Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1998:281
Date: 1998-06-11
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary of the Judgment
1. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of Uws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value
added tax — Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive — Exemption for insurance and
reinsurance transactions — Definition — Provision of insurance cover, including assistance, by
a taxable person not himself the insurer — Covered
(Council Directives 73/239, annex, and 77/388, Art. 13B(a))
I - 973
SUMMARY — CASE C-349/96
2. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value
added tax — Supplies of services — Transactions comprising several elements — Transaction
to be regarded as a single supply or as distina supplies — Criteria — Transactions to be clas-
sified on a case-by-case basis by the national courts
(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 2(1))
3. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value
added tax — Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive — Exemption for insurance and
reinsurance transactions — Scope — Restricted exclusively to transactions regarded as lawful
in national law — Not permissible
(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(a))
1. Article 13B(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388,
relating to the exemption from value added
tax of insurance and reinsurance transac­
tions, must be interpreted as meaning that
a taxable person, not being an insurer,
who, in the context of a block policy of
which he is the holder, procures for his
customers, who are the insured, insurance
cover from an insurer who assumes the
risk covered, performs an insurance trans­
action within the meaning of that provi­
sion. The term 'insurance' in that provi­
sion extends to the categories of assistance
listed in the annex to First Directive 73/239
on the coordination of laws, regulations
and administrative provisions relating to
the taking-up and pursuit of the business
of direct insurance other than life assur­
ance.
2. In order to determine, for the purposes of
value added tax, whether a supply of ser­
vices which comprises several elements is
to be regarded as a single supply or as two
or more distinct supplies to be assessed
separately, it must be taken into account,
first, that it follows from Article 2(1) of
Sixth Directive 77/388 that every supply
of a service must normally be regarded as
distinct and independent and, second, that
a supply which comprises a single service
from an economic point of view should
not be artificially split, so as not to distort
the functioning of the system of value
added tax.
There is a single supply in particular in
cases where one or more elements are to
be regarded as constituting the principal
service, whilst one or more elements are
to be regarded, by contrast, as ancillary
services which share the tax treatment of
the principal service. A service must be
regarded as ancillary to a principal service
if it does not constitute for customers an
aim in itself, but a means of better enjoying
the principal service supplied. In those cir­
cumstances, the fact that a single price is
charged is not decisive.
I-974
CARD PROTECTION PLAN v COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
In the case of a plan intended to protect
holders of credit cards against financial
loss and inconvenience resulting from the
loss of their cards, and providing inter alia
an insurance supply and a card registra­
tion service, it is for the national court to
determine, in the light of the above cri­
teria, whether such transactions are to be
regarded as comprising two independent
supplies, or whether one of those two
supplies is the principal supply to which
the other is ancillary, so that it receives the
same tax treatment as the principal supply.
3. Article 13B(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388,
relating to the exemption from value added
tax of insurance and reinsurance transac­
tions, must be interpreted as meaning that
a Member State may not restrict the scope
of the exemption exclusively to supplies
by insurers who are authorised by national
law to pursue the activity of insurer.
As that provision, in accordance with the
principle of fiscal neutrality, makes no dis­
tinction between lawful and unlawful trans­
actions in national law, those two catego­
ries of transaction must be treated in the
same fashion.
I-975