1. Introduction: A New Legal Lens for ViDA
The CJEU’s landmark judgments in C‑717/19 (Boehringer Hungary) and C‑462/16 (Boehringer Germany) fundamentally reshape the understanding of VAT within the framework of the EU’s upcoming VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) reforms. These decisions reinforce that VAT must be calculated based on the consideration actually received, rather than the formal structure of the transaction. This mandates that the future digital VAT system accommodates price-adjustment mechanisms that occur outside the traditional invoice flow.
2. Core Legal Principles from the Boehringer Cases
Both cases involved rebates paid by pharmaceutical suppliers to third-party health insurers, entities with which they had no direct contractual relationship. The Court held that such payments constitute price reductions, thereby mandating a reduction of the taxable amount under Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive. Importantly, the Court determined that Member States cannot impose excessive administrative requirements, such as insisting on invoice-based evidence or credit notes, when the economic substance of the transaction demonstrates a genuine price reduction. This principle aligns with the broader VAT concept that tax must reflect economic reality rather than formalistic contractual arrangements.
3. Why These Principles Matter for ViDA
ViDA is designed around digital, harmonized, invoice-centric reporting. However, the Boehringer judgments indicate that legitimate VAT adjustments can arise without an invoice and outside the direct supplier-customer relationship. Therefore, ViDA cannot rely solely on structured e-invoices or credit notes for correcting taxable amounts. Instead, it must support non-invoice-based adjustments—such as third-party settlements, rebate agreements, and financial reconciliation documents—which still affect the taxable base. The jurisprudence emphasizes that a digital VAT system must prioritize economic outcomes over document formalities.
4. Implications for ViDA System Architecture
To remain compliant with legal standards, ViDA must adapt its technical framework. The system must incorporate mechanisms for businesses to report third-party rebates that reduce the taxable base, even when no invoice links A and C in an A-B-C supply chain. This requires the capability to upload or reference alternative evidence, including contractual agreements or proof of payment, ensuring that administrative conditions remain proportionate. Furthermore, ViDA must facilitate cross-border recognition of these events, preventing Member States from imposing documentation barriers inconsistent with EU law.
5. Impact on Multinational Businesses
For companies operating complex supply chains—such as in consumer goods, pharmaceuticals, and retail—the Boehringer rulings necessitate that VAT compliance processes evolve to track economic flows, not just invoice flows. Third-party rebates must be systematically mapped to upstream sales to determine the correct taxable base. As ViDA is implemented, businesses will need ERP and tax engines capable of generating event-based VAT adjustments that are not contingent upon invoice corrections. This aligns with the CJEU’s insistence that VAT neutrality requires the taxable amount to reflect what the supplier ultimately retains.
6. Conclusion: A Structural Requirement for ViDA
Collectively, C‑717/19 and C‑462/16 do more than shape the ViDA discourse—they establish binding constraints that ViDA must incorporate into its digital and regulatory design. By affirming that VAT must follow economic reality and that price adjustments may occur outside invoice relationships, the CJEU requires ViDA to support flexible, evidence-based, non-invoice adjustments and multi-party transactional mapping. The future success—and legal defensibility—of ViDA hinges on embedding these principles at the core of its architecture.
7. Article 226(16) of the EU VAT Directive: Implications for Corrective Invoicing
Article 226(16) of the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC specifies that corrective invoices must include a sequential number identifying the invoice being corrected. This requirement raises critical considerations in the context of indirect rebates within A-B-C supply chains:
- Identification of Corrected Invoices: When a rebate is granted by Supplier A to Customer C (the indirect recipient), identifying the corrected invoice can be challenging, as there is no direct transaction between A and C.
- Documentation Requirements: While Article 226(16) mandates identification of the corrected invoice, the Boehringer rulings indicate that VAT adjustments can occur without a direct invoice between parties. Member States must accept alternative documentation as valid evidence for rebates, consistent with the principle that VAT reflects economic realities.
- Credit Note Issuance: The CJEU has clarified that a credit note is not obligatory when economic adjustments occur outside traditional invoice flows. Thus, while Article 226(16) provides a framework for corrective invoices, a credit note from A to C may not be necessary if sufficient documentation exists.
- Supply of Services Consideration: The rebate is not a direct transaction and does not constitute a supply of services between A and C; the focus remains on the economic linkage to the original supply chain rather than formal contractual relationships.
Recommendation for the European Commission
Given the complexities surrounding indirect rebates and the requirements of Article 226(16), it is recommended that the European Commission issue an implementing regulation that explicitly allows credit notes to be issued for indirect rebates. This regulation should clarify that even when Article 226(16) would typically require a reference to a previous supply, credit notes can still be validly issued based on economic realities and alternative documentation. This would provide much-needed clarity for businesses and ensure compliance without imposing unnecessary administrative burdens.
In conclusion, while Article 226(16) outlines essential guidelines for corrective invoicing, the evolving interpretation of VAT law, particularly through CJEU case law, highlights the importance of recognizing economic realities in VAT adjustments. This allows for a more nuanced approach to indirect rebates in complex supply chains while ensuring compliance with EU VAT regulations.
Other blogs
- Blog: Getting Digital Reporting Requirements Right: Key Recommendations for Harmonizing VAT Reporting Under ViDA
- Blog: How Can Multinationals Comply with VAT on Transfer Pricing Adjustments Post-ECJ Arcomet?
- Blog: VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) – Why Businesses Urge Harmonization, Early Clarity, and No Surprises
- Blog: ViDA Digital Reporting Requirements – Ambition vs. Fragmented Reality in Europe
- Delayed EN 16931 Standard Leaves Businesses in Limbo – A Call for Urgent Action
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- Comments on ECJ Case C-639/24: Limits on Denying VAT Exemption for Intra-Community Supplies
- European Parliament Analysis: The Role of the Reverse Charge Mechanism in Tackling VAT Fraud
- Mathez Formation: VAT news: the CJEU puts economic reality back at the centre of the game (Feb 6)
- Briefing document & Podcast: ECJ C-462/16 – Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG – Discounts reduce the VAT value of pharmaceutical supplies
- European Parliamentary Research Service briefing: Evaluating the Reverse Charge to Fight Fraud
