Case Law

When following a reservation, the hotelier provides the agreed service; he does no more than honour the contract entered into with his client. If the client fails to appear for his reservation, and forfeits his deposit, no service is supplied by the hotelier and therefore the deposit retained by the hotelier is not within the charge to VAT. Société thermale d’Eugénie-les-Bains v Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie Case C-277/05

The ECJ ruled that the taxable amount for VAT purposes was the full amount payable by the purchaser even though part of the payment went to the finance house who supplied credit for the purchase. Commissioners of Customs & Excise v Primback Ltd Case C-34/99

High Court held that the VAT Scheme for Retailers was based on sales and not on purchases and therefore the excise duty is part of the sales price and should be classified at the appropriate VAT rate. Burke & Sons Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners, Ireland and the Attorney General 1997 V ITR 418

Kuwait Petroleum (GB) Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise Case C-48/97 considered whether the supply of goods in exchange for vouchers given with the purchase of fuel was a ‘supply for consideration’. ECJ held that the goods were being supplied free of charge and therefore, not for 'consideration'.

ECJ ruled that the taxable amount is the selling price less the amount indicated on the voucher and refunded. Elida Gibbs Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Case C-317/94

Held that when a supplier sold a voucher at a discount and promised subsequently to accept that voucher at face value or part payment of the price of goods purchased by a customer, then the consideration represented by the voucher is the sum actually received by the supplier on the sale of the voucher. Argos Distributors Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Case C-288/94

The amount on which tax is chargeable is the actual amount the supplier is entitled to receive. Boots Company plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Case C-126/88

ECJ held that the VAT system is concerned principally with objective effects, whatever the intentions of the taxable person may be. Also, ECJ ruled that in order to deal with differing economic situations, different treatment may be allowed in so far as it is justified by objective circumstances. Direct Cosmetics Ltd and Laughton Photographs Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Cases C-138/86 and C-139/86

ECJ held that Member States are bound to observe all the provisions of the Sixth Directive in so far as derogation has not been established in accordance with Article 27, including notifiction of derogations to the EU Commission. Direct Cosmetics Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Case C-5/84

The issue under appeal was whether volume-based discounts/rebate payments constitute a reduction in consideration received by the Appellant in the supply of a medical product to private health insurance companies, and consequently, whether relief for a refund of VAT is available under section 39 VATCA 2010. 95TACD2021