Skip to content
Solved
SearchBrowse
Sign in

Contents

Official guidance
VAT Supply and Consideration

VATSC11130 · Supply: Single and multiple supplies: Precedent cases

  • VATSC11131 · Mander Laundries Limited (BIRM/73/31)
  • VATSC11132 · British Airways (Court of Appeal 1990 STC 643)
  • VATSC11133 · Faaborg-Gelting Linien A/S (C-231/94)
  • VATSC11134 · Madgett and Baldwin (C-308/96 & C-94/97)
  • VATSC11135 · Card Protection Plan (C-349/96)
  • VATSC11136 · British Telecommunications plc (House of Lords 1999 STC 758)
  • VATSC11137 · British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (LON/98/889)
  • VATSC11138 · MD Foods plc (LON/00/899) & United Biscuits (UK) Ltd (Court of Session [1992] STC325)
  • VATSC11139 · Sea Containers Services Ltd (High Court 2000 STC 82) & Durham River Trips Limited (MAN/99/876)
  • VATSC11140 · FDR Limited (Court of Appeal 2000 STC 672)
  • VATSC11141 · Dr Beynon (2004 UKHL 53)
  • VATSC11142 · Levob Verzekeringen BV (C-41/04)
  • VATSC11143 · Telewest (Court of Appeal [2005] STC 481)
  • VATSC11144 · College of Estate Management (2005 UKHL 62)
  • VATSC11145 · Aktiebolaget NN (C-111/05)
  • VATSC11146 · Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd (Court of Appeal [2008] STC 2313) & David Baxendale (Court of Appeal [2009] STC 2578)
  • VATSC11147 · Part Service Srl (C-425/06)
  • VATSC11148 · Everything Everywhere (C-276/09)
  • VATSC11149 · RLRE Tellmer Property sro (C-572/07)
  • VATSC11150 · The Lower Mill Estate Limited (Upper Tier Tribunal FTC 10/2009)
  • VATSC11151 · Purple Parking (C-117/11)
  • VATSC11152 · Deutsche Bank (C-44/11)
  • VATSC11153 · Goals Soccer Centres ( [2012] UKFTT 576)
  • VATSC11154 · The Honourable Society of Middle Temple (UKUT 0250)
  • VATSC11155 · BGZ Leasing sp z.o.o (C-224/11)
  1. Supply: Single and multiple supplies: Precedent cases: Contents
  2. Supply: Single and multiple supplies: Precedent cases: Deutsche Bank (C-44/11)

VATSC11152 | Supply: Single and multiple supplies: Precedent cases: Deutsche Bank (C-44/11)

From HM Revenue & Customs · VAT Supply and Consideration

Deutsche Bank provided portfolio management services to clients and the question put to the ECJ was whether the different elements were a single economic transaction and questioned the significance of the criterion that the ancillary service did not constitute for customers an end in itself, but the means of enjoying the supplier’s principal service in the situation when ancillary services may have a separate charge and be provided by a third party.

The decision commented that whether there was a principal and ancillary service was not the only test and decided on the facts that the Levob argument was more relevant and the elements were considered to be so closely linked that they formed, objectively, a single economic supply, which it would be artificial to split.

PreviousNext
PrivacyTerms