European Vat Club

- 4 -

European VAT Club

Short question and answer template

Meeting of Amsterdam

7 October 2011

Question – Case C-175/09 – AXA UK Plc

On 28 October 2010 the ECJ issued the judgement connected to case C-175/09 (AXA) dealing with the application of the exemption laid down by Article 13 B (d) of the Sixth Directive (now Article 135 A (d) of the VAT Directive.

The case related to the services supplied by Denplan Plc, a company belonging to the VAT Grouping created by AXA UK Plc, to dentists.

The case is depicted below:

The ECJ ruled that the commission charged by Denplan to Dentist has to be characterized as “debt collection and factoring” fee to be subject to VAT.

This questionnaires aims to analyze if in each Member Country a “commission” charged by an intermediary in a similar situation is to be characterized as an exempt “payment service” or as a taxable “debt collection services”.

Question 1: in your country would the commission be considered “exempt”?

[Yes] / [No]
Austria
Belgium
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy / Yes[1]
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

Question 2: Is the consequence of the AXA Case that each transaction concerning payments and transfers will now be qualified as taxable debt collection services?

[Yes] / [No]
Austria
Belgium
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

Question 3: Would the Court’s conclusions in the Nordea Case (C-350/10) have any impact on the answer provided to questions 1 and 2?

LIB03\C5GJS\1405977.1 Lovells

[1] In Letter Ruling 120/E issued on 28 May 2003 the Tax Agency characterized a commission charged by an intermediary which was collecting money relating to mortgage installments and was wiring the same amounts, net of a commission, to the Bank issuing the loan as a consideration for a “payment service” exempt from VAT. The ruling is grounded on the principle expressed by the Court of Justice in the decision relating to case C-2/95 (SDC).