Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Richard Barlow, counsel, instructed by Alan Hinton and Associates, for the Appellant
Rupert Baldry, counsel, instructed by the Acting Solicitor for HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
The Court examined the same situation in more detail in EC Commission v Germany dealing with possible objections, such as giving a reduction to the person in the position of Elida Gibbs meant that the wholesaler to which it sold was given a greater input tax credit than the tax ultimately paid by its supplier, but the court followed the approach in Elida Gibbs . The Advocate General gives numerical examples to illustrate the position.
It seems to us that the only difference between Total and the cases in the European Court was that rather than providing a coupon or cash to the final consumer Total bought a gift voucher at a discount from a retailer (as Sir Andrew Park said at [6(6)] "They appear to me to be the standard forms of gift vouchers which the retailing groups sell to customers generally") and gave it to the customer, thus indirectly (rather than directly in the European Court cases) reducing the price of the supply in question by giving the customer an equivalent price reduction on goods bought from the retailer.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.