1. Executive Summary:
This briefing analyzes the CJEU’s judgment in Vodafone Portugal v. Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (C-43/19). The core issue was whether amounts charged by Vodafone Portugal for early termination of contracts with tie-in periods (where customers received benefits in exchange for a commitment to a minimum term) should be considered a “supply of services for consideration” and therefore subject to Value Added Tax (VAT) under Article 2(1)(c) of the EU VAT Directive. The Court ruled affirmatively, stating that even if these fees are proportionate to the benefit received by the customer and do not exceed installation costs, they still constitute remuneration for the initial supply of services and are subject to VAT. This decision has implications for telecommunications operators’ pricing strategies and contract terms across the EU.
2. Background:
- Preliminary Ruling: The case originated from a request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa) in Portugal. A preliminary ruling is a procedure where a national court asks the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for an interpretation of EU law. The Portuguese court needed clarification on the VAT treatment of early termination fees charged by Vodafone Portugal.
- Vodafone Portugal’s Business Model: Vodafone Portugal provides electronic communications services, fixed telephony, and wireless internet access. A key element of its business involves offering special promotions and benefits (e.g., discounted rates, free equipment) in exchange for customers committing to a minimum contractual period (tie-in period).
- Portuguese Law Amendment (2016): After a 2016 amendment to Portuguese law, early termination fees were required to be proportionate to the benefit the customer received and identified in the contract and could not exceed the costs Vodafone incurred for the installation of the service. This amendment aimed to protect consumers.
- VAT Self-Assessment Dispute: Vodafone Portugal initially self-assessed VAT on these early termination fees but later challenged that assessment, arguing that the fees did not constitute consideration for a supply of services.
3. Legal Framework:
- VAT Directive (2006/112/EC): The EU legislation governing the common system of VAT.
- Article 2(1)(c): Defines the scope of VAT, including “the supply of services for consideration within the territory of a Member State by a taxable person acting as such.”
- Key Concepts:Taxable Person: Any person who independently carries out an economic activity, subject to VAT.
- Supply of Services: Any transaction which does not constitute a supply of goods, generally defined as actions providing benefit to another party.
- Supply of Services for Consideration: The provision of services in exchange for payment or other valuable consideration, subject to VAT.
- Tie-in Period: A predetermined minimum period for which a customer commits to a contractual relationship in exchange for special promotions or benefits.
4. Questions Referred by the National Court:
The Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa) sought clarification on whether early termination fees levied by Vodafone, calculated as required by law (i.e., not exceeding installation costs and proportionate to the benefit granted), constituted a supply of services liable to VAT. Specific questions included:
- Whether the amounts constituted a supply of services liable to VAT, considering the early termination of the contract.
- Whether the termination of the contract and the absence of any specific act of consumption after the contract ended precluded classifying the amounts as consideration for the supply of services.
- Whether the fact that the formula for calculating the amount was specified in advance in a standard-form contract meant the amount could not be treated as consideration.
- Whether the fact that the amount did not reflect the revenue Vodafone would have received during the remainder of the tie-in period meant the amount could not be treated as consideration.
5. Vodafone Portugal’s Arguments:
Vodafone argued that the early termination fees should not be subject to VAT for several reasons:
- Post-Termination Payment: The fees are payable after the service contract ends.
- No Specific Consumption: No specific consumption occurs post-termination.
- Predetermined Calculation: The fee calculation is predetermined.
- Not Reflective of Lost Revenue: The amount does not represent the revenue Vodafone would have earned had the contract continued.
- Compensation/Statutory Payment Analogy: The fees are akin to compensation or statutory payments, which are typically excluded from VAT. “Amounts received, pursuant to a judicial decision, as damages for the total or partial failure to discharge obligations” are typically excluded from VAT.
6. CJEU’s Reasoning and Decision:
The CJEU ruled that amounts received by Vodafone for early termination of contracts do constitute remuneration for a supply of services for consideration and are therefore subject to VAT.
- Direct Link: The Court reiterated that a supply of services is carried out “for consideration” only if there is a legal relationship between the service provider and the recipient involving reciprocal performance. The remuneration received by the provider must be directly linked to an identifiable service supplied to the recipient, forming the actual consideration for that service. The customer must be put in a position to benefit from the service. “A supply of services is carried out ‘for consideration’, within the meaning of that provision, only if there is a legal relationship between the provider of the service and the recipient pursuant to which there is reciprocal performance, the remuneration received by the provider of the service constituting the actual consideration for an identifiable service supplied to the recipient. That is the case if there is a direct link between the service supplied and the consideration received”
- Benefit Received: The Court reasoned that the early termination fees, even if not directly equivalent to the remaining contract value, represented the recovery of costs associated with the service, which the customer had agreed to reimburse if the contract was terminated early. The fees were considered part of the price the customer committed to pay for the service, ensuring a minimum contractual remuneration for Vodafone. The customer has the “right to benefit from the fulfilment, by Vodafone, of the obligations under the services contract.” “In those circumstances, Vodafone places the customer in a position to benefit from the supply of services… and the cessation of that supply is not attributable to it.”
- Economic Reality: From the perspective of economic reality, the amount due upon the early termination of the contract seeks to guarantee the operator a minimum contractual remuneration for the service provided. “From the perspective of economic reality… the amount due upon the early termination of the contract seeks to guarantee the operator a minimum contractual remuneration for the service provided.”
- Distinction from Compensation/Statutory Payments: The Court rejected Vodafone’s argument that the fee was analogous to compensation or a statutory payment. The payment was made in the context of a contractual relationship characterised by reciprocal performance. Furthermore, the Court noted that national law did not allow operators to charge sums by way of compensation in the event of early termination.
7. Comparison to MEO Case (C-295/17):
The referring court distinguished the Vodafone case from the earlier MEO case. In MEO, the fees corresponded to the remaining payments due under the contract. In the Vodafone case, the fees were capped at installation costs and proportional to the benefit received, regardless of the outstanding contract value. The Court acknowledged this difference but found it irrelevant; the underlying principle of consideration for services rendered remained the same.
8. Implications and Impact:
- Telecommunications Operators: Telecommunications companies must charge VAT on early termination fees that are linked to benefits the customer received under a tie-in contract, even if the fee is proportionate to the benefit or covers installation costs. This may require adjustments to accounting and pricing strategies.
- Consumers: The decision could lead to increased transparency in contract terms and pricing. Companies may need to factor in VAT when determining the costs and benefits associated with tie-in periods and early termination policies. The judgment might influence pricing strategies and contract terms, as companies may need to factor in VAT when determining the costs and benefits associated with tie-in periods and early termination policies.
- EU-Wide Application: The ruling clarifies the VAT treatment of early termination fees across the EU, promoting a consistent application of the VAT Directive.
See also
ECJ C-43/19 (Vodafone Portugal) – Judgment – Termination fees subject to VAT – VATupdate
- Join the Linkedin Group on ECJ/CJEU/General Court VAT Cases, click HERE
- VATupdate.com – Your FREE source of information on ECJ VAT Cases
- Podcasts & briefing documents: VAT concepts explained through ECJ/CJEU cases on Spotify
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- Ecofin report on EU VAT reforms
- Roadtrip through ECJ cases: Focus on Promotional activities/Discounts (Art. 79, 87, 90(1))
- Comments on ECJ case C-234/24 (Brose Prievidza): No VAT Exemption for Tooling Without Physical Movement
- Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on “Liability to pay VAT – Jointly and severally liability of the payment of VAT” (Art. 205)
- ECJ Customs – C-488/24 (Kigas) – AG Opinion – Traders must inform consumers about customs duties before contracts
