CELEX: 62004CJ0041
Sixth VAT Directive
Articles 2, 5, 6 and 9
Transfer of software recorded on a carrier
Subsequent customisation of the software to the purchaser's specific requirements
Single taxable supply
Supply of services
Place of supply

1       The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 2(1), 5(1), 6(1) and 9 of 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1; ‘the Sixth Directive’).
2       The reference was made in the course of proceedings between the tax entity Levob Verzekeringen BV and OV Bank NV (‘Levob’)
and the Staatssecretaris van Financïen (Secretary of State for Finance) concerning payment of value added tax (‘VAT’) on various
transactions, including the acquisition of software, its subsequent customisation to Levob’s requirements, its installation
and training of Levob’s staff in its use.

Legal context
3       Article 2 of the Sixth Directive provides:
‘The following shall be subject to [VAT]:
1.      the supply of goods or services effected for consideration within the territory of the country by a taxable person acting
as such;
2.      the importation of goods.’
4       Under Article 5(1) of the Sixth Directive, ‘“[s]upply of goods” shall mean the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible
property as owner’.
5       According to Article 6(1) of that directive:
‘“Supply of services” shall mean any transaction which does not constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article
5.
…’
6       Article 9 of the Sixth Directive states:
‘1. The place where a service is supplied shall be deemed to be the place where the supplier has established his business
or has a fixed establishment from which the service is supplied ...
2. However:
…
(e)      the place where the following services are supplied when performed for customers established outside the Community or for
taxable persons established in the Community but not in the same country as the supplier, shall be the place where the customer
has established his business or has a fixed establishment to which the service is supplied or, in the absence of such a place,
the place where he has his permanent address or usually resides:
–      …
–      …
–      services of consultants, engineers, consultancy bureaux, lawyers, accountants and other similar services, as well as data
processing and the supplying of information,
…’

The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
7       Levob, established in Amersfoort (Netherlands), operates an insurance business.  On 2 October 1997, it entered into a contract
(‘the contract’) with Financial Data Planning Corporation (‘FDP’), a company established in the United States.
8       Under the contract, FDP undertook to provide Levob with a computer programme which it markets to insurance companies in the
United States (‘the basic software’).  A non-transferable licence of unlimited duration was granted to Levob on that software
in consideration of a fee of USD 713 000, USD 101 000 of which was payable upon signature of the contract and the balance
by 17 monthly instalments of USD 36 000.  The amount of the fee was to be invoiced separately from the other amounts payable
under the contract.  The contract also specified that the licence would start in the United States, Levob acting as importer
of the product into the Netherlands.
9       The national court points out in that regard that the data carriers with the basic software were indeed handed over by FDP
to Levob in the United States and that they were subsequently taken into the Netherlands by Levob employees.
10     The contract further stipulated that FDP would customise the basic software in order to enable Levob to use it in the management
of the insurance contracts which it sells.  It was essentially a question of transposing the programme into Dutch and modifying
it as required by the fact that, in the Netherlands, agents are involved in such insurance contracts.  The price of that customisation,
on the basis of the definitive specifications to be determined by the parties during performance of the contract, was to be
no less than USD 793 000 and no more than USD 970 000.
11     In addition, FDP undertook to install the basic software and customise it on Levob’s computer system and to give five days’
training to Levob’s staff, for two payments of USD 7 500.  Finally, the contract also stipulated that the customised software
would be subject to a general acceptance test between the parties.
12     The customisation of the basic software, its installation and the agreed training took place between 1997 and 1999.
13     Levob did not state the amounts paid for the basic software in its VAT declarations.  On 25 January 2000, it asked the tax
authorities to issue notices of assessment a posteriori with regard to the amounts paid in respect of the customisation of
that software, its installation and the training given by FDP.
14     Taking the view that the service supplied by FDP consisted in a single supply relating to the customised software, those authorities
issued notices of assessment in respect of all the payments made by Levob under the contract.
15     Since the action brought by Levob before the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam was dismissed by a judgment of 31 December 2001, Levob
brought an appeal in cassation against that judgment before the referring court.  In support of its appeal Levob complains,
inter alia, that the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam found that the supply of the basic software and its customisation constituted
a single taxable transaction and that, furthermore, it classified that transaction as a ‘supply of services’.  According to
Levob, the supply of the basic software constitutes a supply of goods.
16     It was in those circumstances that the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden decided to stay the proceedings and to refer to the Court
the following questions for a preliminary ruling:
‘1(a) Are Article 2(1) and Article 5(1) of the Sixth Directive, in conjunction with Article 6(1) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning
that the acquisition of software, such as that in the present case and on terms such as those at issue in this dispute – whereby
separate payment is stipulated in respect of the basic software, recorded on a carrier, developed and put on the market by
the supplier, on the one hand, and the subsequent customisation thereof to meet the purchaser’s requirements, on the other
– must be regarded as a single supply?
(b)       If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, are these provisions to be interpreted as meaning that this supply
must be regarded as a service (of which the supply of the goods, namely the carriers, forms part)?
(c)       If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is Article 9 of the Sixth Directive (in the version in force until 6
May 2002) to be interpreted as meaning that this service is supplied at the place referred to in Article 9(1)?
(d)       If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, which part of Article 9(2) of the Sixth Directive is applicable?
2(a)  If the answer to Question 1a is in the negative, are the provisions referred to therein to be interpreted as meaning that
the provision of non-customised software on the carriers must be regarded as a supply of tangible property for which the agreed
separate price constitutes the consideration for the purposes of Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive?
(b)       If the answer to this question is in the negative, is Article 9 of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the
service is supplied at the place referred to in Article 9(1) or at one of the places referred to in Article 9(2)?
(c)       Does the same apply to the service consisting in the customisation of software as applies to the provision of the basic software?’

The questions

Question 1(a) and (b)
17     By Question 1(a) and (b), which should be dealt with together, the national court seeks to ascertain whether, for the purposes
of collecting VAT, the provision of standard software developed, put on the market and recorded on a carrier by the supplier
and the subsequent customisation thereof by the supplier to the purchaser’s requirements, in consideration of the payment
of separate prices, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are to be regarded as two distinct supplies
or as one single supply and, in the latter case, whether that single supply is to be classified as a supply of services.
18     As a preliminary point, it must be borne in mind that the question of the extent of a transaction is of particular importance,
for VAT purposes, both for identifying the place where the taxable transactions take place and for applying the rate of tax
or, where appropriate, the exemption provisions in the Sixth Directive (Case C‑349/96
CPP
[1999] ECR I‑973, paragraph 27).
19     According to the Court’s case-law, where a transaction comprises a bundle of features and acts, regard must be had to all
the circumstances in which the transaction in question takes place in order to determine, firstly, if there were two or more
distinct supplies or one single supply and, secondly, whether, in the latter case, that single supply is to be regarded as
a supply of services (see, to that effect, Case C‑231/94
Faaborg‑Gelting Linien
[1996] ECR I‑2395, paragraphs 12 to 14, and
CPP
, paragraphs 28 and 29).
20     Taking into account, firstly, that it follows from Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive that every transaction must normally
be regarded as distinct and independent and, secondly, that a transaction which comprises a single supply from an economic
point of view should not be artificially split, so as not to distort the functioning of the VAT system, the essential features
of the transaction must in the first place be ascertained in order to determine whether the taxable person is making to the
customer, being a typical consumer, several distinct principal supplies or a single supply (see, by analogy,
CPP
, paragraph 29).
21     In that regard, the Court has held that there is a single supply in particular in cases where one or more elements are to
be regarded as constituting the principal supply, whilst one or more elements are to be regarded, by contrast, as ancillary
supplies which share the tax treatment of the principal supply (
CPP
, cited above, paragraph 30, and Case C‑34/99
Primback
[2001] ECR I‑3833, paragraph 45).
22     The same is true where two or more elements or acts supplied by the taxable person to the customer, being a typical consumer,
are so closely linked that they form, objectively, a single, indivisible economic supply, which it would be artificial to
split.
23     In the context of the cooperation required by Article 234 EC, it is indeed for the national courts to determine whether such
is the situation in a particular case and to make all definitive findings of fact in that regard.  Nevertheless, it is for
the Court to provide the national courts with all the guidance as to the interpretation of Community law which may be of assistance
in adjudicating on the case pending before them.
24     With regard to the dispute in the main proceedings, it is apparent, as held by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam whose decision
was the subject of the appeal in cassation pending before the referring court, that the economic purpose of a transaction
such as that which took place between FDP and Levob is the supply, by a taxable person to a consumer, of functional software
specifically customised to that consumer’s requirements.  In that regard, and as the Netherlands Government has correctly
pointed out, it is not possible, without entering the realms of the artificial, to take the view that such a consumer has
purchased, from the same supplier, first, pre-existing software which, as it stood, was nevertheless of no use for the purposes
of its economic activity, and only subsequently the customisation, which alone made that software useful to it.
25     The fact, highlighted in the question, that separate prices were contractually stipulated for the supply of the basic software,
on the one hand, and for its customisation, on the other, is not of itself decisive.  Such a fact cannot affect the objective
close link which has just been shown with regard to that supply and that customisation nor the fact that they form part of
a single economic transaction (see, to that effect,
CPP
, paragraph 31).
26     It follows that Article 2 of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that such supply and such subsequent customisation
of software are, in principle, to be regarded as forming a single supply for VAT purposes.
27     Secondly, with regard to the question whether such a single complex supply is to be classified as a supply of services, it
is vital to identify the predominant elements of that supply (see, inter alia,
Faaborg‑Gelting Linien
, paragraph 14).
28     Apart from the importance of the customisation of the basic software to make it useful for the professional activities of
the purchaser, the extent, duration and cost of that customisation are also relevant elements in that regard.
29     On the basis of these different criteria, the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam correctly concluded that there was a single supply
of services within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Sixth Directive, since those criteria in fact lead to the conclusion
that, far from being minor or ancillary, such customisation predominates because of its decisive importance in enabling the
purchaser to use the software customised to its specific requirements which it is purchasing.
30     Having regard to all these elements, the answer to Question 1(a) and (b) must be that:
–       Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that where two or more elements or acts supplied by a taxable
person to a customer, being a typical consumer, are so closely linked that they form objectively, from an economic point of
view, a whole transaction, which it would be artificial to split, all those elements or acts constitute a single supply for
purposes of the application of VAT;
–       this is true of a transaction by which a taxable person supplies to a consumer standard software previously developed, put
on the market and recorded on a carrier and subsequently customises that software to that purchaser’s specific requirements,
even where separate prices are paid;
–       Article 6(1) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that such a single supply is to be classified as a ‘supply
of services’ where it is apparent that the customisation in question is neither minor nor ancillary but, on the contrary,
predominates; such is the case in particular where in the light of factors such as its extent, cost or duration the customisation
is of decisive importance in enabling the purchaser to use the customised software.

Question 1(c) and (d)
31     By Question 1(c) and (d), the national court asks in what place a single supply of services such as that referred to in the
answer to Question 1(a) and (b) is deemed to take place.
32     In that regard, Article 9 of the Sixth Directive contains rules for determining the place where services are deemed to be
supplied for tax purposes.  Whereas Article 9(1) lays down a general rule on the matter, Article 9(2) sets out a number of
specific instances of places where certain services are deemed to be supplied.  The object of those provisions is to avoid,
first, conflicts of jurisdiction which may result in double taxation, and, secondly, non-taxation (see inter alia Case C‑452/03
RAL (Channel Islands) and Others
[2005] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 23 and case‑law cited).
33     In respect of the relationship between the first two paragraphs of Article 9 of the Sixth Directive, the Court has already
held that Article 9(1) in no way takes precedence over Article 9(2).  In every situation, the question which arises is whether
it is covered by one of the instances mentioned in Article 9(2); if not, it falls within the scope of Article 9(1) (
RAL (Channel Islands) and Others
, paragraph 24 and case-law cited).
34     To that extent, the argument that Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Directive should, as an exception to a rule, be narrowly construed
must be rejected (Case C­108/00
SPI
[2001] ECR I‑2361, paragraph 17).
35     It must therefore be ascertained whether a transaction such as that at issue in the main proceedings comes under Article 9(2)
of the Sixth Directive.
36     In that regard, the national court is uncertain whether it is appropriate to apply Article 9(2)(e), third indent, of that
directive which determines the place where supplies are deemed to take place for tax purposes in respect of ‘services of consultants,
engineers, consultancy bureaux, lawyers, accountants and other similar services, as well as data processing and the supplying
of information’.  That court is uncertain, in particular, whether the transaction in question in the main proceedings ought
not to be classified as ‘data processing and the supplying of information’ within the meaning of that provision.  In their
observations lodged before the Court, both the Netherlands Government and the Commission of the European Communities agree
with that interpretation.
37     It is apparent from the Court’s case-law that Article 9(2)(e), third indent, of the Sixth Directive does not refer to professions,
such as those of lawyers, consultants, accountants or engineers, but to the services supplied by those professionals and similar
services.  The Community legislature has used the professions mentioned in that provision as a means of defining the categories
of services to which it refers (Case C­‑145/96
von Hoffmann
[1997] ECR I‑4857, paragraph 15).
38     In that regard, it is appropriate to note that computer science, including programming and the development of software, forms
a significant part of the training given to future engineers and that it may often constitute one of the various specialisations
available to them during that training.
39     A service such as the customisation of computer software to the specific requirements of a consumer is therefore likely to
be carried out either by engineers or by other persons trained to carry out such tasks.
40     It follows that such a service is covered either by the services carried out by engineers or by those which are similar to
the activity of an engineer.
41     In the light of the foregoing, the answer to Question 1(c) and (d) must be that Article 9(2)(e), third indent, of the Sixth
Directive must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to a single supply of services such as that referred to in the answer
to Question 1(a) and (b) performed for a taxable person established in the Community but not in the same country as the supplier.

Question 2
42     The second question was referred only in case Question 1(a) should be answered in the negative.  In the light of the affirmative
answer given to that question, there is no need to consider the second question.

Costs
43     Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court,
the decision on costs is a matter for that court.  Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the
costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:
1.
Article 2(1) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that where
two or more elements or acts supplied by a taxable person to a customer, being a typical consumer, are so closely linked that
they form objectively, from an economic point of view, a whole transaction, which it would be artificial to split, all those
elements or acts constitute a single supply for purposes of the application of VAT;
2.
This is true of a transaction by which a taxable person supplies to a consumer standard software previously developed, put
on the market and recorded on a carrier and subsequently customises that software to that purchaser’s specific requirements,
even where separate prices are paid;
3.
Article 6(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that a single supply such as that referred to in paragraph
2 of this operative part is to be classified as a ‘supply of services’ where it is apparent that the customisation in question
is neither minor nor ancillary but, on the contrary, predominates; such is the case in particular where in the light of factors
such as its extent, cost or duration the customisation is of decisive importance in enabling the purchaser to use the customised
software;
4.
Article 9(2)(e), third indent, of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to a single supply
of services such as that referred to in paragraph 3 of this operative part performed for a taxable person established in the
Community but not in the same country as the supplier.
[Signatures]
*
Language of the case: Dutch.