Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:342
Date: 2024-04-18
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary C-68/23 – 1 
Case C-68/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
8 February 2023 
Referring court: 
Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
3 November 2022 
Applicant and appellant on a point of law: 
M-GbR 
Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: 
Finanzamt O (Tax Office O) 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Value added tax – Directive 2006/112 – Articles 30a and 30b – Definition of 
single-purpose and multi-purpose vouchers – Tax treatment of prepaid cards or 
vouchers for the purchase of digital contents 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of EU law, Article 267 TFEU 
Questions referred 
The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 30a and Article 30b of 
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of 
value added tax (‘VAT Directive’), in the version of 27 June 2016: 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-68/23 
 
2  
1. Does a single-purpose voucher exist within the meaning of Article 30a(2) of 
the VAT Directive where: 
– the place of supply of the services to which the voucher relates is 
established in known in so far as those services are intended to be 
supplied to final consumers within the territory of a Member State, 
– but the fiction of the first subparagraph of Article 30b(1) first sentence 
of the VAT Directive, according to which the transfer of the voucher 
between taxable persons with a view to providing the service to which 
the voucher relates, also gives rise to a service in the territory of 
another Member State? 
2. If the first question is answered in the negative (and hence a multi-purpose 
voucher exists in the present case): Does subparagraph 1 of Article 30b(2) of 
the VAT Directive, according to which the actual provision of the services 
in return for a multi-purpose voucher accepted as consideration or part 
consideration by the supplier is subject to VAT pursuant to Article 2 of the 
VAT Directive, whereas each preceding transfer of that multi-purpose 
voucher is not subject to VAT, preclude a differently substantiated tax 
obligation (judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 
3 May 2012, Lebara, C-520/10, EU:C:2012:264)? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of 
value added tax, in particular Articles 2, 9, 30a, 30b, 44 and 58 
Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016 amending Directive 
2016/112/EC as regards the treatment of vouchers 
Provisions of national law 
Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on turnover tax, ‘the UStG’), in particular 
Paragraph 3(13) to (15), Paragraph 3a(2) and (5) and Paragraph 27(23), 
Brief summary of the facts and procedure 
1 The parties disagree as to whether the transfer of prepaid cards or voucher codes 
for the purchase of digital content, known as X cards, are subject to VAT. 
2 During the 2019 tax period (the year at issue), the applicant sold X cards via its X 
cards online shop. In the year at issue, Y, which is established in the United 
Kingdom, was the publisher of the X cards. The voucher codes allowed the 
purchaser to load his or her X user account with a certain nominal value in euros. 
FINANZAMT O 
 
3 
After loading the account, digital content could be purchased by the account 
holder in Y’s X store at the prices indicated therein. 
3 The X cards were distributed by Y with different country codes through various 
intermediaries. The code DE was intended for customers with their domicile or 
habitual residence in Germany and a German X user account. 
4 During the year in question, the applicant purchased X cards from two suppliers 
who were not established in the United Kingdom or Germany, but in other 
Member States. They had previously acquired the X cards from Y. In its tax 
returns, the applicant did not mention either the acquisition of the X cards from 
suppliers nor their transfer to end customers. It acted on the assumption that X 
cards were vouchers or multi-purpose vouchers. 
5 In contrast, the competent Finanzamt (tax office) took the view that the 
applicant’s turnover with X cards was taxable in Germany because the cards with 
the identifier DE were intended exclusively for final customers resident in 
Germany with a German user account. Classification of those cards as goods 
vouchers or single-purpose vouchers is also supported by the fact that Y had 
placed the cards as such on the market and that, in the subsequent performance 
chain, they were treated as such by all the other parties. 
6 The Finanzgericht (Finance Court) dismissed the action brought against that 
decision, whereupon the applicant brought an appeal on a point of law before the 
referring court. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
Consideration of the first question referred 
Preliminary observations 
7 A ‘single-purpose voucher’ means a voucher where the place of supply of the 
goods or services to which the voucher relates and the VAT due on those goods or 
services are known at the time of issue of the voucher (Article 30a point 2 of the 
VAT Directive). A ‘multi-purpose voucher’ means a voucher other than a single-
purpose voucher (Article 30a point 3 of the VAT Directive). 
8 Each transfer of a single-purpose voucher made by a taxable person acting in his 
or her own name is regarded as a supply of the goods or services to which the 
voucher relates. However, the actual handing over of the goods or the actual 
provision of services is not regarded as an independent transaction (first 
subparagraph of Article 30b(1) of the VAT Directive). Conversely, in the case of 
a multi-purpose voucher, only the actual handing over of the goods or the actual 
provision of the services to which it relates are subject to VAT, but not each 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-68/23 
 
4  
preceding transfer of that voucher (first subparagraph of Article 30b(2) of the 
VAT Directive). 
9 In so far as – as in the present case – the issuer of a voucher (A) transfers the 
voucher in his or her own name to a taxable person established in another Member 
State (B) who transfers it himself or herself in his or her own name to another 
person (C), both the transfer of the voucher from A to B and its transfer from B to 
C are thus to be regarded under the first subparagraph of Article 30b(1) of the 
VAT Directive as a provision of the service to which the voucher relates, whereas 
the (subsequent) actual provision of the service is not to be taxed. 
10 The question arises as to what consequences result from the first subparagraph of 
Article 30b(1) first sentence of the VAT Directive for Article 30a point 2 of that 
Directive. For a single-purpose voucher to exist within the meaning of Article 30a 
point 2 of the VAT Directive, the place of supply of the service to which the 
voucher relates must be known. In the case of the multiple transfer of a voucher, it 
follows from the first subparagraph of Article 30b(1) first sentence of the VAT 
Directive that the service to which the voucher relates is to be regarded as having 
been supplied several times. 
11 However, this interpretation based on the first subparagraph of Article 30b(1) first 
sentence of the VAT Directive (first interpretation) would lead to a considerable 
reduction in the scope of the single-use voucher in service sector. Such a voucher 
would not exist where it relates to a service the place of supply of which must be 
determined in accordance with Article 44 of the VAT Directive (see paragraph 14 
et seq. below). 
12 However, a second interpretation would also be conceivable. First, in assessing 
the question of whether the place of supply of services within the meaning of 
Article 30a point 2 of the VAT Directive is known, the fiction laid down in the 
first subparagraph of Article 30b(1) first sentence of the VAT Directive could be 
disregarded. In that case, any transfer of the voucher to an intermediary in another 
Member State would not affect the application of Article 30a point 2 of the VAT 
Directive. Second, it could be considered whether, in the case of a voucher 
relating to a service to be supplied to a final consumer, the place of the transfer is 
the place of the service to be supplied to the final consumer even in the case of a 
transfer between two taxable persons. 
Application of the two possible interpretations to the present case 
13 In so far as, during the year at issue, the applicant distributed the vouchers 
incorporated in the X cards relating to electronically supplied services within the 
meaning of Article 58(1)(c) of the VAT Directive, it is questionable whether they 
were single-purpose vouchers, the transfer of which constitutes a supply of 
services. For that to be the case, the place of supply of the services to which the 
voucher relates and the tax due for this turnover would have to be known at the 
time of issue of the voucher (Article 30a point 2 of the VAT Directive). 
FINANZAMT O 
 
5 
14 It is open to question to what the requirement that the place of supply must be 
known relates. If it concerns only the sale of a voucher (in the form of X cards) to 
end customers, it is a single-purpose voucher. The place of supply of the 
electronic service to which the voucher relates will not be determined at the time 
of redemption in accordance with Article 44 of the VAT Directive, since even if 
the person redeeming it were a taxable person within the meaning of Articles 2 
and 9 of the VAT Directive, he or she would not be acting as such within the 
meaning of Article 44 of the VAT Directive, since he or she would be obtaining 
the service supplied electronically by Y for private purposes (cf. judgment of 
17 March 2021, Wellcome Trust, C-459/19, EU:C:2021:209, paragraphs 39 and 
40). The place of supply in the event of redemption would therefore have to be 
determined on the basis of Article 58(1)(c) of the VAT Directive and it would be 
known, since the conditions for the use of X cards would allow redemption only 
by end consumers established in Germany. 
15 In accordance with the above, if the X cards were single-purpose vouchers, Y, as 
the issuer of the vouchers on account of the fact that it transferred them to 
distributors in exchange for payment, would have supplied them, by electronic 
means, with a supply of services in exchange for payment in Germany. Similarly, 
any other transmission (from the supplier to the applicant and the applicant to its 
customers) would be an electronic service supplied in Germany. 
16 If, on the other hand, the requirement that the place of supply of services must be 
known also concerns the sale of a voucher between traders, it appears 
questionable whether it is a single-purpose voucher. In that case, both the 
suppliers and the applicant would have acted “as such” within the meaning of 
Article 44 of the VAT Directive, both in the transfer from Y to the suppliers and 
from the suppliers to the applicant; these transactions would be seen as 
independent since they did not purchase X cards in order to redeem them for their 
own private purposes, but to resell them in the course of their economic activity. If 
Article 44 of the VAT Directive were to apply to the turnover on transfers from Y 
to the suppliers and from the suppliers to the applicant, the place of supply of 
services for the transfer from Y to the suppliers would not be in Germany whereas 
the transfer from the suppliers to the applicant would be in Germany. The place of 
supply would not then have been known at the time of issue of the voucher by Y. 
17 Recital 3 of Directive 2016/1065 might suggest that the first question referred 
should be answered in the affirmative. It states: ‘In view of the new rules on the 
place of supply for telecommunications, broadcasting and electronically supplied 
services which are applicable since 1 January 2015, a common solution for 
vouchers is necessary in order to ensure that mismatches do not occur in respect of 
vouchers supplied between Member States. To this end, it is vital to put in place 
rules to clarify the VAT treatment of vouchers.’ That objective would not be 
achieved if the transfer of the very same voucher had different legal consequences 
depending on whether the voucher is distributed exclusively through 
intermediaries in Germany, through intermediaries established in the rest of the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-68/23 
 
6  
territory of the European Union or directly, without an intermediary, to final 
customers established in Germany. 
18 Following the first interpretation (see paragraph 11 above), the applicant did not 
transfer single-purpose vouchers. Under Article 44 of the VAT Directive, X 
would then have transferred the vouchers to the place of destination of the 
suppliers in their respective Member State at the tax rate applicable in that 
Member State, while the transfers by the suppliers to the applicant would have 
been made, in accordance with Article 44 of the VAT Directive, at the applicant’s 
place of residence in Germany; the same would apply to the transfers made by the 
applicant to its customers. Thus, the requirement to establish the place of supply 
of services to which the voucher relates and the VAT due in respect of that supply 
would not be satisfied. 
19 By contrast, according to the second interpretation (see paragraph 12 above), they 
would be single-purpose vouchers. 
Consideration of the second question referred 
20 If the answer to the first question referred is in the negative, it is a multi-purpose 
voucher (Article 30a point 3 of the VAT Directive). In that case, the actual supply 
of services in return for which their supplier accepts a multi-purpose voucher as 
consideration or part consideration is subject to VAT, whereas any prior transfer 
of that multi-purpose voucher is not subject to VAT (first subparagraph of 
Article 30b(2) of the VAT Directive). 
21 The referring court assumes that there is no need, for VAT purposes, to treat the X 
cards at issue differently from the phonecards that were the subject of the 
judgment of 3 May 2012, Lebara (EU:C:2012:264). According to paragraph 43 of 
that judgment, a telecommunications services operator which offers 
telecommunications services consisting in selling to a distributor phonecards 
which display all the information necessary for making international telephone 
calls by means of the infrastructure provided by that operator and which are resold 
by the distributor, in its own name and on its own behalf, to end users, either 
directly or through other taxable persons such as wholesalers and retailers, carries 
out a supply of telecommunications services for consideration to the distributor. 
Thus, according to paragraph 42 of Lebara, both the initial sale of a phonecard 
and its subsequent resale by intermediaries constitute taxable transactions. 
22 On that basis, the applicant’s transfer of X cards to its customers would be taxable 
by the applicant as a supply of electronically supplied services. It appears 
questionable to the referring court whether a different purpose was intended in the 
context of the provision of Articles 30a and 30b of the VAT Directive, although 
those provisions were intended to shift taxation upstream. In the view of the 
referring court, the relationship of the last clause of the first subparagraph of 
Article 30b(2) of the VAT Directive to the Court’s position in Lebara is unclear. 
FINANZAMT O 
 
7 
23 Furthermore, through the intermediate trade in multi-purpose vouchers, the 
applicant may have provided distribution or promotion services to Y within the 
meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 30b(2) of the VAT Directive, 
which are subject to VAT, so that the consideration given by the applicant for the 
transfer of the vouchers by its supplier may comprise not only a payment but also 
a supply of services of this kind (transaction resembling barter, see judgment of 
26 September 2013, Serebryannay vek, C-283/12, EU:C:2013:599).