binding contract when the motorist handed in the requisite number of completed cards to obtain a gift item and complied with the other conditions of the scheme. However, referring, in particular, to the Boots case, it recognises that the concept of consideration for the purposes of Community VAT law differs from that applied in English contract law. The Tribunal takes the provisional view that the stamps were ‘obtained ‘free of charge’’, since the motorist, in paying the pump price, did not make ‘a part payment towards the possible ultimate acquisition of a gift item’. Nevertheless, conscious that this view might be incompatible with the Sixth Directive, it decided to refer the following questions to the Court:

‘Where a supplier of goods operates a business promotion scheme, under which, in outline:

(i)

the promoter provided redemption goods for business purposes in accordance with the terms of the scheme;

(ii)

for no payment in money at the point of redemption;

(iii)

against the redemption of vouchers to which a purchaser of premium goods became entitled by paying the full retail price of those goods without making any identifiable monetary payment for the vouchers;

(1)

Is the expression ‘price discounts and rebates allowed to the customer and accounted for at the time of supply’ in Article 11A(3)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive to be interpreted to cover the whole cost of the redemption goods?

(2)

Are the redemption goods to be treated as ‘supplies made for consideration’ for the purposes of Article 5(6) of that Directive?

(3)

If the redemption goods are provided otherwise than for consideration or ‘free of charge’, is Article 5(6) to be interpreted as requiring that the provision of the redemption goods be treated as a supply for consideration notwithstanding that such provision is for business purposes?

(4)

Do any of the foregoing questions require a different answer:

(a)

where all the vouchers redeemed for any item of redemption goods were obtained on purchases of premium goods from the promoter of the scheme;

(b)

where those vouchers were all obtained on purchases of premium goods from a trader who was a participating dealer in the scheme; or

(c)

where the vouchers redeemed were obtained partly on purchases of premium goods from the promoter and partly on purchases of premium goods from one or more participating dealers?

(5)

If the answer to Question 3 is ‘No’, is the United Kingdom entitled pursuant to Article 27 of the Sixth Council Directive and under the derogation obtained by it in 1977 to impose an output tax charge on the promoter which is based on the cost to the promoter of the redemption goods in addition to the output tax included in the full retail price of the premium goods?’

II — Observations submitted to the Court

15

Written observations have been submitted by Kuwait, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the French and Portuguese Republics and the Commission, all of whom, with the exception of Portugal, also submitted oral observations. They may be summarised as follows.

16

Kuwait, supported by the Commission, submits that Article 5(6) cannot apply because the redemption goods at issue were supplied for consideration. Furthermore, they both contend that the United Kingdom may not rely on a derogation under Article 27(1) to subject such supplies to a charge to VAT. The intervening Member States are unanimous as to the absence of consideration for the supply of the redemption goods. They contend that their supply should be subject to VAT calculated on the taxable amount prescribed by Article 11A(1)(b), to wit the costs of purchasing the redemption goods. If consideration were given for the redemption goods, the United Kingdom maintains that it could, none the less, subject their supply to VAT on the basis of a derogation which it enjoys under Article 27(5) of the Sixth Directive.

III — Analysis

A — Question 1 and discounts under Article 11A(3)(b)

17

It emerges, as much from the order for reference as from the observations submitted to the Court, that the first question, by which the Court is asked whether

a price discount for the purposes of Article 11A(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive can be said to arise when the ‘discount’ covers the whole cost of supplying redemption goods, does not actually arise to be considered in the present case. As Kuwait, the United Kingdom, France and Portugal point out, no purchase price for the redemption goods at issue existed and, thus, no discount or rebate was allowed. The interpretation of Article 5(6) is more pertinent to the facts of this case. Consequently, I suggest that the first question be answered to the effect that there is no discount for the purposes of Article 11A(1)(b) in a scheme such as the sails promotion scheme.

B — Outline of Questions 2 to 5

18

The remaining questions essentially raise three issues. Firstly, are the supplies by Kuwait of the redemption goods to be ‘treated as supplies made for consideration’ by virtue of Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive? Secondly, should Kuwait be treated as having received consideration in the form of the purchase of fuel by motorists at Kuwait-owned or dealer-owned stations? Thirdly, in the event that the answers to the first two questions result in these supplies not being taxed, is the United Kingdom none the less entitled, by virtue of Article 27 of the Sixth Directive, to tax them on the cost price of the redemption goods? I propose to deal with the questions in that order.

C — Question 3 and the scope of Article 5(6)

19

The Tribunal has found that ‘the purposes of the promotion, both for [Kuwait] and the participating dealers’ were ‘to restore and maintain the volume of sales of Q8 fuel in a very competitive market by being able to offer a loyalty bonus’. It is therefore clear that, for the purposes of Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive, the supply of the redemption goods was made for business purposes. The question that arises is whether, notwithstanding that purpose, the gratuitous nature of the supply renders Article 5(6) applicable.12.

20

The finding that the supplies were made for business purposes by no means concludes the matter. There is profound disagreement as to whether Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive is designed to tax so-called ‘free gift’ promotions where the purchase of those gifts was subjected to VAT and the taxpayer proposes to deduct the inputs while wishing not to pay tax on the supplies.

21

Kuwait invokes Article 2 of the First Directive, claiming that VAT is a tax on final consumption. Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive is designed to ensure that taxable persons do not take unfair advantage by avoiding tax on self-consumption. Article 6(2)(b) clearly would not tax equivalent supplies of services.

22

This last point is, however, cited a contrario by the United Kingdom as showing the intent of the Sixth Directive to treat goods differently from services. Furthermore, with the support of France and, in this respect, of the Commission, it makes two points about the wording of Article 5(6). Firstly, that provision applies to any ‘disposal … free of charge’; i.e., that expression is clearly to be read disjunctively and is not governed by the ensuing phrase, ‘more generally for purposes other than his business …’. Secondly, the exclusion by the second sentence of ‘the making of gifts of small value for the purposes of the taxable person's business’ strongly implies that gifts not of ‘small value’ are not excluded.

23

I confess that the interpretation of Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive cannot be entirely free from doubt. It is necessary to have regard both to the wording and the general content of that provision. The first sentence is, on the one hand, principally designed, as Kuwait says, to tax the self-supply of business goods — for instance, the retailer who supplies his household from his shop. None the less, the expression ‘disposal thereof free of charge …’ is, in grammatical terms, capable of a disjunctive reading. Taken alone, the first sentence is ambiguous. However, two other textual considerations seem to me to tilt the balance decisively in favour of the disjunctive treatment.

24

Firstly, the provision in the second sentence that ‘the making of gifts of small value’ even for business purposes should not be treated as supplies made for consideration would make no sense if those gifts were to be so treated in any event. The word ‘however’ highlights the distinction between first and second sentences.

25

Secondly, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the contrasting treatment of services by Article 6(2)(b) of the Sixth Directive is deliberate. Without wishing to speculate, I suggest that among the obvious differences between goods and services is that services do not lend themselves, at least not so readily, to free promotion schemes. The more significant labour content would presumably reduce capacity for mass supply of free services. Thus, it seems likely that the disparity in the wording of the two provisions was deliberate.13.

26

I would draw further support for this view from the legislative history of Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive cited by the United Kingdom in its written observations. Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive replaced Article 5(3)(a) of the Second Directive, under which ‘the use for the needs of his undertaking, by a taxable person, of goods which he applies to his own private use or transfers free of charge’ were to be ‘treated as a supply against payment’ and, ergo, taxable. It should be noted that under point 6 of Annex A to the Second Directive, Member States were permitted, as an alternative to taxing such supplies, to ‘forbid’ the exercise of the right of deduction or, if a deduction had already been effected, to ‘adjust it’. It is, thus, clear that the authors of the Second Directive were concerned that goods obtained by taxable persons in circumstances giving rise to a right to claim a deduction should not be capable of being supplied free of charge without the imposition of a corresponding charge to VAT. This objective was maintained in the Commission's proposal for the Sixth Directive.14. Under the first sentence of Article 5(3)(a) of that proposal, ‘… applications by a taxable person of goods forming part of his business assets to his own personal use or that of his staff or the disposal thereof free of charge, where the value added tax on the goods in question or the component parts thereof is wholly or partly deductible’ were to be treated as supplies made for consideration. Thus, apart from the absence of any reference to cases where a disposal free of charge is made for business purposes, the proposal was very similar to the final text (quoted in paragraph 7 above). Moreover, the second sentence of the proposed provision was also almost identical to the text finally adopted. Accordingly, ‘applications for the purposes of … making gifts of small value, eligible for classification as general expenses giving tax relief, [were not] to be considered as taxable transactions’.

27

I think that the imposition of tax on ‘free gift’ promotions, where the sails scheme at issue is not so structured that the ‘gift’ is so closely linked with another supply as to be made for the same consideration as that supply, is consistent with the purpose of the VAT system as a tax on the final consumer. No doubt Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive is most obviously aimed at cases of self-supply of goods by taxable persons. A brief reflection shows why. The goods will have been supplied to the taxable person as part of his business and he will be able to deduct the input VAT. If he did not pay tax on his personal or household consumption of them, he, though acting as a consumer, would not pay any VAT. In the same way, where an undertaking like Kuwait supplies goods free of charge, having deducted the input VAT, the same result is achieved. It is not wrong or contrary to the logic of the VAT system, in that situation, to treat Kuwait as the consumer of the goods.

28

That a taxable person may pursue through a discount scheme the same business purpose as that pursued by promotion schemes such as that at issue in the present case, viz. the promotion of sales, but without being subject to an additional charge to VAT based on the full cost price of acquiring redemption goods, cannot affect the above interpretation of Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive. The authors of the Sixth Directive, through Article 11A(3)(b), clearly excluded ‘price discounts and rebates allowed to the customer’ from the calculation of the taxable amount for VAT purposes, subject only to the condition that they be ‘accounted for at the time of supply’. Although it is arguable that ‘discounts’ of 100% would fall outside the scope of Article 11A(3)(b) and, furthermore, that very large discounts of the type envisaged by the Tribunal in explaining the reference of its first question, whereby the customer is merely required to pay a token amount for goods supplied to him, should, having regard to the provisions of Article 5(6), be treated as potential tax-avoidance devices, no such discount is at issue in the present case. Kuwait has not sought to structure its scheme so as to give discounts to its customers on the supply of redemption goods. On the contrary, its principal argument is that consideration is provided for those supplies as part of the price paid at the pump.

29

Accordingly, I recommend that the second question be answered to the effect that Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive requires that a provision, free of charge, of redemption goods under a sales promotion scheme such as that at issue in the present case be treated as a supply for consideration, notwithstanding that such a provision is for business purposes.

D — Question 2 and consideration for the redemption goods

(i) Synopsis of the observations
30

Kuwait contests the approach of the Tribunal in divorcing the previous supply of the premium goods (fuel) from the later supply of the redemption goods.15. Supported by the Commission, it contends that, in the case of redemption goods provided in exchange for stamps obtained from its own sites, the

consideration for supply of the goods constitutes an unascertained part of the VAT-inclusive price paid by the motorist for the stamps and the fuel. If the consumer chose not to accept the stamps, he was opting not to avail of a right that he had paid for. In support of this contention, it relies, in particular, on the Court's judgment in Gibbs16. while asserting that the Commissioners' reliance on Boots is misconceived. Kuwait repeats its argument before the Tribunal that the sale of the fuel with the stamps forms part of the same single economic transaction as the supply of the redemption goods.

31

Kuwait submits that this analysis also applies with respect to stamps supplied by dealers. In its view, the involvement of dealers should not affect the application of the Community VAT law principle of neutrality. It refers particularly to paragraph 28 of the judgment in Gibbs and contends that the operation of the scheme imposed no additional burden on independent participating dealers; they, in effect, paid Kuwait an extra UK 0.22 pence/UK 0.33 pence per litre, plus VAT, for supplies of fuel in return for which they received a supply of stamps. Since the dealers may deduct that additional VAT-input component from the VAT tax due on the subsequent supply of the fuel and stamps to their customers, the economic effect on the dealers is neutral. Alternatively, Kuwait submits that independent dealers acted as its agents in respect of the supply of the stamps. On this analysis, part of the retail price constitutes consideration for the supply by the participating dealer, acting on its own behalf, of fuel while the remainder (UK 0.22 pence or UK 0.33 pence per litre) is consideration for the supply by it, as agent of Kuwait, of the stamps.

32

The United Kingdom disagrees, saying that there was but one pump price for each grade of fuel. The stamps were issued, like the coupons in Boots, for no consideration; however, the subsequent supply of the redemption goods was free of charge, whereas the coupons issued by Boots served directly as discounts off the price of the goods subsequently purchased. At the hearing, it was claimed that the very rationale of promotions such as that at issue in the present case is that the customer should receive something without being required to pay anything in return. The simple fact that Kuwait incurred costs in operating the scheme does not affect the question whether consideration was provided. Consideration is what is received by the taxable person for the supply. In this case, it cannot be viewed as an unascertained part of the purchase price paid by motorists; the motorist merely paid for the fuel while also receiving stamps, without, as in Empire Stores, providing any additional consideration to Kuwait for those stamps. The United Kingdom, thus, does not accept that the supply of fuel and the later supply of redemption goods constituted a single economic transaction. It submits that the additional UK 0.22 pence/UK 0.33 pence per litre was paid to Kuwait by the dealers for fuel in return for the right to participate in the promotion and the

resulting opportunity of increasing their own turnover. It did not constitute third-party consideration provided by dealers to Kuwait in respect of the supply of redemption goods, since the payment had no ‘direct link’ with the delivery of redemption goods by Kuwait. These arguments are essentially supported by France and Portugal.

(ii) Analysis
33

The divergent views concerning whether Kuwait received consideration for the redemption goods depend essentially on whether the sale of fuel with stamps and the subsequent supply of redemption goods for the surrender of stamps constitute a single economic transaction, as claimed by Kuwait, or whether, as alleged in particular by the United Kingdom and France, no discernible distinct consideration can be identified.

34

This issue has to be resolved by reference to the autonomous Community-law notion of consideration, as explained in ‘Dutch Potatoes’ and applied in the later case-law.17. The Court held that there must be ‘a direct link between the service provided and the consideration received’, that ‘consideration for the provision of a service must be capable of being expressed in money’ and that ‘such consideration is a subjective value since the basis of assessment for the provision of services is the consideration actually received and not a value assessed according to objective criteria’.18. In the present case, then, the question is whether there was a ‘direct link’ between the supply of the redemption goods and the purchase of fuel by motorists who received stamps.

35

No direct link was held to exist in ‘Dutch Potatoes’ itself, between the gratuitous storage by an agricultural co-operative of potatoes for its members and the reduced value of the members' shares in the co-operative. Similarly, when the Apple and Pear Development Council, a statutory body, imposed an annual charge upon growers, there was no direct link between the Council's activities and that charge.19.

36

In Tolsma v Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting, which concerned whether the receipts from passers-by by a musician who performed on public highways could be viewed as consideration for services provided to them, the Court ruled that a

supply of services is effected ‘for consideration’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive, and hence is taxable, only if there is ‘a legal relationship between the provider of the service and the recipient pursuant to which there is reciprocal performance, the remuneration received by the provider of the service constituting the value actually given in return for the service supplied to the recipient’.20. The Court, motivated largely by the voluntary nature of the donations made to such musicians, found that there was ‘no necessary link between the musical service and the payments to which it gives rise’.21.

37

In Naturally Yours Cosmetics, on the other hand, the issue for the Court was whether there was a direct link between the supply of goods by a wholesaler (Naturally Yours Ltd) for a price lower than their normal price and the value of a service provided to it in respect of such transactions; i.e., between the supply of low-cost ‘dating gifts’ to private hostesses and the party-organisation service provided by beauty consultants through the hostesses for the purposes of promoting sales of the wholesaler's cosmetics.22. The Court held that such a link was possible since the monetary value which the wholesaler and the beauty consultants to the contract attributed to the service was ascertainable, namely the difference between the price actually paid for the dating gift by hostesses and its normal wholesale price. Similarly, in Empire Stores, the issue was whether private individuals, who introduced themselves or third parties as new customers to Empire Stores, a mail order firm, under, respectively, a ‘self-introduction scheme’ and an ‘introduce-a-friend scheme’, provided non-monetary consideration for the supply of certain additional goods (the ‘non-catalogue goods’) to them without charge by Empire Stores. The Court held, without distinguishing between the schemes, that ‘the supply of the article without extra charge is made in consideration of the introduction of a potential new customer’.23. The Court held, in respect of both schemes, that the link between ‘the supply of the article without extra charge and the introduction of a potential customer must be regarded as direct, since if the service is not provided no article is due from or supplied by Empire Stores’.24.

38

It appears to me that the most useful point of reference for the resolution of the present case is Boots. Money-off coupons were distributed as part of

promotions absolutely free, viz. either by means of cut-out coupons in newspapers or magazines, or by the free distribution of leaflets, or as coupons printed on the packaging of ‘premium goods’ purchased in Boots outlets, which created an entitlement to a price reduction equal to their face value on later purchases of ‘redemption goods’. Only the latter aspect of the case was in dispute. Boots had been assessed for VAT on the face value of the coupons. Although the case was formally concerned with an alleged discount, the core issue was whether, as the United Kingdom asserted in Boots, the reduction on purchases of redemption goods was allowed ‘in exchange for the coupon which has value’;25. in other words, did the purchaser in the second transaction by surrendering coupons provide consideration equal to the face value of the coupon? Boots was, thus, in effect a price-reduction case. The Court stated that the coupons at issue ‘represent[ed] for Boots only an obligation to grant a reduction, which is allowed with the aim of attracting the customer’; the coupons were ‘not obtained by the purchaser for consideration’ and constituted ‘nothing other than a document incorporating the obligation assumed by Boots to allow the bearer of the coupon, in exchange for it, a reduction at the time of the purchase of the redemption goods’.26.

39

The supply of redemption goods under the sails scheme is not, in my view, made for consideration as explained in the abovementioned cases.

40

I do not think that it is possible to establish the necessary direct link between the supply of redemption goods and any identifiable element in the price paid for fuel at the pumps, even acknowledging that each motorist is entitled to demand stamps in proportion to his purchases, or at least every 12-litre unit of fuel purchased. It is apparent from cases such as Naturally Yours Cosmetics, Empire Stores and Boots that the scheme at issue created its own identifiable link, both qualitatively and quantitatively. If the sails scheme had entitled the motorist to a given reduction or even, for example, the supply of a litre of fuel free for every 50 litres purchased, there would have been a straightforward reduction in the price of the fuel supplied, akin to that in Boots. No link of the kind which arose in Naturally Yours Cosmetics and Empire Stores arises in this case.

41

However, there are two other decisive considerations. Firstly, it is acknowledged that a significant proportion of the stamps to which motorists are

entitled are not claimed or, if they are, that they are not always used to claim redemption goods. Kuwait's claim is that the price, ostensibly paid for fuel both at Kuwait-owned and independent sites, is actually paid in part only for fuel, the remaining part being paid for redemption goods. Thus, the motorists who do not claim stamps or goods are paying, pro tanto, for nothing. On that view, Kuwait, or the independent retailers, should pay VAT, calculated by reference to the amount received for the sale of the fuel, but reduced by the amount of the stamps not claimed or used. That result, though logical, is too theoretical and unreal. The Commission refers, in support of Kuwait's analysis, by analogy to the purchase of a theatre ticket that is subsequently not used. To my mind, when someone purchases a theatre ticket he manifestly provides consideration for the reservation of a seat in respect of an artistic performance service to be provided later. That he may, for one reason or another, be unable to attend the subsequent performance is irrelevant.

42

Secondly and more seriously, it seems to me impossible to adapt Kuwait's theory of the single economic transaction to take account of the proportion of the sales of fuel which took place through the dealers. The proposed allocation of the contribution paid by the dealers to Kuwait (UK 0.22 pence or UK 0.33 pence per litre) to the price paid by the motorist at the pumps is entirely arbitrary. It bears no relationship either to the actual price paid by the consumer — who has no interest in the cost of the sails scheme — or even to the price of the redemption goods. This, of course, is the result of the impossibility of fitting the intermediate transaction between Kuwait and the dealer into the framework of a supposed single economic transaction between Kuwait and the consumer. In fact, it exposes the weakness of the argument. Moreover, as is implied by paragraph (c) of the fourth question, it is not even possible to segregate the two types of transactions. There was no way of distinguishing those stamps received at dealer-operated sites from those supplied directly by Kuwait.

43

In reality, it is not possible to treat as a single economic transaction a series of events consisting of two distinct transactions; sale of fuel coupled with the supply of stamps and the subsequent supply of redemption goods for those stamps. This applies a fortiori when, in addition to the above events, the sale of fuel to an independent dealer and the latter's participation in the sails scheme must also be considered. Although it may sometimes be necessary to determine whether a number of distinct transactions may, for VAT purposes, be treated as constituting one single transaction,27. I agree with the United Kingdom that the approach in cases like Skatteministeriet v Henriksen is not of general application.28. In the present case, as Kuwait accepted at the hearing, a number of transactions are

involved. At a minimum, the sale of fuel and the supply of the redemption goods were separable not only in time but as to subject-matter. Where the sails scheme is operated by a dealer, yet another transaction occurs.

44

I cannot pretend that it is easy to extract from the case-law a completely coherent set of rules which it is possible to apply with total confidence to every promotion scheme devised by the ingenuity of commerce. The Court has been asked to give rulings of principle on a wide variety of schemes which, in reality, it has had to judge on an ad hoc basis. In particular, there are elements in some recent decisions which tend to support at least some aspects of Kuwait's case. Kuwait has placed considerable reliance on Gibbs. 29. It concerned a manufacturer's (Elida Gibbs) sales promotion scheme for the distribution of two types of coupons; money-off coupons distributed both generally to the public, via newspapers and the like, and via retailers, and cash-back coupons, distributed by simply printing them on the packaging of its products. Redemption of the money-off coupons occurred through the customer, on buying one of the products specified on the coupon, presenting it to the retailer, who subtracted the face value of the coupon from the shelf price of the article in question and who would normally later be reimbursed by Elida Gibbs. Conversely, the cash-back coupons were to be sent directly to Elida Gibbs by the consumers and the former would then make a direct cash refund for the same value to the consumer, a procedure which did not involve either wholesalers or retailers at all and these traders were as unaware of which of their customers made these claims as Elida Gibbs was of which retailer had sold the product. Thus, the cash refund could never be accounted for as between Elida Gibbs and the rest of the distribution chain. However, Elida Gibbs claimed that it was due a refund of the VAT paid on the part of its sales that was represented by the face value of the coupons, since they represented ‘a retroactive discount’ on the consideration originally received by it.30. The Court identified the basic principle of the VAT system as being that VAT should only affect the final consumer and, consequently, that the taxable amount ‘cannot exceed the consideration actually paid by the final consumer’.31. In respect of a manufacturer who, like Elida Gibbs, refunds the value of money-off or cash-back coupons to final consumers, the significance of this principle is that the consideration received is ‘a sum corresponding to the sale price paid by the wholesalers or retailers for his goods, less the value of those coupons’; in other words, his taxable amount cannot ‘exceed the sum finally received by him’.32. The

Court held in Gibbs that the absence of a‘contractual relationship with the final consumer’ could not affect the application of the neutrality principle.33.

45

Argos34. concerned a well-known United Kingdom catalogue retailer which typically supplies goods at its various outlets for cash or in return for face-value vouchers sold previously by it, though often at a discount on their face value.35. The issue in the Argos case was whether Argos was entitled to reduce its taxable amount, in respect of retail sales at its outlets, by reference to the bulk-purchase or other discounts allowed by it on the earlier sale of its vouchers in different transactions and (normally) to different parties from those subsequently presenting the vouchers at its outlets. The Court held that it was even though the purchaser was typically completely unaware of any such discount. It explained that ‘[s]ince Argos regards the voucher as representing such part of the catalogue price as is equal to its face value, the only question is as to the actual money equivalent of the voucher taken in payment by Argos’,36. an amount which had to be ascertained by having regard ‘only to the transaction which is relevant in that regard, namely the initial transaction concerning the sale of the voucher, at a discount or otherwise’.37. The buyer's ignorance in the second transaction of this amount was treated as being irrelevant.

46

The common element in these cases is the willingness of the Court to take a broad and flexible approach to the ascertainment of the ‘subjective value’ of the consideration actually received, namely the amount actually received by the supplier. The disposition to disregard the contractual relationship between supplier and purchaser extended only to that purpose. In each case, it was the subjective value and not the fact of consideration that was at issue. Neither of these cases resorts to the device of a ‘single economic transaction’ invoked by Kuwait in the present case. In Argos, in particular, the Court was at pains to distinguish two transactions.38.

47

Similarly, in Empire Stores, which has some elements in common with the present case (see paragraph 37 above), the Court was asked whether the supply, in that case, of the non-catalogue goods was made for a consideration separate from the money payable to the supplier for the catalogue goods ordered from him. The Court identified the services involved in the introduction of a new customer as constituting a separate consideration for the supply of the non-catalogue goods. It was satisfied the value of those services provided to Empire Stores could ‘unquestionably be expressed in monetary terms’, which, since it was of a non-monetary nature, should be regarded as ‘the value which the recipient of the services … attributes to the services which he is seeking to obtain and must correspond to the amount which he is prepared to spend for that purpose’.39. Where that amount involves the supply of goods, as in Empire Stores, the Court held that ‘that value can only be the price which the supplier has paid for the article which he is supplying without extra charge in consideration of the services in question’.40. In the present case, Kuwait receives no services or other advantages of any kind from motorists filling their vehicles with Q8 fuel apart from the price paid at the pump which, as far as its customers are concerned, is paid only in respect of the stated price of the fuel.

48

Finally, I do not think that the neutrality principle, as construed by the Court in Gibbs, assists Kuwait in identifying a consideration in the present case. That principle is concerned with ensuring that VAT, as a tax on consumption, is paid only by the final consumer. In Gibbs, the Court was concerned that the reduction in the consideration paid by the final consumer, which it regarded as occurring as a result of the use by that consumer of the coupons issued by Elida Gibbs, should be reflected in the latter's VAT return, since, otherwise, it would bear the burden of the VAT included in the portion of the final retail price effectively not paid by the final consumer as a result of the redemption of the coupons. In the instant case, apart from the fact that under the interpretation of Article 5(6) which I propose (see paragraphs 23 to 29 above), it is Kuwait which should be deemed to be the final consumer of the redemption goods, I do not accept that the neutrality principle is infringed by requiring a taxable person, who has been permitted to deduct the VAT included in the purchase price of certain goods, to account for that VAT, by way of a VAT output, when those goods are subsequently supplied free of charge, or in circumstances where it is impossible to identify with sufficient clarity a separate consideration.

49

Accordingly, I believe that the second question posed by the national court should be answered to the effect that, in a case where the supplier of fuel, both at its own retail outlets and at those operated by independent retailers, operates a promotion scheme consisting of stamps which can be collected by consumers at both types of retail outlets and used in order to claim goods from catalogues

published by the supplier, the price paid by the consumer for fuel does not include consideration for the supply of those goods.

E — Question 5

50

In the light of the answers which I propose in respect of the first four questions, I do not consider it necessary to address the fifth question.

IV — Conclusion

Accordingly, I recommend that the Court answer the first three questions referred by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London as follows:

For the purposes of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment; where a supplier of goods operates a business promotion scheme, under which, in outline:

(i)

the promoter provided redemption goods for business purposes in accordance with the terms of the scheme;

(ii)

for no payment in money at the point of redemption;

(iii)

against the redemption of vouchers to which a purchaser of premium goods became entitled by paying the full retail price of those goods without making any identifiable monetary payment for the vouchers;

(1)

There is no price discount allowed to the customer for the purposes of Article 11A(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive;

(2)

Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive is to be interpreted as requiring that a provision, free of charge, of redemption goods under a sales promotion scheme such as that at issue in the present case be treated as a supply for consideration, notwithstanding that such a provision is for business purposes;

(3)

In a case where the supplier of fuel, both at its own retail outlets and at those operated by independent retailers, operates a promotion scheme consisting of stamps which can be collected by consumers at both types of retail outlets and used in order to claim goods from catalogues published by the supplier, the price paid by the consumer for fuel does not include consideration for the supply of those goods.

Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.