The distinction between composite supplies and multiple supplies is of paramount importance in VAT law, as it directly affects how transactions are treated for VAT purposes. The determination of whether a supply is composite or multiple impacts not only the application of VAT but also the potential for VAT avoidance or discrepancies in compliance.

This opinion piece bids to explore the nuances of both types of supplies, including recent developments in case law, and their implications for VAT treatment.

What is a single supply?

A ‘single supply’ is a transaction where multiple goods or services are provided as a single, unified economic entity. As explained in paragraph 22 of the Stadion Amsterdam (C-463/16) judgement, a single supply exists when different components are so closely connected that they form a single transaction for VAT purposes, and separating them would be artificial. This is typically seen in composite supplies, where one dominant or principal supply is accompanied by ancillary elements that serve only to enhance or facilitate the primary offering. The VAT treatment of the entire transaction is determined based on the principal supply.

The case of Card Protection Plan Ltd (CPP) v Commissioners of Customs & Excise C-349/96 exemplifies this structure. Here, the principal service, card protection was accompanied by supplementary services, which, although essential to the overall offering, lacked independent value. These ancillary elements were thus inseparable from the principal supply and followed the VAT treatment applicable to the main service.

Fused and overarching single supplies

The concept of a 'fused single supply' arises when multiple elements are so interconnected that they form an inseparable economic entity. This principle was established in Levob Verzekeringen BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Case C-41/04), where the Court ruled that closely linked services should be treated as a single, unified supply for VAT purposes. The BlackRock Management Investment case (C-231/19) further developed this notion, with the Court determining that a series of related services provided via a software platform for managing investment funds constituted a single composite supply, despite lacking a clear principal/ancillary distinction. Similarly, in UU Bibliotech Ltd [2007] BVC 4020, the UK Court extended this approach, recognizing that composite supplies not fitting the principal/ancillary framework should be treated based on the most significant component, whether principal or fused.

Multiple supplies

In contrast to composite supplies, ‘multiple supplies’ involve distinct items sold together for one consideration, where each part of the transaction is capable of being supplied individually. These components are both physically and economically dissociable, meaning they do not form a single unified economic entity. In the case of multiple supplies, VAT is applied separately to each individual supply, with the total consideration apportioned accordingly.

For example, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal recently ruled that parking services at a hotel near Schiphol Airport were separate from accommodation services and subject to a 21% VAT charge. This case highlights the distinction between multiple supplies, where parking services, despite being bundled with accommodation, are sufficiently independent to be considered a separate supply for VAT purposes. The Court's ruling emphasised that parking services, particularly long-term airport parking, serve a distinct purpose and must be valued according to market rates. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, confirming that the correct VAT charge should be based on the actual market price for parking, rather than the allocated amount used by the hotel.

RSM opinion

The distinction between composite supplies and multiple supplies is a fundamental aspect of VAT law, with significant implications for both businesses and tax authorities. Case law, such as the BlackRock and the recent Amsterdam Court of Appeal decision, underscores the evolving nature of VAT jurisprudence in the context of interconnected goods and services. Indeed, it is evident that the determination of single or multiple supplies is very fact-dependent. There are a number of concepts that need to be considered carefully. This is particularly relevant where these supplies could mean a recovery of input tax not previously contemplated where an exemption exists or where a lower rate of VAT or an exemption applies.

As the legal landscape continues to develop, businesses must remain vigilant in understanding these distinctions to ensure compliance and avoid potential tax liabilities. In an environment where rules are continuously evolving, one must ask: Are businesses fully aware of the risks posed by incorrect classifications, and are they ready to face the potential consequences of non-compliance?

Id-distinzjoni bejn provvisti komposti u provvisti multipli hija ta' importanza kbira fil-liġi tat-taxxa fuq il-valur mizjud (“VAT”) peress li taffettwa direttament kif it-transazzjonijiet jiġu trattati għal skopijiet ta' taxxa. Id-determinazzjoni ta' jekk provvista hijiex komposta jew multipla taffettwa mhux biss l-applikazzjoni tal-VAT iżda wkoll il-potenzjal għal evitar tat-taxxa jew diskrepanzi fil-konformità. 

Dan l-artikolu jesplora dawn iż-żewġ tipi ta' provvisti, inklużi żviluppi reċenti fil-ġurisprudenza, u l-implikazzjonijiet tagħhom għat-trattament tal-VAT.

X'inhi provvista waħda?

Provvista waħda hija transazzjoni fejn diversi oġġetti jew servizzi jiġu pprovduti bħala entità ekonomika waħda u unifikata. Kif spjegat fil-paragrafu 22 tas-sentenza Stadion Amsterdam (C-463/16), provvista waħda teżisti meta komponenti differenti huma marbuta b'mod tant mill-qrib li jiffurmaw transazzjoni waħda għal skopijiet tal-VAT, u li tisseparahom tkun artifiċjali. Dan normalment jidher f'provvisti komposti, fejn provvista prinċipali tkun akkumpanjata minn elementi anċillari li jservu biss biex itejbu jew jiffaċilitaw l-offerta primarja.

Il-każ ta' Card Protection Plan Ltd (CPP) vs Commissioners of Customs & Excise (C-349/96)  jispjega din l-istruttura. F’dan il-każ, is-servizz prinċipali—il-protezzjoni tal-karta—kien akkumpanjat minn servizzi supplimentari, li, għalkemm essenzjali għall-offerta ġenerali, kienu nieqsa minn valur indipendenti. Dawn l-elementi anċillari kienu għalhekk inseparabbli mill-provvista prinċipali u segwew it-trattament tal-VAT applikabbli għas-servizz prinċipali. 

Provvisti uniċi oħra

Il-kunċett ta' ‘fused and overarching single supply’ jinħoloq meta diversi elementi jkunu tant interkonnessi li jiffurmaw entità ekonomika inseparabbli. Dan il-prinċipju ġie stabbilit fil-każ Levob Verzekeringen BV vs Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Każ C-41/04), fejn il-Qorti ddeċidiet li servizzi konnessi mill-qrib għandhom jiġu trattati bħala provvista waħda u unifikata għal skopijiet tal-VAT. Il-każ BlackRock Management Investment (C-231/19) żviluppa aktar dan il-kunċett, fejn il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea ddeterminat li serje ta' servizzi relatati pprovduti permezz ta' pjattaforma ta' softwer għall-immaniġġjar ta’ fondi ta’ investiment kienu jikkostitwixxu provvista komposta waħda, minkejja n-nuqqas ta' kategorija ċara bejn l-elementi prinċipali u dawk anċillari.. Bl-istess mod, fil-każ UU Bibliotech Ltd [2007] BVC 4020, il-Qorti tar-Renju Unit adottat dan ir-raġunament u rrikonoxxiet li ċerti provvistai komposti jistgħu ma jaqgħux perfettament fi ħdan l-istruttura prinċipali jew ancillari, fejn l-elementi kollha, għalkemm jagħmlu offerta koerenti, ma jistgħux jiġu klassifikati bħala sussidjarji.

Multiple Supplies

B'kuntrast ma' provvisti komposti, 'provvisti multipli' jinvolvu oġġetti distinti mibjugħa flimkien għal konsiderazzjoni waħda, fejn kull parti tat-tranżazzjoni tkun tista' tiġi pprovduta individwalment. Dawn il-komponenti huma kemm fiżikament kif ukoll ekonomikalment separabbli, jiġifieri, ma jiffurmawx entità ekonomika unifikata. Fil-każ ta' provvisti multipli, il-VAT tiġi applikata separatament għal kull provvista individwali, u l-konsiderazzjoni totali tiġi applikata b’rabta mal-provvista rispettiva.

Pereżempju, il-Qorti tal-Appell ta' Amsterdam reċentement iddeċidiet li s-servizzi ta' parkeġġ f'lukanda qrib l-Ajruport ta' Schiphol kienu separati mis-servizzi ta' akkomodazzjoni u soġġetti għal ħlas tal-VAT ta' 21%. Dan il-każ jenfasizza d-distinzjoni bejn provvisti multipli, fejn is-servizzi ta' parkeġġ, minkejja li huma miġbura flimkien ma' akkomodazzjoni, huma indipendenti biżżejjed biex jitqiesu bħala provvista separata għall-finijiet tal-VAT. Id-deċiżjoni tal-Qorti enfasizzat li s-servizzi tal-parkeġġ, b'mod partikolari l-parkeġġ fit-tul fl-ajruporti, iservu skop distint u għandhom jiġu vvalutati skont ir-rati tas-suq. Din id-deċiżjoni ġiet ikkonfermata mill-Qorti Suprema, li tikkonferma li t-tariffa korretta tal-VAT għandha tkun ibbażata fuq il-prezz attwali tas-suq għall-parkeġġ, aktar milli fuq l-ammont allokat użat mil-lukanda.

Opinjoni ta' RSM 

Id-distinzjoni bejn provvisti komposti u provvisti multipli hija aspett fundamentali tal-liġi tal-VAT, b'impatt sinifikanti kemm fuq in-negozji kif ukoll fuq l-awtoritajiet tat-taxxa. Il-ġurisprudenza, bħal fil-każijiet BlackRock u d-deċiżjoni reċenti tal-Qorti tal-Appell ta' Amsterdam tenfasizza n-natura li qed tevolvi tal-ġurisprudenza tal-VAT fil-kuntest ta' oġġetti u servizzi interkonnessi. Fil-fatt, huwa evidenti li d-determinazzjoni ta' provvisti waħda jew multipli hija dipendenti ħafna fuq il-fatti. Hemm numru ta' kunċetti li jeħtieġ li jiġu kkunsidrati bir-reqqa. Dan huwa partikolarment rilevanti fejn dawn il-provvisti jistgħu jfissru rkupru ta' taxxa fuq id-dħul mhux ikkontemplata qabel fejn teżisti eżenzjoni jew fejn tapplika rata aktar baxxa ta' VAT jew eżenzjoni.

Hekk kif ix-xenarju legali qed ikompli jiżviluppa, in-negozji jridu jibqgħu viġilanti biex jifhmu dawn id-distinzjonijiet biex jiżguraw il-konformità u jevitaw obbligazzjonijiet fiskali potenzjali. F'ambjent fejn ir-regoli qed jevolvu kontinwament, wieħed irid jistaqsi: In-negozji huma kompletament konxji tar-riskji li joħorġu minn klassifikazzjonijiet inkorretti, u huma lesti li jiffaċċjaw il-konsegwenzi potenzjali tan-nuqqas ta' konformità?