The CJEU, in its judgment of 5 March 2026 (case C-472/2024, Second Chamber, Žaidimų valiuta), has clarified the VAT treatment of digital assets whose circulation is restricted to a closed environment.

The Court reaches two conclusions of weight. The first: the exchange between real money and the virtual currency of an online video game does not benefit from the exemption provided for in article 135(1)(e) of Directive 2006/112/EC —the provision that exempts from VAT transactions concerning currencies and legal-tender means of payment—.

The second: that virtual currency does not constitute a multi-purpose voucher under article 30a of the Directive itself. It is not, in other words, an instrument granting the right to obtain goods or services whose specific identity is yet to be determined at the time of the transaction.

The consequence is direct for the operator: the taxable base coincides with the full consideration received for the sale, in accordance with the general rule of article 73 of the Directive.

The case under review concerns a Lithuanian company whose activity consisted of buying and reselling the virtual currency Gold of the Runescape video game in exchange for traditional currencies. The Lithuanian Tax Inspection characterised the activity as a supply of electronic services subject to VAT on its full amount and assessed the tax with interest and a penalty.

In the alternative, the Lithuanian company argued that Gold should be characterised as a multi-purpose voucher, an option under which the taxable base would have been reduced to the spread between purchase price and sale price. As its principal argument, it invoked the Hedqvist doctrine to defend the exemption applicable to non-traditional currencies.

It is helpful to pause first on Hedqvist. In that judgment, of 22 October 2015 (case C-264/14), the CJEU declared VAT-exempt the exchange of bitcoin for traditional currencies. To reach that conclusion, the Court assimilated bitcoin to a non-traditional currency, that is, to a digital means of payment distinct from legal-tender money.

That said, the Hedqvist doctrine requires the non-traditional currency to satisfy, cumulatively, two conditions. The first: that the parties accept it as an alternative to legal-tender money. The second: that the currency have no purpose other than to serve as a means of payment.

Applied to this case, Gold satisfies neither. The currency is used only within the video game and lacks generalised acceptance in the market as a means of payment to obtain real goods or services.

To this is added a datum that reinforces the conclusion: the very terms of the game deny the player ownership over the products associated with the game, including Gold itself. The player is not, strictly speaking, the holder of an exchangeable asset; he is a user of a service.

On the characterisation as a multi-purpose voucher, the Court’s reasoning is best appreciated. Article 30a of the Directive defines the voucher as an instrument carrying the obligation to accept it as consideration for a supply of goods or services, and in respect of which the goods, services or identity of the suppliers are indicated on the instrument itself or in its documentation. The voucher is multi-purpose —as opposed to single-purpose— where the place of supply or the VAT applicable are not yet determined at the time of issue.

Gold does not meet the first requirement of the definition. It is not an instrument granting access to subsequent unspecified consumption; it is, in itself, the consumable benefit. The electronic service that the user receives and exhausts within the game.

The technical difference is decisive. A voucher defers economic effects to future consumption; Gold effects them at once.

In our view, the judgment consolidates the line opened in Hedqvist, without overstepping it. What remains determinative is generalised acceptance as a means of payment, not confinement to a closed environment.

Accordingly, crypto-assets that do meet that condition —and, notably, broadly used cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin or ether— remain outside the Court’s reasoning. They retain, in principle, the exemption regime derived from Hedqvist.

The judgment delimits, in contrast, the treatment of internal digital assets. Clearly subject to VAT under the general rule are closed utility tokens (digital units usable only within a specific platform), internal platform currencies and game currencies.

The practical consequence therefore affects operators of digital platforms, video games and issuers of utility tokens with clients established in Spain. It is advisable to review the VAT characterisation of the exchange operations they manage, as well as the chargeability of the tax to the end user.

In conclusion, what this new CJEU judgment makes clear is that where the two cumulative conditions required by Hedqvist do not concur —generalised acceptance as an alternative to legal-tender money and absence of purpose other than serving as a means of payment—, the transaction is subject to VAT in accordance with article 73 of the Directive, and the taxable base coincides with the full sale price.

Sources