According to the legal definition, a single-purpose voucher (SPV) is a voucher for which the place of the underlying supply of goods or services and the VAT due thereon are known at the time the voucher is issued. Each SPV transfer made by a taxable person acting in his own name is to be regarded as the supply to which the voucher relates.

 

With its judgment in the case Finanzamt O, the ECJ clarified that the definition of an SPV is independent of distribution chains: If a voucher is intended for end consumers, it is a single-purpose voucher if the place of supply and the VAT due for the supply to the end consumer are certain. How and where the voucher is sold in the distribution chain, before being transferred to the end consumer, is irrelevant for its classification as an SPV (see KMLZ VAT Newsletter 20 | 2024).

 

This raises the practical follow-up question, particularly in cross-border distribution chains, as to where the fictitious supplies are taxable. In this respect, the ECJ's judgment left more questions open than it answered. After the VAT Committee  discussed the consequences of the ECJ judgment at its 125th meeting on 18 November 2024, it incorporated the results of this meeting into its updated guidelines of 15 July 2025.

 

The VAT Committee almost unanimously agrees on the following opinions regarding the determination of the place of supply for the transfer of SPVs:

 

More detailed explanations on the underlying considerations regarding the determination of the place of supply for the transfer of SPVS can also be found in Working Paper No. 1089 REV. Among other things, it contains a clarification that the reverse charge mechanism should apply to fictitious supplies falling within the scope of Art. 44 of the EU VAT Directive. 

 

The VAT Committee guidelines provide important clarification on the determination of the place of supply for fictitious B2B supplies resulting from the transfer of SPVs. The VAT Committee clearly rejects the interpretation discussed in practice, according to which the legal fiction also extends to the place of supply. Rather, the place of supply for each transfer is determined by the fictitious content, but taking into account the actual parties involved.

 

At first glance, it may seem surprising that transfers of SPVs could be taxable abroad, although the classification as an SPV is based on the fact that the place of supply, to which the voucher relates, is always within the country. However, most businesses involved in voucher distribution chains will appreciate the clarification. This is because it significantly restricts the cases in which the sale of SPVs for supplies in another EU Member State can give rise to VAT liability and registration obligations for the selling party in that Member State. Nevertheless, taxable persons must continue to check, with regard to  each SPV, which supply it relates to and how the place of supply is determined in the individual case for a B2B supply.

 

It is important to note that the VAT Committee guidelines are not binding on either the EU Commission or the Member States. However, in its preliminary ruling – on which the ECJ judgment Finanzamt O is based – the German Federal Fiscal Court has already indicated that it also assumes that the place of supply, in the case in question, is determined in accordance with the general rule pursuant to sec. 3a para. 2 of the German VAT Act. It is to be expected that it will confirm this in its subsequent judgment. Furthermore, an explicit adoption of the VAT Committee’s guidelines by the German tax authorities would be welcomed. The current provisions in sec. 3.17 para. 5 of the German Administrative VAT Guidelines regarding the place of supply for the transfer of SPVs are, at the very least, in need of clarification.