J D Wetherspoon plc v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs.
Date: 2009-03-05
30. In that regard, the Court has already held that the provisions of the First and Sixth Directives contain no explicit rule concerning rounding of amounts of VAT. In particular, the Sixth Directive is silent on that matter (Case C‑484/06 Koninklijke Ahold  [2008] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 24).
31. Moreover, it cannot be inferred either from the wording of Articles 11A(1)(a), 22(3)(b), 22(4) and 22(5) of the Sixth Directive or from their objectives that a specific method of rounding has been laid down by Community law (see, to that effect, Koninklijke Ahold , paragraphs 27 to 30).
32. Consequently, in the absence of any specific Community legislation, it is for the legal systems of the Member States to determine, within the limits of Community law, the method and rules for rounding of an amount declared by way of VAT (see Koninklijke Ahold , paragraph 31).
33. When Member States establish or accept a particular method of rounding, they are obliged to observe the principles governing the common system of VAT, such as those of fiscal neutrality and proportionality. It does not, however, follow from observance of those recognised principles of the Community legal system that the question as to which specific method of rounding should be used is itself within the scope of Community law ( Koninklijke Ahold , paragraph 32).
34. One of the consequences of the principle of fiscal neutrality is that taxable persons effecting the same or similar economic transactions must not be treated differently with regard to the method of rounding applied when VAT is calculated (see, to that effect, Koninklijke Ahold , paragraph 36 and the case‑law cited). By virtue of the same principle, the amount of VAT to be collected by the tax authority must not be greater than that declared on the invoice and paid by the final consumer to the taxable person (see Case C‑317/94 Elida Gibbs  [1996] ECR I‑5339, paragraph 24, and, to that effect, Koninklijke Ahold , paragraph 36).
35. Accordingly, that principle does not entail any requirement that a particular method of rounding be applied, in so far as the method chosen by the Member State concerned ensures that the amount of VAT to be collected by the tax authority corresponds exactly to the amount of VAT paid by the final consumer to the taxable person (see Koninklijke Ahold , paragraph 37).
36. With regard to the principle of proportionality, the Court has held that, while observance of that principle requires that any rounded amount should correspond as closely as possible to that arising from application of the rate in force, the fact remains that that requirement must be reconciled with the practical needs of the effective application of the common system of VAT and that, in view of the technical nature of rounding, more than one single method of rounding could satisfy those requirements (see, to that effect, Koninklijke Ahold , paragraphs 39 to 41).
37. It follows from the foregoing that Community law, in particular the provisions of the First and Sixth Directives and the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, contains no specific requirement concerning the method of rounding amounts of VAT (see, to that effect, Koninklijke Ahold , paragraph 42).
57. In that regard, it must be pointed out, as is apparent from paragraph 34 above, that the principle of fiscal neutrality, which is the reflection in the field of VAT of the principle of equal treatment, precludes, inter alia, for taxable persons effecting the same transactions or similar economic transactions, different treatment with regard to the method of rounding applied when VAT is calculated (see to that effect, also, Case C‑162/07 Ampliscientifica and Amplifin  [2008] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 25, and Case C‑132/06 Commission  v Italy  [2008] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 39).
61. By contrast, where VAT is included in the price of goods or services, the systematic rounding down at a lower level than the periodic VAT return would result in the taxable person collecting from his customer the amount of the VAT actually due whilst systematically paying to the State a lower amount, retaining the difference for his own benefit. That result would be contrary to the principle that VAT is collected by taxable persons at each stage of the production or distribution process on behalf of the tax authorities, to which those taxable persons are required to pay it (see Case C‑291/03 MyTravel  [2005] ECR I‑8477, paragraph 30).