"electronic money" means monetary value, as represented by a claim on the issuer, which is- (a) stored on an electronic device; (b) issued on receipt of funds; and (c) accepted as a means of payment by persons other than the issuer (3) The electronic money system operated by the Appellant is distinguished by the name "
" … it is clear that Diners and CSL undoubtedly do make supplies. They set up and operate their respective credit card operations. They provide a means by which the retailer can increase his business by holding himself out as being prepared to accept the credit cards of either Diners or CSL. They ensure that the retailer will receive payment, apart from in those exceptional cases referred to in the contracts. If Diners or CSL had charged the retailers an annual fee to become authorised retailers of the respective schemes, in my view it would be clear beyond doubt that Diners and CSL were making supplies of services within the meaning of s 3(2)( b ) and that those services were for a consideration, namely, the annual fee. Does it make any difference that no annual fee is in fact charged? In my view, it does make a difference because of the impact of s 4(3) which defines the time of supply as when the service is performed, since there can be no relevant supply unless it is for a consideration. Because of this the operation of the schemes in general by the taxpayer companies can only be regarded as the background against which a supply which can be relied on by the commissioners takes place. This supply is the making of the payments to the retailer pursuant to the contractual obligation to make that payment placed on Diners and CSL by their respective contracts with the retailer. Viewing that payment in accordance with the approach indicated by Ralph Gibson J, it is not a payment merely for a supply simplicitur by the retailer which would not also constitute a supply by the card company. The entire transaction when objectively determined demonstrates that the payment is also the supply of a service to the retailer by Diners and CSL. Is it, then, a service which is supplied for a consideration? The answer is 'Yes'. If you seek to ascertain, from an examination of the terms of the entire transaction, why there is the provision for a discount (that is to ask what this consideration is for?) the answer which the entire transaction provides is that it is for the benefits which the scheme operated by the credit card company confers on the retailer, which include the service of providing the payment which is assured by the credit card company." ( per Woolf LJ at p417) "
"The tribunal were impressed by the fact that the agreement between the retailer and HSV entitles the retailer to no more than the discounted face value. It followed, they thought, that the retailer gives nothing to HSV. Counsel for HSV's submission is to the same effect. I do not think that this is right. Were he not participating in the scheme the retailer would expect to receive the full price for the goods he sold. To accept only 90% of the price of the goods sold to customers who present vouchers is to forgo the other 10%. The fact that the retailer has made an earlier agreement with HSV to forgo this 10% does not detract from the fact that he does forgo it. A corresponding benefit accrues to HSV. Without the discount from the retailers HSV would not sell vouchers at a discount; without the discount there would be no scheme. This answers counsel for HSV's submission that HSV obtains nothing. To say, as he does, that HSV's ability to sell vouchers at a discount is separate from the discount given by the retailer to HSV on redemption is to fail to have regard to the 'entire transaction'. In reality the discount is the price paid by the retailer for the benefits of participating in the scheme. One can test it, as counsel for the Crown suggested, by asking what would have been the position had HSV and the retailer agreed that vouchers would be redeemed at face value upon the retailer remitting to HSV the used vouchers plus 10% of their face value. Plainly this would have been the price. The arrangement in fact made has the same effect. The discount is the price. It is paid by the retailer and received (or obtained) by HSV in return for the services it provides."
"To define electronically supplied services, examples of such services should be included in an annex to the [Sixth] Directive"