Provisional text

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

KOKOTT

delivered on 11 September 2025 (1)

Case C‑436/24

Skatteverket

Lyko Operations AB

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court, Sweden))

( Request for a preliminary ruling – Tax law – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 30a and 30b – Definition of a voucher – Loyalty programme with points acquired on the basis of the price of purchases – Taxation of the issue of points – Taxation of the redemption of points – Taxation of expired points )

I. Introduction

1. Ben Terra, a tax law scholar who was well-known and highly regarded in VAT circles, and who sadly passed away too soon, wrote in one of his numerous articles: ‘There are certain things that get better with age. Regretfully, the Voucher Directive, in respect of which it has taken the Member States so long to agree to the content, is not one of them.’ (2)

2. He was clearly right because, despite the rather long drafting history (the Commission’s proposal dates from 2012) and relatively short existence of the Voucher Directive (3) (the period for transposition of that directive, which entered into force in 2016, expired on 31 December 2018), that directive has given rise to a number of proceedings in Luxembourg. (4) In the present request for a preliminary ruling, the Court must again answer questions arising under Articles 30a and 30b of the amended VAT Directive (5) concerning the treatment of vouchers for VAT purposes.

3. The present case concerns a customer loyalty programme, which is common in practice, in which customers collect, with their purchases, points which they can use in a subsequent purchase. The result is that the points lead to the next purchase becoming ‘cheaper’ for the customer, either in that the points can be deducted from the price or in that, as in the present case, additional goods are purchased from a reward shop. The decisive question, according to the referring court, is whether the issue of such points must be treated as a voucher within the meaning of the VAT Directive.

II. Legal framework

A. European Union law

4. The legal framework is constituted by the VAT Directive. Its Article 30a is worded as follows:

‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “voucher” means an instrument where there is an obligation to accept it as consideration or part consideration for a supply of goods or services and where the goods or services to be supplied or the identities of their potential suppliers are either indicated on the instrument itself or in related documentation, including the terms and conditions of use of such instrument;

(2) “single-purpose voucher” means a voucher where the place of supply of the goods or services to which the voucher relates, and the VAT due on those goods or services, are known at the time of issue of the voucher;

(3) “multi-purpose voucher” means a voucher, other than a single-purpose voucher.’

5. Article 30b of the VAT Directive provides:

‘1. Each transfer of a single-purpose voucher made by a taxable person acting in his own name shall be regarded as a supply of the goods or services to which the voucher relates. The actual handing over of the goods or the actual provision of the services in return for a single-purpose voucher accepted as consideration or part consideration by the supplier shall not be regarded as an independent transaction. …

2. The actual handing over of the goods or the actual provision of the services in return for a multi-purpose voucher accepted as consideration or part consideration by the supplier shall be subject to VAT pursuant to Article 2, whereas each preceding transfer of that multi-purpose voucher shall not be subject to VAT. …’

6. Articles 30a and 30b of the VAT Directive were inserted by the Voucher Directive. Recitals 1, 4 and 6 of the Voucher Directive state:

‘(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC sets out rules … . Those rules are, however, not sufficiently clear or comprehensive to ensure consistency in the tax treatment of transactions involving vouchers, to an extent which has undesirable consequences for the proper functioning of the internal market.’

‘(4) Only vouchers which can be used for redemption against goods or services should be targeted by these rules. However, instruments entitling the holder to a discount upon purchase of goods or services but carrying no right to receive such goods or services should not be targeted by these rules.’

‘(6) So as to identify clearly what constitutes a voucher for the purposes of VAT and to distinguish vouchers from payment instruments, it is necessary to define vouchers, which can have physical or electronic forms, recognising their essential attributes, in particular the nature of the entitlement attached to a voucher and the obligation to accept it as consideration for the supply of goods or services.’

7. Title VII of the VAT Directive is entitled ‘Taxable amount’. Article 73 of the VAT Directive, contained therein, provides as a principle:

‘In respect of the supply of goods or services, other than as referred to in Articles 74 to 77, the taxable amount shall include everything which constitutes consideration obtained or to be obtained by the supplier, in return for the supply, from the customer or a third party, including subsidies directly linked to the price of the supply.’

8. Article 73a of the VAT Directive governs separately the taxable amount of a multi-purpose voucher:

‘Without prejudice to Article 73, the taxable amount of the supply of goods or services provided in respect of a multi-purpose voucher shall be equal to the consideration paid for the voucher or, in the absence of information on that consideration, the monetary value indicated on the multi-purpose voucher itself or in the related documentation, less the amount of VAT relating to the goods or services supplied.’

B. Swedish law

9. In Sweden, the VAT Directive was transposed into national law by the Mervärdesskattelagen 2023: 200 (Law on VAT (2023: 200)).

10. Paragraph 26 of Chapter 2 of that law states that a voucher is an instrument where there is an obligation to accept it as consideration or partial consideration, inter alia, for a supply of goods. The goods to be supplied or the identities of the potential suppliers are to be indicated either on the instrument or in related documentation, including the terms and conditions for use of the instrument. Paragraph 27 of Chapter 2 sets out what constitutes a single-purpose and a multi-purpose voucher. Paragraphs 40 to 44 of Chapter 5 and Paragraphs 2 to 4 of Chapter 8 of that law contain provisions corresponding to Articles 30b, 73 and 73a of the VAT Directive.

III. Facts of the case

11. Lyko Operations AB (‘Lyko’) sells hair care and beauty products in physical shops and online. Lyko wishes to develop a customer loyalty programme and applied for a tax ruling from the Skatterättsnämnden (Revenue Law Commission, Sweden) to ascertain how the programme should be treated for the purposes of VAT.

12. According to the application, Lyko’s customers (all private individuals) are to be able to opt into its loyalty programme at no extra cost. Under the programme, customers receive points for each ordinary purchase, which they can then redeem for goods in the points shop – that is to say, during a subsequent purchase. Points can be redeemed only in connection with a new ordinary purchase. The product range in the points shop consists of products from the company’s ordinary range. The products are mainly of low value, but may be subject to different VAT rates.

13. Each of those products is priced in points and the pricing is such that customers obtain goods from the points shop equivalent to about 2 to 10 percent of their initial purchase. Each point redeemed by a customer can be linked to the total purchases made in the month in which the point was accrued and the oldest points are always used first. Points are not redeemable for money or purchasable for money. They are personal and non-transferable. Furthermore, goods in the points shop are not available in return for a combination of points and payment in money. Any points acquired are lost if not used within two years.

14. The points issued under the customer loyalty programme create an obligation for Lyko to deliver goods to the customer when the customer has received a sufficient number of points and wishes to redeem them at his or her next purchase. The detailed terms and conditions for the use of the points are communicated to the customers who opt into the programme.

15. Lyko asked whether the loyalty programme meant that, by issuing points, it is providing its customers with a (multi-purpose) voucher. If so, it also sought to ascertain how the taxable amount should be calculated when the points are redeemed in return for goods in the points shop since the customer makes no specific payment for the voucher and it is not assigned any monetary value. Both questions concern cases where Lyko, both in connection with the original transaction and upon redemption, supplies goods within Sweden to Swedish customers.

16. In response to those questions, the Revenue Law Commission stated that the loyalty programme does not imply that Lyko issues vouchers to its customers. The purpose of a voucher is to act as a token, that is to say proof that the holder has paid in advance for, for example, a supply of goods. The points in the loyalty programme have no specific monetary value.

17. Both the Skatteverket (Tax Agency, Sweden) and Lyko brought an action against the tax ruling before the referring court, the Tax Agency claiming that the tax ruling should be upheld. In the proceedings before the referring court, the Tax Agency underlines that the points do not constitute vouchers of a certain value that can be transferred, but merely an opportunity for the customer to choose another product after having purchased other products for a certain amount.

18. Lyko, on the other hand, takes the view that the points satisfy all the requirements as defined in Article 30a of the VAT Directive and therefore constitute vouchers, even though the customers do not specifically pay for the points. When customers participating in the loyalty programme make a purchase, they receive both the chosen product and the points in return for their money (consideration).

IV. Preliminary ruling procedure

19. The Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court, Sweden) asks, in particular, whether it is necessary, in order for there to be a voucher within the meaning of the VAT Directive, for the customers to have paid for the points and the points to have a specific monetary value. Accordingly, it decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following two questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) Does an instrument in the form of points – such as that at issue in the main proceedings – constitute a voucher as defined in Article 30a of the VAT Directive where the points are awarded under a customer loyalty programme designed in such a way that a customer who purchases goods obtains points according to the size of the purchases and is then entitled, when making a future purchase, to use the points to obtain further goods from the seller’s range?

(2) If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, how is the taxable amount under Article 73a of the VAT Directive to be determined when the points are used to obtain goods from the seller?’

20. In the proceedings before the Court of Justice, Lyko, the Swedish tax authorities, the Kingdom of Belgium and the European Commission submitted written observations. In accordance with Article 76(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the Court did not consider it necessary to hold a hearing.

V. Legal assessment

A. Understanding of the questions referred

21. The present request for a preliminary ruling is based on a request for a tax ruling. Lyko wishes to know how the proposed customer loyalty programme should be treated for VAT purposes. The main issue in the dispute is whether the acquisition of points is to be regarded as the issue of a voucher. Unfortunately, the referring court does not explain what the different VAT consequences are of whether or not a voucher is assumed to exist. That would certainly make it easier for the Court to understand the questions referred for a preliminary ruling and it would not need to consider whether the questions referred are decisive for the decision.

22. If I understand it correctly, the real question to be decided here is how to deal with unredeemed points in the light of VAT law. That question can be approached in a number of ways, depending on whether or not a voucher existed. Following the amendment of the VAT Directive by the Voucher Directive, ‘downpayments’ for a multi-purpose voucher (unlike in the case of a single-purpose voucher) are taxable only when the voucher is redeemed. If it is never redeemed, VAT is not due on that amount. All companies therefore have an incentive to avoid single-use vouchers. That can be achieved relatively easily (6) by issuing vouchers that can be used for products with different VAT rates. That is also the case here with regard to the points in question.

23. If the points are to be treated as a multi-purpose voucher, the remuneration for those unredeemed points should, in principle, not be taxed. On the other hand, if the points are to be regarded only as a kind of discount scheme, then they have the effect of reducing tax only if and when they are redeemed. In that case, VAT would be payable in full on the first acquisition of the goods and it is only on redemption of the points that goods would be purchased at reduced prices, which would then also reduce the tax. That would explain Lyko’s interest in the broad interpretation of the concept of vouchers and in the treatment of the points of its own customer loyalty programme as a multi-purpose voucher.

B. The first question

24. The first question concerns the definition of a voucher within the meaning of Article 30a of the VAT Directive. The question here is whether the acquisition of points by a customer can be regarded as the issue of a voucher, even if neither the object nor the value of the object that can be obtained with those points is known at the time the points are acquired.

25. The definition of a voucher in Article 30a point 1 of the VAT Directive contains two cumulative conditions. First, either the goods to be supplied or the potential supplier must be apparent from the voucher or its terms and conditions. Second, there must be an obligation to accept the points as consideration for the supply of goods. The latter distinguishes vouchers from ‘mere’ discounts which, as is apparent from recital 4 of the Voucher Directive, are not covered by Article 30a of the VAT Directive (see, in that regard, point 1).

26. Some parties contend that a voucher can only be something that has been obtained at a certain value that the voucher demonstrates. However, that is not the case with regard to those points. In that regard, it must be examined whether the indication of a certain value on a voucher is an implicit condition or whether it is sufficient that the points are acquired in the context of a transaction for consideration and that the actual value does not become apparent until they are redeemed (see point 2).

27. Ultimately, however, the whole question seems to me to amount to the correct tax treatment of unredeemed points. That may, in my view, be quite different in the case of a multi-purpose voucher representing a specified value and that of a multi-purpose voucher representing a value that is merely specifiable. That does not require the definition of a voucher to be extended by an implicit condition (see point 3).

1. Explicit conditions: specific information and the obligation to accept points as consideration

28. In order for the points issued to be regarded as vouchers within the meaning of Article 30a point 1 of the VAT Directive, two cumulative conditions must be satisfied. (7) First, the goods to be delivered or the possible supplier must be apparent from the voucher or its conditions. That appears to be the case here. As is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling, the detailed terms and conditions for the use of the points are communicated to customers who choose to participate in the programme. That condition therefore appears to have been met. However, as the Commission rightly points out, that is not entirely apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling.

29. Second, the customer loyalty programme must form the basis of the obligation to accept points as consideration for a supply of goods. With the exception of the Swedish tax administration, all interested parties (that is to say, the Commission, Lyko and Belgium) are of the opinion that that condition has been met. That is not correct, in my view, as the Swedish tax authorities correctly presented in detail in their observations. Vouchers must be distinguished from instruments entitling the holder to a discount, which are specifically not covered by Article 30a of the VAT Directive (see recital 4 of the Voucher Directive).

30. Discount instruments do not oblige anyone to supply upon presentation of the voucher, but only to reduce the price when a customer undertakes to purchase goods. They are an incentive to give rise to a further supply for consideration, since they make it cheaper by means of a discount (price discount or product discount). They are nevertheless interdependently linked to another purchase that must be discounted. By contrast, the vouchers referred to in Article 30a of the VAT Directive contain a self-standing obligation, triggered solely by the customer, to accept them as consideration for a supply (or if the amount of the voucher is insufficient, for part of the consideration if the customer so chooses). What matters is that a voucher can be used independently by the rightholder as consideration for a supply of goods or services.

31. That is not the situation here. The points collected from Lyko do not confer any right on the customer (nor do they create an obligation for Lyko) to use (or accept) them as consideration for a supply. If I understand the facts correctly, Lyko is precisely not required to pay a reward in kind on presentation of points. In the first question, the referring court expressly states that the customer loyalty programme is designed in such a way that the customer is then entitled, when making a future purchase, to use the points to obtain further goods from Lyko’s range in the context of that subsequent purchase.

32. In so doing, the points do not create an obligation on the part of the supplier to supply goods, but may be used only in connection with (another) obligation on the part of the customer to make a subsequent purchase. It is only in the context of that obligation that another item (the reward) can then be acquired additionally by means of points. However, there must be an obligation on the part of the supplier for there even to be a voucher. It is only in that case, for example, that, under Article 30b(1) of the VAT Directive, the transfer of a (single-purpose) voucher can already be regarded as a supply of goods. That follows from the definition of voucher in Article 30a point 1 of the VAT Directive and is a condition which all vouchers, and thus also (multi-purpose) vouchers, must meet.

33. In the present case, the points acquired do not impose any obligation – from an economic point of view – to supply a reward, but ‘only’ give the customer the right to a ‘more favourable’ additional purchase. (8) By redeeming the points, the price of that second purchase is reduced by the value of the selected reward – the price of the second purchase (goods and reward) remains identical. That would be even clearer if the points on the occasion of the second purchase did not also allow for the selection of a reward in kind, but for the partial reduction of the purchase price.

34. The position would be different only if the points could be redeemed for a reward irrespective of another purchase. The conditions of Article 30a of the VAT Directive would then be met. Since that is not the case here, the points in the present case do not, for that reason alone, constitute a voucher within the meaning of the VAT Directive, but only a discount.

2. No implicit condition that the voucher must represent a specified value

35. In their observations, Belgium and the Commission in particular point out that the purpose of a voucher is to provide proof of value, that is to say, to show that the holder has paid in advance, for example, for the supply of goods. However, the points in the loyalty programme have no specific monetary value. In that regard, they both assume another implicit condition, namely that the voucher must be purchased for consideration and that it must already represent a specified value when it is issued.

36. Nevertheless, I am not convinced by that argument. First, it is not necessary in the present case because, even in the absence of that implicit condition, there is only an instrument entitling the holder to a discount and not a voucher. Second, that implicit condition would unnecessarily limit the scope of Articles 30a and 30b of the VAT Directive.

37. It is true that a classic voucher (value voucher) is characterised by the fact that a person pays money in advance for a later supply of goods or services – partly not yet specified in detail and partly already specified – by a taxpayer. However, as is apparent from the second sentence of recital 1 of the Voucher Directive, Articles 30a and 30b of the VAT Directive were created precisely because the earlier provisions were understood to be ‘not sufficiently clear or comprehensive to ensure consistency in the tax treatment of transactions involving vouchers, to an extent which has undesirable consequences for the proper functioning of the internal market.’ The context was for businesses in the various Member States to be innovative in promoting customer loyalty and encouraging further purchases.

38. Consequently, if the concept of vouchers is understood very narrowly and only in the traditional sense, the objective of that directive would be largely deprived of its meaning, since, for all the other (newer) instruments, the other provisions that were ‘not sufficiently clear or comprehensive’ would again be decisive. It therefore seems to me to be rather unlikely that the new rules were intended to cover only classic value vouchers.

39. As Lyko rightly asserts, a so-called stamp card, by means of which, after ten purchases (indicated by stamps), the eleventh purchase is free of charge, may thus now constitute a voucher for the supply of the eleventh item. The decisive factor is ‘only’ whether the eleventh item must be supplied independently or whether that is possible only in combination with the eleventh purchase (buy two, pay for one). The latter would then only be a discount on the eleventh purchase.

40. Recital 6 of the Voucher Directive confirms that conclusion. Under that provision, it is necessary to define vouchers, recognising their essential attributes, in particular the nature of the entitlement attached to a voucher and the obligation to accept it as consideration for the supply of goods or services. Neither recital 6 of the Voucher Directive nor Article 30a point 1 of the VAT Directive mentions that a voucher must indicate or represent a fixed monetary value which is already specified at the time of its creation.

41. Consequently, the Court has already held that only the criteria laid down in Article 30a are decisive for the classification of a voucher. (9) That in fact already excludes other implicit conditions.

42. Consequently, it is less important whether the points at issue in the present case are similar to classic vouchers than whether the conditions of Article 30a of the VAT Directive have been met. That article, however, does not require a voucher to be acquired only in return for payment of a sum of money and to represent from the outset a specified value. It is sufficient that the voucher can be used as consideration for another supply or service from a third party and that the good to be delivered or the possible supplier is apparent from the voucher (or related documentation).

43. The points acquired by the first purchase have a monetary value, both at the time of acquisition and at the time of redemption. At the time of acquisition, the points relate to the price of the first purchase and, in that respect, are acquired (for consideration) by the customer in addition to the purchased item, as Lyko rightly states in its observations. It would be difficult to argue that in the case of points that depend on the price of the purchase, those points are credited to the customer free of charge. Contrary to Belgium’s contention, the fact that other customers who do not participate in the customer loyalty programme pay the same price for the goods does not change that.

44. Outside personal relationships, there is a presumption that no business gives anything away to third parties. Each ‘gift’ has been paid for in advance or is paid for retrospectively because it is included in the prices of the business. That is particularly clear as regards points which depend on the price of the purchase, since, at the time of the purchase which gives rise to the corresponding transaction, they have been paid for through the purchase to which they relate.

45. As regards specifically the points acquired on the basis of the price of the purchase, the notion that they are points acquired ‘free of charge’ is unrealistic and does not correspond with economic reality. In the case of a promotional campaign (three tins for the price of two), it would never occur to anyone to assume that the third tin is a gift or is supplied free of charge. All the tins have been purchased for consideration, but the customer (who purchased three tins) paid 33.33 percent less than the other customer, who has bought one or two tins.

46. The Court’s ruling in Kuwait Petroleum, (10) which might have challenged that argument, is not relevant to the present case. In that judgment, the Court attached decisive importance to the fact that vouchers were classified as gifts and that their acceptance by customers was left at their discretion. In the present case, however, points are only awarded to persons participating in the customer loyalty programme (or, to stay with the example of the tins, consciously buying three tins). In the case of these persons, points are credited on the basis of the price of the purchase and points are correctly not classified as gifts. To that extent, a different factual situation exists. Customers participating in the customer loyalty programme pay both (primarily) for the goods and also (secondarily) for the points they receive. Thus, already at the time of acquisition, those points symbolise a value acquired for consideration (which, however, has not yet been established at that time).

47. At the time of redemption, the points then symbolise a value, which is now specified. However, up to that point, it varies (according to Lyko, it is between 2 and 10 percent of the previous purchase) and depending on the reward chosen at the time of the second purchase. Therefore, it cannot be said that the points have no value; they represent a value which only subsequently becomes apparent because it depends on the reward chosen and, until then, is not expressed in monetary terms but in points. Consequently, the points do not represent a specified value, but a specifiable value.

48. Nevertheless, the fact that the value of the points (as consideration for the supply of the reward) is variable or uncertain is irrelevant in terms of VAT law. As I have already stated elsewhere, (11) the fact that the amount of the consideration is uncertain does not call into question its status as consideration for a supply of goods or services. The only decision of the Court (Baštová (12)) from which a different conclusion could be drawn is, first, not relevant in the present case (it concerned the question as to whether the winner of a horse race had carried out a transaction in the form of the prize from the race, which was rightly answered in the negative). Second, on closer scrutiny, it cannot be understood so broadly. (13)

49. On the contrary, Article 73 of the VAT Directive shows that the taxable amount includes everything which constitutes the value of the consideration. According to the case-law of the Court, that consideration does not necessarily have to be monetary; (14) it is only necessary that it may be expressed in monetary terms. (15) The same should apply to a voucher that involves the obligation to hand over to the holder goods mentioned (or specifiable) therein.

50. Ultimately, that is also confirmed by Article 73a of the VAT Directive as amended by the Voucher Directive, which lays down certain special arrangements for determining the taxable amount of a multi-purpose voucher. Article 73a expressly provides for special rules ‘without prejudice to Article 73’ of the VAT Directive.

51. However, if it is sufficient, under Article 73 of the VAT Directive, that the value of the consideration (in the present case, the voucher) can be expressed in money, it is also sufficient, under Article 73, that the value of the points (as consideration) can be determined at the time of supply. Since at that moment the value of the reward has been established, the value of the points has also been established for determining the taxable amount under Article 73. That is also expressly sufficient under Article 73a (‘without prejudice to Article 73’).

52. Consequently, contrary to the Commission’s observations, it cannot be inferred from the wording of Article 73a of the VAT Directive that there is a voucher only where the value of the voucher is expressed as a fixed price when the voucher is issued. On the contrary, a (multi-purpose) voucher also exists where it refers to a reward in kind which is still uncertain and the value of the reward is determined only when the customer chooses the reward.

53. The fact that the exact content of the supply is not yet known at that time is also irrelevant, given that a multi-purpose voucher within the meaning of Article 30a point 3 of the VAT Directive is precisely characterised by such uncertainty. That uncertainty is accepted (and can easily be accepted) because, under Article 30b(2) of the VAT Directive, only the actual handing over of the goods in return for which the supplier of the goods accepts a multi-purpose voucher as consideration is subject to VAT. At the latest by that time, both the item and its value and, therefore, the value of the voucher are determined. By contrast, any previous transfer (as well as the issue) of that multi-purpose voucher is not subject to VAT, so that the uncertainty referred to is irrelevant.

54. Consequently, if they granted an independent right to a specifiable reward, the points in the present case would have to be regarded as vouchers. If the reward is not yet specified (and it is therefore not possible, for example, to determine the correct tax rate), it would be a multi-purpose voucher the issue of which does not yet have any consequences for VAT purposes. Only the redemption of points would constitute a supply (of the reward) for consideration (in the form of the voucher). At the time of that redemption, it would be possible to indicate and determine the value of the voucher on the basis of the chosen reward. The supply of the reward would have to be taxed at the time of redemption. Corresponding to that, that redemption would then (for the first time) reduce the taxable amount of the purchase which included the purchase of the points.

3. The treatment of unredeemed points

55. However, that result would not yet make it possible to determine what treatment Lyko should give to the unredeemed points where those points must be regarded as vouchers.

56. In the case of a normal multi-purpose voucher which is acquired for consideration, which represents a specified price but is never redeemed, the effect of Article 30b of the VAT Directive is that no VAT is charged. That is consistent in so far as the customer incurs financial expenses, but no service or supply of goods is provided. The mere possibility of using the voucher was clearly not sufficient to allow the legislature to assume the existence of a transaction that is taxable and tax-exempt.

57. On the other hand, a discount on the first or second purchase would only lead to lower taxation if it were also actually used. That is logical because, until it is used, the customer has spent a certain amount on a supply of goods or services and the taxable person has received a certain amount in that respect.

58. A multi-purpose voucher which does not represent a specified value, but only a specifiable value, lies between a particular multi-purpose voucher and a discount. However, appropriate VAT may be levied without it being necessary to restrict the concept of vouchers.

59. Even under Articles 30a and 30b of the VAT Directive, a multi-purpose voucher which does not represent a specified value, but only a specifiable value, can have consequences for VAT purposes only when that specifiable value is specified. If that occurs only at the time of redemption, that voucher has, until that date, no effect, including on the taxable amount of the first purchase.

60. Consequently, if the points are not redeemed, the taxable amount of the first purchase remains unchanged, both from the point of view of the seller – who has received a certain amount for the goods – and from the point of view of the customer – who has spent a certain amount on the goods received – and must be taxed in full. A breakdown of that taxable amount (into a taxed part for goods and an untaxed part for the voucher) is not possible in the event of the issue of a voucher with a merely specifiable value (unlike the issue of a multi-purpose voucher of a specified value), since the specifiable value of a voucher cannot be established unless it is redeemed.

61. The same would apply if the existence of a voucher was not assumed. In that case, the points would only constitute the possibility of a form of discount which has a fiscal effect only when that discount is used. That is the case only at the time of a second purchase.

62. That is clear from Article 79 of the VAT Directive, which excludes granted discounts from the taxable amount for VAT purposes. However, the points themselves are not yet a discount that has been granted, but merely a possibility of a discount. Although a discount after completion of the transaction (in the present case, the first purchase) leads to a reduction in the taxable amount under Article 90 of the VAT Directive, it also presupposes implementation of the discount. That would be the case only upon redemption of the points, that is to say, upon receipt of the reward. (16)

C. The second question

63. Since it follows from the answer to the first question that, in the present case, the issue of points which can be redeemed for a reward only together with another purchase does not constitute a voucher within the meaning of Article 30a of the VAT Directive but must, on the contrary, be regarded as a mere discount, there is no longer any need to answer the second question.

VI. Conclusion

64. I therefore propose that the Court should answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court, Sweden) as follows:

The issue of points under a customer loyalty programme which is designed in such a way that a customer who purchases goods obtains points according to the size of the purchases and is then entitled, when making a future purchase, to use the points to obtain further goods from the seller’s range does not constitute a voucher within the meaning of Article 30a of Directive 2006/112. There is no (self-standing) obligation to accept those points as consideration for a supply of goods. Therefore, such a point system constitutes only a discount on a future purchase.

1 Original language: German.

2 Terra, B. J. M./Terra, E. T., ‘The value of the voucher directive on the EU VAT treatment of vouchers’, World Journal of VAT/GST Law, 2017, p. 27 (33).

3 Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the treatment of vouchers (‘the Voucher Directive’), OJ 2016 L 177, p. 9.

4 Judgments of 18 April 2024, Finanzamt O (Single-purpose vouchers) (C‑68/23, EU:C:2024:342), and of 28 April 2022, DSAB Destination Stockholm (C‑637/20, EU:C:2022:304). In addition to the present proceedings, Case C‑472/24 is also pending.

5 Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’), 2006 L 347, p. 1, in the version applicable to the period at issue. The articles in question were inserted by abovementioned Voucher Directive.

6 Statements such as the following are made in the legal literature: ‘However, the good news for taxable persons is that an SPV (single-purpose voucher) can easily be turned into an MPV (multi-purpose voucher) by adding an element of uncertainty to the VAT treatment of the (potential) supplies envisaged. By turning an SPV into an MPV, taxable persons can at the very last obtain a cash flow advantage and potentially a true saving if the MPV is not redeemed.’ –Terra, B. J. M./Terra, E. T., ‘The value of the voucher directive on the EU VAT treatment of vouchers’, World Journal of VAT/GST Law, 2017, p. 27 (34).

In practice, single-purpose vouchers are avoided to the extent possible. See, in that regard, P. Wille, ‘New VAT Rules for Vouchers’, International VAT Monitor 2019, p. 5 (6): ‘MPVs should hopefully give rise to fewer problems.’

7 Judgment of 28 April 2022, DSAB Destination Stockholm (C‑637/20, EU:C:2022:304, paragraphs 20 and 21). For single-purpose vouchers, see: judgment of 18 April 2024, Finanzamt O (Single-purpose vouchers) (C‑68/23, EU:C:2024:342, paragraph 36).

8 A similar conclusion was reached in the judgment of 27 March 1990, Boots Company (C‑126/88, EU:C:1990:136, paragraphs 12 and 13).

9 Judgment of 18 April 2024, Finanzamt O (Single-purpose vouchers) (C‑68/23, EU:C:2024:342, paragraph 55).

10 Judgment of 27 April 1999 (C‑48/97, EU:C:1999:203, paragraph 30 et seq.).

11 My Opinion in Financial Bulgaria (C‑744/23, EU:C:2025:332, points 49 and 50).

12 Judgment of 10 November 2016 (C‑432/15, EU:C:2016:855, paragraph 36).

13 So also my Opinion in Financial Bulgaria (C‑744/23, EU:C:2025:332, point 62 et seq.).

14 Explicitly, judgment of 8 May 2024, Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie (Shares as consideration) (C‑241/23, EU:C:2024:392, paragraph 22), similarly, judgment of 19 December 2012, Orfey (C‑549/11, EU:C:2012:832, paragraph 36).

15 Judgments of 8 May 2024, Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie (Shares as consideration) (C‑241/23, EU:C:2024:392, paragraph 23), of 10 January 2019, A(C‑410/17, EU:C:2019:12, paragraph 35), of 19 December 2012, Orfey (C‑549/11, EU:C:2012:832, paragraph 36), and judgment of 3 July 1997, Goldsmiths (C‑330/95, EU:C:1997:339, paragraph 23).

16 Similarly, the judgment of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court, Germany) of 16 January 2020 – V R 42/17 – BFHE 268, 287, BStBl. II 2020, 361 on the former legal position under EU law.