Astra Zeneca UK Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
Date: 2010-07-29
21. It should be recalled that by including amongst the taxable transactions defined in Article 2 not only the importation of goods but also the supply of goods or services effected for consideration within the territory of a country and by defining ‘taxable person’ in Article 4(1) as any person who independently carries out an economic activity, whatever the purpose or results of that activity, the Sixth Directive attributes to VAT a very wide scope (Case 235/85 Commission  v Netherlands  [1987] ECR 1471, paragraph 6; Case C‑260/98 Commission  v Greece  [2000] ECR I‑6537, paragraph 24; and Case C‑154/08 Commission  v Spain [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 87).
22. Economic activities are defined in Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive as comprising all activities of producers, traders and persons supplying services (see Commission  v Netherlands , paragraph 7; Commission  v Greece , paragraph 25; and Commission  v Spain , paragraph 88).
23. An analysis of those definitions shows that the scope of the term economic activities is very wide, and that the term is objective in character, in the sense that the activity is considered per se and without regard to its purpose or results (see Commission  v Netherlands , paragraph 8; Commission  v Greece , paragraph 26; and Commission  v Spain , paragraph 89).
26. Consequently, in so far as those vouchers do not immediately transfer the right to dispose of property, their provision constitutes, for VAT purposes, not a ‘supply of goods’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Sixth Directive, but a ‘supply of services’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of that directive, since, under Article 6(1), any transaction which does not constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5 is regarded as a supply of services.
27. As regards determining whether a supply of services such as that at issue in the main proceedings is effected for consideration, it is settled case-law that the concept of the ‘supply of services effected for consideration’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive requires the existence of a direct link between the service provided and the consideration received (see Case 102/86 Apple and Pear Development Council  v Commissioners of Customs and Excise  [1988] ECR 1443, paragraph 12; Case C-258/95 Fillibeck  v Finanzamt Neustadt [1997] ECR I-5577, paragraph 12; Commission  v Greece , paragraph 29; and Commission  v Spain , paragraph 92).
28. It is also settled case-law that the taxable amount for the supply of goods or services is represented by the consideration actually received for them. That consideration is thus the subjective value, that is to say, the value actually received, and not a value estimated according to objective criteria. In addition, that consideration must be capable of being expressed in money (see Fillibeck  v Finanzamt Neustadt , paragraphs 13 and 14 and the case-law cited).
29. In the case of the transaction at issue in the main proceedings, there is a direct link between the provision of retail vouchers by Astra Zeneca to its employees and the part of the cash remuneration which the employees must give up as consideration for that provision.
30. Instead of receiving all their remuneration in cash, the Astra Zeneca employees who have chosen to receive such vouchers must give up part of that remuneration in exchange for those vouchers, that transaction resulting in a specific deduction from their Fund.
31. Moreover, there is no doubt that Astra Zeneca actually receives consideration for the provision of the retail vouchers at issue and that that consideration is expressed in money, since it corresponds to a fraction of the cash remuneration of its employees.