A company made arrangements for finance for its customers to purchase products at an apparent zero rate of interest. In fact the finance company deducted an undisclosed commission before forwarding payment to the shop. The shop wanted to pay VAT only on the amount it received. It was held to be liable on the amount paid by the consumer. The taxable amount was the consideration, and the consideration was the amount paid by the customer. The deduction was by way of set off under a different, parallel contract. It was necessary to achieve parity between different kinds of transactions as seen by the purchaser. The determining factor is ‘the existence of an agreement between the parties for reciprocal performance, the payment received by the one, being the real and effective counter-value for the goods furnished to the other’.
Judges:
Advocate General Alber
Citations:
Times 08-Jun-2001, [2001] CEC 132, [2001] STC ECJ 803, [2001] EUECJ C-34/99, [2001] STC 803, [2001] BTC 5240, [2001] BVC 315, [2001] ECR I-3833, [2001] 1 WLR 1693, [2001] All ER (EC) 714, [2001] 2 CMLR 42, [2001] STI 835
Links:
Statutes:
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of laws relating to turnover taxes
Jurisdiction:
European
Citing:
Reference from – Primback Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 30-Apr-1996
A retailer giving a discount was liable for Vat only on the discounted finance price, not on the full retail price. . .
At QBD – Primback Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners QBD 12-Sep-1994
An undisclosed discount for interest free credit given by a retailer was not allowable, and VAT was payable on the full amount. . .
Cited by:
Referred to – Primback Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 30-Apr-1996
A retailer giving a discount was liable for Vat only on the discounted finance price, not on the full retail price. . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v DFS Furniture Company Plc ChD 16-Apr-2003
The Commissioners had been ordered to repay VAT to the taxpayer. A subsequent decision of the ECJ meant that the sum should have been repaid to the Commissioners. The taxpayer now alleged that the commissioners were out of the two year maximum time . .
Cited – DFS Furniture Company Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 16-Mar-2004
The taxpayers said that the Commissioners’ assessment to VAT was out of time, and appealed a finding that it was not. They said that time should run from the point at which the Commissioners knew the facts upon which the assessment was based. The . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Debenhams Retail Plc CA 18-Jul-2005
The store introduced a system whereby when a customer paid by credit card, the charges made to them for card handling were expressed as a separate amount on the receipt. The store then said that VAT was payable only on the net amount allocated to . .
Cited – Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 11-May-2016
The court was asked whether the appellant, Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd (formerly MyTravel Group plc), was entitled to recover, by way of input tax VAT charged by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in respect of services provided by PwC and paid for by . .
Cited – Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 11-May-2016
The court was asked whether the appellant, Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd (formerly MyTravel Group plc), was entitled to recover, by way of input tax VAT charged by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in respect of services provided by PwC and paid for by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
VAT
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162741