Balance Sheet Implications of Store Credit and Loyalty Points in E-Commerce

Notice: The author of this article and Memberr GmbH assume no liability for the accuracy or applicability of the information contained herein, and nothing in this article should be considered as legal advice. Please consult with a qualified attorney regarding your specific legal situation.

Store Credit and customer loyalty points are common in e-commerce as tools to boost sales and retain customers. Legally and accounting-wise, these instruments create obligations for the seller: customers can claim goods or discounts in the future, meaning the company owes a future performance. This has significant balance sheet implications – primarily the recognition of liabilities (deferred revenue or provisions) until the credits or points are redeemed. The following analysis provides a detailed look at how different jurisdictions handle these issues, the accounting standards (IFRS vs U.S. GAAP) for financial reporting, tax and regulatory considerations (VAT, sales tax, income tax), real-world case studies, and a comparative summary of best practices for e-commerce businesses.

1. Jurisdictional Analysis

United States (U.S.) – GAAP, ASC 606, and Tax Law

Accounting (GAAP/ASC 606): U.S. GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) addresses loyalty points and store credits primarily through ASC 606 (Revenue from Contracts with Customers). Under ASC 606, loyalty points or store credits granted to a customer create a “material right” – essentially a separate performance obligation to provide future goods/services at a discount (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO). This means a portion of the original sale revenue must be deferred as a liability (unearned revenue) equal to the standalone selling price of the points/credits, rather than recognized entirely as immediate revenue. The revenue is then recognized later when the points or credits are redeemed or expire (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO). Prior to ASC 606, U.S. practice varied – some companies recognized the full revenue at sale and accrued an expense for the future cost (incremental cost model), while others deferred a portion of revenue (multiple-element model) (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1). ASC 606 now prohibits the cost-accrual method, requiring the deferred revenue approach (performance obligation) for loyalty programs (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO) (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1). Unredeemed points expected never to be used (“breakage”) are recognized as revenue in proportion to redemptions, per ASC 606’s guidance (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO). Store credits like gift cards are similarly recorded as a liability (deferred revenue) on the balance sheet when sold/issued, and recognized as revenue upon redemption (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1) (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1). This treatment aligns with legal principles that until the company fulfills the obligation (delivers goods/services for the credit), it has a liability to the customer.

Tax Treatment: For U.S. federal income tax, advance payments and unredeemed gift cards fall under specific tax rules. Generally, selling a gift card or issuing store credit does not trigger immediate taxable income if the company defers it in its financials – the IRS allows deferral of advance payments to the next tax year in many cases (under IRC §451(c) and Rev. Proc. 2011-18, 2013-29) for accrual-basis taxpayers. The latest IRS regulations under the 2017 tax law reform confirm that if a portion of the sales price is allocated to loyalty points (deferred in the financials), that portion can also be deferred for tax purposes until the points are redeemed (or until the following year, in line with tax deferral limits) (Final regulations help taxpayers compute revenue | Grant Thornton). (One exception: financial institutions’ credit card reward points are treated as rebates and not eligible for the same deferral (Final regulations help taxpayers compute revenue | Grant Thornton).) This prevents a mismatch where a company would owe tax on revenue it hasn’t yet recognized in books or received in cash. Additionally, U.S. state unclaimed property laws treat unredeemed gift certificates as potential unclaimed property after a dormancy period. If store credits/gift cards never get redeemed and are deemed “breakage,” companies must determine if they are required to remit the value to the state (escheat) or if they can recognize it as income. For example, Starbucks disclosed that it only recognizes breakage income on gift cards when the likelihood of redemption becomes remote and there is no requirement to remit the balance under unclaimed property laws (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1). This legal factor influences when a company can safely take unused credit into revenue.

Legal Precedents: U.S. case law specifically on loyalty point accounting is sparse, as these issues are mostly handled by accounting standards rather than courts. However, legal requirements do exist for gift cards/store credits (e.g. the federal Credit CARD Act and state laws limit expiration dates and fees on gift cards, typically requiring at least 5 years before expiry). Loyalty points (earned as a free promotion) are generally not covered by gift card statutes, so companies set their own expiration policies – but they must honor points according to the program terms, which becomes a contractual obligation. There have been lawsuits and regulatory actions around unredeemed balances – for instance, state authorities (like Delaware) have pursued retailers that did not appropriately report unused gift card balances as unclaimed property. In summary, U.S. e-commerce firms must navigate ASC 606 for accounting, IRS rules for income inclusion timing, and consumer protection/unclaimed property regulations for any expirations or breakage of credits.

United Kingdom (U.K.) – IFRS 15, HMRC Guidance, and Legal Implications

Accounting (IFRS/UK GAAP): In the U.K., publicly traded and large companies use IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards), specifically IFRS 15 “Revenue from Contracts with Customers,” which has essentially converged with ASC 606 on this topic. IFRS 15 treats loyalty points or vouchers issued in a sale as a separate performance obligation if they provide a material right to the customer for a future discount or free good (IFRS - IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes). This was previously addressed by IFRIC 13 (an interpretation under older IAS 18) which likewise required that some of the revenue be deferred as a liability for the value of loyalty award credits (IFRS - IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes). Thus, in the U.K. the deferred revenue approach is used: a portion of the initial sale’s revenue is allocated to the loyalty points (or store credit) and recorded on the balance sheet as a contract liability (deferred income). Revenue is recognized only when the points are redeemed or expire (IFRS - IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes). If the company is a smaller one using UK GAAP (FRS 102), the treatment is generally similar – UK GAAP also requires recognizing a liability for “customer loyalty awards” and not immediately taking all revenue, to ensure prudence and matching of the obligation. Major U.K. retailers and e-commerce companies (e.g. Tesco with its Clubcard, or online retailers with voucher codes) comply by carrying outstanding points/vouchers as liabilities in their financial statements, often disclosed as “deferred revenue” or “loyalty program liabilities” in the notes.

HMRC & VAT Guidance: Tax considerations in the U.K. include VAT (Value Added Tax) and corporate tax. For VAT, the U.K. follows EU VAT directives. Generally, when loyalty points or vouchers are redeemed for goods or services, VAT is only due on the actual consideration paid by the customer (if any). If a voucher or points cover the full value, the transaction might be treated as having a discount or no additional consideration, thus possibly no VAT charged to the customer. HMRC’s VAT Notice 700/7 (Business Promotions) provides guidance on loyalty schemes – for example, if points are exchanged for a money-off voucher, and that voucher is used in a purchase, VAT is due only on the cash portion of the sale (Business promotions (VAT Notice 700/7) - GOV.UK). Essentially, loyalty points provided by the retailer are akin to a retailer’s discount coupon: they reduce the taxable value of the sale rather than being a separate payment. However, if a third party is involved or the loyalty scheme operator reimburses a merchant for the reward, VAT treatment can become complex (see Legal Disputes below).

For corporate tax (income tax), U.K. companies usually follow the accruals and matching principles as in their accounts. That means if revenue is deferred in financial statements for loyalty points, taxable profit is typically calculated on the recognized revenue after deferral. There isn’t a specific statute on loyalty points, but the general rule is that taxable income starts with accounting profit. HMRC may allow the deferral of income for unredeemed loyalty credits in step with accounting, so long as the accounts treatment is in line with GAAP/IFRS. Thus, the liability carried for points will reduce current taxable profit, and when the points are redeemed and revenue recognized, that contributes to taxable income in that period. The key is that the expense of honoring points or the deferred revenue reversal will happen in the same period for both book and tax, avoiding timing mismatches. HMRC has challenged certain arrangements in court (see below), but those are more about VAT or the nature of the transaction rather than denying the basic deferral of income for loyalty obligations.

Legal Implications & Precedents: The U.K. has seen litigation about the VAT treatment of loyalty schemes. A notable example is the Tesco Clubcard cases, which examined whether vouchers issued to customers constitute a part of the consideration for the original sale or separate transactions. The Court of Appeal in one case held that when Tesco issued loyalty vouchers to customers (in exchange for points accumulated), those vouchers were not given for a separate consideration from the customer – essentially, they were a loyalty reward, not an additional sale ($). This supported treating the vouchers as discounts on future purchases (no VAT on issuing the voucher itself). Another significant case is Marriott Rewards vs. HMRC (2018), involving Marriott’s hotel loyalty program: points could be redeemed at participating hotels, and Marriott’s loyalty subsidiary reimbursed the hotels for free stays. The legal question was whether those reimbursements were (for VAT) payment for a service by the hotel to Marriott (which would allow Marriott to recover VAT), or a third-party payment on behalf of the customer for the customer’s stay (which would treat it as part of the customer’s purchase and no input VAT reclaim for Marriott). The U.K. Upper Tribunal ultimately decided that the payments were not third-party consideration for the customer’s stay – in other words, the hotels’ free stay for the customer was not a taxable supply to Marriott (PowerPoint Presentation) (PowerPoint Presentation). This meant Marriott could treat the payment as consideration for a service from the hotel to Marriott (such as marketing or brand promotion service) and potentially recover VAT. By contrast, HMRC’s stance (unsuccessful in that case) was that the loyalty redemption was effectively a price discount to the customer’s stay provided by Marriott, which would make the hotel’s reimbursement just part of the customer’s discounted supply (no recoverable VAT by Marriott) (PowerPoint Presentation). These cases highlight that while accounting will treat points uniformly (as deferred revenue liabilities), VAT law might view the flows differently depending on whether the loyalty reward is considered a price reduction or a separate barter of services between companies. For a purely internal e-commerce loyalty program (points redeemable only with the issuer), the simpler treatment is that points act as a discount on future sales (VAT is then effectively on the net price paid).

Aside from tax, U.K. consumer law doesn’t heavily regulate loyalty point expiration – it’s largely a contractual matter, but unfair contract terms law requires that expiration policies be transparent and fair. Gift cards in the U.K. can have expiration dates if clearly stated, unlike some U.S. jurisdictions that forbid short expiries. Companies typically disclose their loyalty point terms (e.g. points expire after 1 year of inactivity). If a company were to confiscate points without clear prior notice, it could face customer complaints or reputational damage, but not usually legal penalties unless it violated consumer protection statutes.

Germany – HGB (German GAAP), IFRS, and Tax Regulations

Accounting under HGB: German companies often maintain two sets of books – one under German Commercial Code (HGB) for statutory purposes, and one under IFRS for consolidated reports if they are publicly listed or part of a group. Under HGB, issuing loyalty points or rebate coupons creates an obligation that is typically recorded as a provision (Rückstellung) or deferred income. German accounting tends to be conservative: if there is an expectation the company will incur a future outflow or deliver goods due to a past event (here, the sale that granted loyalty points), a liability should be recorded. The Federal Court of Finance (BFH) in Germany has addressed this for tax balance sheet purposes, which parallels HGB treatment because German tax balance sheets largely follow HGB with some adjustments. In a 2019 case (decided in 2022 by the BFH), the court held that for a customer loyalty program where points can be used as payment, the economic obligation arises from the initial sale transaction in which the points are granted (Rückstellungen für Bonuspunkte: Neue Passivierungsverpflichtung für viele Unternehmen - PKF Fasselt Consulting) (Rückstellungen für Bonuspunkte: Neue Passivierungsverpflichtung für viele Unternehmen - PKF Fasselt Consulting). Even though the actual redemption happens in the future, the court reasoned that the earning of points (and the company’s duty to honor them) is causally linked to that initial sale and thus should be accounted for at that point. This means German GAAP requires recognizing a liability for loyalty points earned by customers, reflecting the company’s “ungewisse Verbindlichkeit” (uncertain liability) that customers will redeem those points (Rückstellungen für Bonuspunkte: Neue Passivierungsverpflichtung für viele Unternehmen - PKF Fasselt Consulting) (Rückstellungen für Bonuspunkte: Neue Passivierungsverpflichtung für viele Unternehmen - PKF Fasselt Consulting). The liability can be measured based on expected redemption rates and the value of benefits to be given. In practice, German firms might record a provision for loyalty program obligations (through the income statement as an expense) rather than deferring part of the sales revenue – but the effect on profit is similar (current profit is reduced in anticipation of future costs or revenue reduction). If the loyalty rewards are essentially free merchandise, the provision might equate to the cost of fulfilling those rewards. If they are discounts, it might reflect the loss of future revenue. Notably, if a German company reports under IFRS as well, IFRS 15’s approach (deferring revenue) would be used in IFRS financials. HGB and IFRS outcomes converge economically: IFRS shows a contract liability (deferred income) while HGB might show a provision or other liability, but in both cases the balance sheet shows an obligation and the income/profit is not fully recognized upfront.

Tax Regulations: German tax law (EStG) generally follows HGB accounting for determining taxable income unless a specific tax rule requires otherwise. The above-mentioned BFH case confirmed that for tax purposes, a provision for loyalty point obligations is permissible under §5(1) EStG (which ties to §249 HGB on provisions) (Rückstellung für Gutscheine aus Kundenbindungsprogrammen – ein Statement - Online Portal von Der Betrieb) (Rückstellung für Gutscheine aus Kundenbindungsprogrammen – ein Statement - Online Portal von Der Betrieb). The tax authorities had initially contested the deduction, arguing that the obligation was too uncertain (since the customer might never redeem the points). The BFH disagreed, finding the obligation’s economic cause lay in the original sale and was sufficiently likely to justify a provision (Rückstellungen für Bonuspunkte: Neue Passivierungsverpflichtung für viele Unternehmen - PKF Fasselt Consulting). This sets a precedent that German companies can deduct the estimated cost of loyalty points redemptions in the year the points are issued, rather than waiting until customers actually redeem them. From a balance sheet perspective, both the commercial and tax balance sheets would include a liability, so there is no temporary difference or deferred tax in that respect – the timing of income recognition for book and tax is aligned. In addition to income tax, German VAT (Mehrwertsteuer) follows the EU rules: if loyalty points are redeemed for free or discounted goods, the taxable amount is adjusted. Generally, granting a rebate or accepting points as payment will reduce the Netto value of the sale subject to VAT. If the reward is a 100% discount (free item), German VAT law (which mirrors EU law) would treat it as a price discount if tied to a prior purchase (so no VAT on a free loyalty redemption, considering it a retroactive rebate funded by the prior purchase). However, if a free item is given without a prior purchase condition, it could be seen as a gift and trigger VAT on the cost price (Germany requires VAT on gifts above a small threshold). In structured loyalty programs, though, the prior purchases and point accumulation provide the linkage to treat it as a scheme of discounts. Companies must maintain documentation to show that output VAT was accounted for appropriately (either on the initial sale fully and the reward is a price adjustment, or otherwise). As of this writing, no special German consumer protection law restricts loyalty point expirations – many programs in Germany do have expiration policies (e.g. points valid 3 years, etc.), which is allowed as long as consumers are informed.

Legal Considerations: The BFH ruling and related Finanzgericht (FG) decisions are key legal precedents ensuring loyalty point liabilities are recognized. Another earlier case involved a hair salon’s issuance of free service vouchers, where the court denied a provision – distinguishing it from the more rigorous point programs. In the Nürnberg Tax Court (FG Nürnberg) case (2019) that led to the BFH review, the loyalty scheme was “personified” (customer-specific accounts tracking points), which the court saw as a real obligation of the business (Rückstellung für Gutscheine aus Kundenbindungsprogrammen – ein Statement - Online Portal von Der Betrieb). This is now the accepted view: businesses in Germany must accrue for customer loyalty programs that grant a earn-now, redeem-later benefit. For e-commerce companies operating in Germany, this means compliance with HGB by booking provisions for any outstanding customer credits (like online store coupon codes issued as rewards or account credits given for returns/referrals). Not doing so could misstate liabilities and profit, and in a tax audit, the company could be required to add such a provision. On the consumer law front, Germany similarly allows terms and conditions to set expiration on vouchers and points (often 3 years if not specified, aligning with the general statute of limitations for contractual claims). But any conditions must be communicated – unexpected cancellation of earned points might be deemed unfair (courts in Germany have occasionally struck down loyalty program changes that confiscate points without adequate notice under civil law).

France – French GAAP, IFRS, and Tax Treatment

Accounting (French GAAP & IFRS): France’s national accounting standards (French GAAP, Plan Comptable Général) and IFRS (for listed companies) both require recognizing obligations for loyalty programs. Under French GAAP, revenue is typically not recognized for the portion that corresponds to a future free or discounted deliverable. This can be achieved either by deferring revenue or by recording a provision for charges. In practice, French companies have followed the guidance of IFRIC 13 (before IFRS 15) even in local GAAP, meaning they allocate a portion of the sale to the loyalty points and carry it as “Produits constatés d’avance” (deferred income) or “provision pour avantages clients fidélisés”. The approach aligns with IFRS: the initial sale that grants points includes an embedded obligation to provide a benefit in the future, so part of the consideration is deferred. IFRS 15, now used in consolidated financials, explicitly treats this as a contract liability for the points’ standalone value (IFRS - IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes). For example, a French e-commerce retailer offering coupon codes or loyalty vouchers with purchases will defer a portion of revenue equal to the estimated fair value of those coupons (adjusted for expected non-use). On the balance sheet, this shows up as Deferred revenue (Passif) for the unredeemed points. If instead the company were to expense it, it might use a provision (similar to the German approach). In either case, the balance sheet reflects the liability to customers, and revenue is only the net part after accounting for future obligations. French accounting regulators (Autorité des Normes Comptables) have issued interpretations consistent with this; moreover, because many French companies report under IFRS internationally, IFRS compliance drives practice.

Tax Considerations: France’s tax regime usually follows the accounting treatment for revenue timing unless a specific rule requires otherwise. A French company deferring part of its revenue for loyalty points would typically also defer that income for tax until it’s recognized (since the income isn’t in the P&L yet). Alternatively, if a provision is booked for the future cost of rewards, that provision is generally tax-deductible as a business expense (provided it meets the French tax code criteria for provisions: objective existence of an obligation to a third party, reliably estimable, and occurrence linked to the fiscal year’s activity). French tax authorities tend to allow loyalty program provisions because they view the points as effectively a reduction of the sale price (or an expense to generate sales). For VAT (TVA in France), the rules again follow the EU framework: using a loyalty voucher or points to get a discount reduces the taxable base of the sale. If an item is obtained “for free” with points, it’s treated as a sale with a 100% rebate funded by prior purchases – hence TVA is due only on any additional payment by the customer. If the loyalty scheme involves third parties (like a coalition program), special TVA rules apply to the interchange of funds (similar to the UK cases). French courts have also dealt with loyalty programs – e.g., the “Grande Distribution” (large retailers) have had to account for “bons de réduction” (coupons) and “points de fidélité” properly for tax. In one instance, a dispute was whether input VAT on expenses related to loyalty rewards could be recovered; courts have generally allowed it, considering those expenses as cost of sales.

Legal Framework: Under French consumer law, loyalty points are not heavily regulated by statute, but general contract law and promotional practice rules apply. If an e-commerce business in France issues store credits (for example, a refund in the form of a credit instead of cash), French law requires clarity in the terms – a credit usable only in-store is legal, but if it’s in lieu of a refund, the customer must have agreed to it (otherwise they can demand cash refund). Loyalty programs must avoid misleading consumers; any promise of “free” rewards must truly be free (apart from the required point accumulation). French courts have, in unrelated cases, voided clauses that allowed companies to cancel points at their sole discretion – reinforcing that earned benefits are a form of obligation on the company. The general statute of limitations (5 years for commercial matters) might set an outer bound on using very old points if not contractually defined. Overall, French practice is to allow expiration of points (often after 1–3 years of inactivity) and breakage to be recognized as income once the validity lapses, with no requirement to remit it elsewhere.

Other European Jurisdictions

Across other European countries, the treatment of store credits and loyalty points is largely consistent due to the influence of IFRS and EU directives:

• IFRS Adoption: All EU countries mandate IFRS for consolidated accounts of listed companies, so IFRS 15’s rules on loyalty programs are widely applied (IFRS - IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes). This yields similar accounting in, say, the Netherlands, Spain, or Italy: loyalty points are recognized as a liability (deferred revenue) and revenue is delayed until redemption. Many countries also have local GAAP that either has been updated to mirror IFRS 15 principles or at least doesn’t conflict with the deferral approach. For instance, in the Netherlands, Dutch GAAP requires revenue recognition when the earning process is complete – unredeemed customer credits mean the earning process isn’t over, so deferral is appropriate. In Italy, OIC standards would treat loyalty awards as future performance obligations (some Italian retail companies mentioned loyalty point liabilities in their notes even before IFRS 15, as a matter of prudence).

• VAT and EU Law: The EU’s Voucher Directive (Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065), effective 2019, harmonizes VAT treatment of vouchers. A loyalty point or store credit usable for a range of goods is typically a “multi-purpose voucher”, meaning VAT is not collected at issuance but rather on redemption (when the actual supply of goods/services occurs). The directive ensures, for example, that a gift card sold by an e-commerce platform has no VAT on sale of the card; instead, VAT applies when the card is used to buy something. If the voucher/points are specific to one type of good with known VAT, it could be a “single-purpose voucher” taxed upfront, but loyalty schemes usually cover various items, so they’re multi-purpose. Thus, in most EU countries, issuing loyalty points does not itself create a VAT event; when points are redeemed, VAT is charged on the normal price minus any discount the points provide. If the points fully cover the price, effectively the customer pays nothing, and EU rules treat it as if the customer received a discount equal to the price – VAT can be considered already accounted for in the initial sale that earned the points (or no VAT if the initial sale was also free of charge). Some tax authorities had challenged companies on how they allocate VAT for loyalty schemes (similar to the UK Tesco/Marriott cases), but the overarching principle is that loyalty rewards given by the seller = price reduction, whereas if a third-party loyalty company is involved, payments between parties might be taxable services.

• Corporate Tax: In most European jurisdictions, the tax deductibility of loyalty point liabilities follows the accounting. Countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, etc., allow provisions for customer bonuses as deductible if based on a legal/constructive obligation. In Italy and Spain, companies typically deduct the costs of loyalty programs as they accrue (and include deferred revenue in income when recognized). There may be nuances – for example, a country might cap the provision if the usage is highly uncertain – but generally, because IFRS and prudent accounting require reasonable estimates, tax follows suit. One should note that if a country’s tax law deviates (like not allowing a provision until obligation is fixed), that could create a temporary difference (and a deferred tax asset on the balance sheet for the future tax benefit). However, European tax systems often accept the accounting treatment for such revenue deferrals.

• Other Regulations: Some countries have specific laws on gift cards (e.g., in Spain, gift cards can’t expire in under a certain number of years by consumer law). Loyalty points which are freely given are usually considered a voluntary promotional program, so they have fewer legal constraints. The EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive requires that any conditions (like point expiry or limited usage) be communicated clearly to consumers. Also, if loyalty points start to resemble an electronic money substitute (like a universally accepted stored value), there could be financial regulatory implications (e.g., needing an e-money license if the points are widely transferrable for cash equivalents). Most in-house e-commerce loyalty schemes avoid this by limiting points to purchases in their own platform or partners.

In summary, while details vary, European jurisdictions uniformly treat unredeemed store credit and loyalty points as liabilities, not revenue, on the balance sheet, to be recognized as revenue only upon redemption or expiration. Tax and VAT rules are designed to mirror this economic reality, taxing the actual consumption when it occurs and allowing companies to defer or deduct the corresponding income/cost.

2. Financial Reporting and Accounting Standards

IFRS vs. U.S. GAAP Treatment of Loyalty Points & Store Credit

IFRS (International) – Deferred Revenue Approach: IFRS requires the deferred revenue (liability) treatment for customer loyalty programs and advance store credits. IFRS 15 (Revenue from Contracts with Customers) includes loyalty points as a part of the transaction price that is allocated to a future performance obligation. In IFRS terminology, the loyalty points represent a material right that the customer would not receive without entering into the initial transaction – therefore, providing points effectively creates a separate performance obligation for the company (IFRS - IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes). The accounting steps under IFRS are:

• At the time of initial sale, determine the fair value or standalone selling price of the loyalty points or voucher. This often involves estimating the value of the future free/discounted goods and the probability of redemption (i.e. adjusting for expected breakage). For example, if an e-commerce retailer sells a €100 item and as part of that sale grants points worth an estimated €5 (considering not all will be redeemed), then €95 is for the item and €5 is for the points.
• Allocate the transaction price between the delivered product and the loyalty points. Using the relative standalone selling price method, a portion of revenue is assigned to the points. This assigned amount is not recognized as current revenue; it is recorded as a contract liability on the balance sheet (often labeled deferred revenue, unearned revenue, or loyalty program liability) (IFRS - IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes).
• Recognize revenue later when the points are redeemed (the company fulfills the obligation by providing free or discounted goods) or when they expire (the obligation is extinguished). At that point, the liability is reduced and revenue is recognized in the income statement for the value of points used. If points are redeemed for a product, the company will record revenue for that product at the time of redemption (funded by releasing the deferred revenue).

Under IFRS, any portion of points that is not expected to be redeemed (breakage) can be recognized as revenue in proportion to the pattern of redemption. IFRS 15 and its illustrative examples mirror what IFRIC 13 previously mandated: the “deferred revenue approach” is the required method (IFRS - IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes). This means on the balance sheet, unredeemed loyalty points show up as a liability, preventing overstatement of revenue and profit. Store credits (like gift certificates or online wallet balances issued by the company) are treated similarly – they are essentially prepaid income. IFRS requires these to be recognized as a liability when issued/sold, not as revenue until the company has delivered goods or services. Notably, IFRS uses the term “contract liability” for such obligations, emphasizing that it arises from a contract with a customer (the sale contract that included a future good/service promise).

U.S. GAAP – ASC 606 Alignment: U.S. GAAP, via ASC 606, is largely converged with IFRS 15 on this topic. ASC 606 introduced the same core principle of identifying performance obligations and allocating transaction price. In GAAP terms, a loyalty point that provides a future discount is a material right (ASC 606-10-55-42 through 55-49 discuss customer options for additional goods/services) – effectively the same concept as IFRS’s separate obligation. The accounting under ASC 606 follows these steps:

• Identify the loyalty points or store credit as a performance obligation in the contract (assuming the points give the customer a significant benefit they wouldn’t get otherwise – which is usually true for any non-trivial loyalty program). According to ASC 606-10-25-16, an option that provides a material right is treated as a performance obligation. (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO)
• Determine the standalone selling price of the points/credits. Often, companies use the estimated redemption value method: e.g., if points can be redeemed for items worth $1 each and 90% of points are expected to be used, the standalone value of one point is $0.90. This incorporates expected breakage.
• Allocate part of the original transaction’s price to the points. ASC 606’s allocation is typically proportional. An example in the standard (illustrative Example 52) shows how if $100 of goods are sold and loyalty points worth an estimated $9.50 are provided (with 95% expected redemption), the company might allocate about $8.68 of the $100 to the loyalty points liability and $91.32 to the product (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO). This $8.68 is deferred on the balance sheet.
• Record a liability for the allocated amount (often termed “deferred revenue” or “loyalty program liability”). On the balance sheet, this falls under current or non-current liabilities depending on the expected timing of redemption (most loyalty points are current liabilities since they’re used within a year or two).
• Revenue recognition: as customers redeem points, the company satisfies that performance obligation and recognizes revenue. If a customer uses points to get a $10 discount on a future purchase, the company will take $10 out of the deferred revenue and include it in revenue for that period (along with any cash received for that purchase). Unused points (breakage) are recognized as revenue in proportion to redemptions – ASC 606 prescribes that breakage revenue should be recognized systematically based on the pattern of rights exercised by customers (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO). This prevents waiting until the very end (expiration) to recognize breakage; instead, if historically 90% of points get used and 10% never used, each time the 90% is being redeemed the company can also recognize 1/9th of that amount as breakage revenue for the expected 10% that won’t ever be redeemed (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO).

Both IFRS and GAAP therefore result in balance sheet liabilities for unredeemed points/credits and delayed revenue. The main difference historically was that IFRS (via IFRIC 13) had this method in place since around 2008, whereas U.S. GAAP only firmly adopted it with ASC 606 (effective 2018 for most companies). Prior to ASC 606, some U.S. companies used an “incremental cost” method (treating the cost of future rewards as an accrued expense) (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1). Under that approach, the balance sheet would show a liability for the cost of fulfilling points (e.g., the expense of free products expected to be given), rather than deferred revenue at the sale value of the points. This GAAP method was not ideal because it let companies recognize the full revenue immediately and only show a smaller liability (just the cost). IFRS did not allow that; it required deferring the fair value of the points (which is usually higher than just cost). ASC 606 eliminated this difference by requiring the revenue deferral (except in rare cases of immaterial or ancillary points). As a result, IFRS and GAAP are now closely aligned: both view loyalty points and advanced credits as creating a liability equal to the relative value of the future benefit to the customer (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO) (IFRS - IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes).

Liability vs. Revenue Timing: In summary, under both IFRS and GAAP the initial issuance of store credit or loyalty points increases liabilities (unearned revenue) on the balance sheet, instead of revenue. Revenue is only recognized upon redemption of the credit/points or when it’s deemed that the chance of redemption is gone (expiry or breakage) (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO). This ensures the income statement accurately reflects earned revenue and the balance sheet reflects the obligation to customers. From a balance sheet perspective, this means e-commerce businesses with significant loyalty programs often carry a substantial deferred revenue balance. For instance, a company’s balance sheet might show “Customer Advances and Deposits” or “Deferred Revenue – Loyalty Program” of a certain amount, representing all the gift card balances outstanding and points not yet used. Users of financial statements watch this because it can indicate future revenue to be recognized (and also a future cash outflow in the form of fulfilling rewards). It also affects metrics: a growing deferred revenue liability might imply strong sales with lots of points issued (good for future business), but it also makes current liabilities higher.

Case Studies in Financial Reporting

• Starbucks (U.S.) – Loyalty Points and Stored Value Cards: Starbucks, while primarily a brick-and-mortar retailer, provides a highly relevant case as it operates a major loyalty program and issues stored value cards, effectively like store credit, often used via its e-commerce apps. Before ASC 606, Starbucks used the multiple-element arrangement approach: it deferred a portion of revenue for each “Star” point earned in its rewards program, equal to the estimated fair value of future free drinks, minus expected breakage (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1). It reported a loyalty program deferred revenue liability of $21 million on its balance sheet in 2014 (pre-ASC 606) for unredeemed rewards (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1). When Stars are redeemed for free items, Starbucks recognizes revenue and reduces the liability accordingly (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1). Starbucks also carries a large “stored value card” liability (gift card balance) – in 2022, this was over $1 billion, reflecting customers’ loaded card balances. Starbucks recognizes breakage income on those cards when they determine the likelihood of redemption is remote, following the “remote method” (essentially when cards haven’t been used for a long time and are not expected to be used, and are not subject to unclaimed property laws) (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1). Interestingly, Starbucks historically classified breakage from gift cards as “other income” (interest income) in its P&L (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1), but ASC 606 now requires it to be in net revenue, which many companies, including Starbucks, adopted by reclassifying breakage to revenue (Amazon says new accounting rule will change when it recognizes ...). This case highlights the balance sheet impact: Starbucks’ liabilities include significant deferred revenue from both loyalty points and gift cards, illustrating the materiality these programs can have.

• Amazon (U.S.) – Gift Cards and Promotions: Amazon.com, a giant in e-commerce, has various forms of customer credits: gift cards, promotional credits, and occasionally points (Amazon’s credit card offers points, but that is run by a bank). Amazon’s financial statements reflect “unearned revenue” for gift cards. For example, at year-end 2017, Amazon disclosed total unearned revenue of $6.1 billion, which included Amazon Prime fees and gift card balances; a portion of that was recognized as revenue in the subsequent quarter as customers used their gift cards (amazon.com, inc. - SEC.gov). Under the new revenue standard, Amazon noted that it would start classifying gift card breakage differently – moving it into net sales revenue instead of an interest income line (Amazon says new accounting rule will change when it recognizes ...). Amazon’s handling of gift card liabilities is straightforward: cash received for gift cards increases a liability on the balance sheet, and when a customer uses the card to purchase goods on Amazon, that liability is relieved and revenue is booked. In essence, Amazon acts as custodian of customer prepayments until actual goods are delivered. For loyalty points specifically, Amazon doesn’t have its own point system for general consumers (aside from credit card rewards managed by JPMorgan Chase), but many other U.S. retailers of similar scale (Walmart, for instance) had to adjust to ASC 606 by deferring more revenue for any loyalty incentives. An industry note titled “An obscure accounting change could boost Amazon, Starbucks, Wal-Mart…” pointed out that by moving to the new standard, some retailers would report higher revenues because unused gift card breakage gets included in revenue sooner (An obscure accounting change could boost Amazon, Starbucks, Wal ...). This is more of an income statement timing effect, but on the balance sheet, the liability for deferred revenue is carefully analyzed by investors as it signals future revenue to come.

• Tesco (UK) – Clubcard Loyalty Program: Tesco plc, a leading UK retailer (with online grocery operations), runs the Clubcard loyalty scheme. In its financial statements, Tesco allocates a portion of sales revenue to “Clubcard points” liability. Under IFRS, Tesco defers an amount equal to the fair value of points issued. Tesco’s annual report notes the deferred income from Clubcard points (reported within current liabilities as part of “Trade and other payables” or a similar category). A real-world effect was seen when IFRS was adopted: Tesco had to reduce its revenue by the portion going to points and carry that forward. This ensures that when customers redeem vouchers for free groceries or discounts, Tesco doesn’t count that as new revenue (because the revenue was recognized earlier when the points were earned and then released). From a legal/tax perspective, the Tesco Clubcard scheme also led to a VAT case (mentioned earlier), but accounting-wise, Tesco complies with IFRS 15 by treating points as deferred revenue. Another UK example is British Airways/Airlines: after IFRIC 13 was introduced, airlines like BA and Air France-KLM moved from recognizing frequent flyer costs as expenses to deferring revenue for miles. Air France-KLM in 2008 restated its financials to defer approximately €500 million more in revenue for unredeemed miles (with a one-time reduction in equity) – a significant balance sheet impact that highlighted how big loyalty liabilities can become for companies with large programs.

• Zalando (Germany/EU) – E-commerce fashion retailer: Zalando offers store credits for returns (customers can opt for refund in store credit with a bonus) and occasional coupon codes. As a German company reporting under IFRS, Zalando records any issued vouchers or customer account credits as contract liabilities. In its annual report, Zalando typically lists “Deferred revenue” which includes gift vouchers and any prepaid value. The amounts are not enormous relative to sales, but they are noted. This ensures compliance with both IFRS and German law (the company is aware of the BFH ruling as well, so even in HGB books a provision is maintained). Zalando also must deal with multi-national VAT – for example, if a German customer uses a credit on the French Zalando site, the VAT is handled in the sale in France with the credit reducing the taxable amount. The accounting system must track these cross-border credits correctly on the balance sheet by jurisdiction.

• Airline/Hotel Loyalty Programs: While not e-commerce retail, these are worth mentioning because they set precedents for loyalty accounting. Companies like Marriott (as seen in the case) or airlines like Lufthansa (which reports under both IFRS and HGB) carry large deferred revenue for miles/points. Lufthansa’s 2021 annual report, for instance, shows a contract liability of hundreds of millions of euros for Miles & More frequent flyer miles – those are only recognized as revenue when passengers redeem miles for flights or upgrades. This cross-industry consistency enforces the principle: loyalty points are liabilities until the company delivers the promised service (IFRS - IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes). For e-commerce businesses, the scale might be smaller, but the concept is the same whether it’s “10th coffee free” or “get a $10 coupon for every $100 spent online”.

(Sources for the above cases include company annual reports and SEC filings. For instance, Starbucks’ SEC correspondence letter confirms its deferred revenue approach (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1), and Tesco’s VAT case provides context on how their program operates ($).)

3. Tax and Regulatory Considerations

VAT Implications in the EU

VAT on Redemption vs Issuance: In the European Union, VAT is generally not charged at the point of issuing loyalty points or store credits, but rather at the point of redemption when goods or services are supplied. This is in line with the principle that VAT is a tax on consumption. A loyalty point on its own is not a consumed good; it’s a right to a future discount. Under EU VAT rules (post-2019 voucher directive), loyalty points or store credits often fall under the category of multi-purpose vouchers (MPVs) if they can be redeemed for different goods/services with potentially different VAT rates. For MPVs, VAT is only due when the voucher is redeemed and the actual supply occurs. For example, if an e-commerce site in France issues a €10 promo code to a customer, no VAT is collected at issuance; if the customer uses it to buy a €50 item, then VAT is applied on the €40 paid (assuming the €10 voucher acted as a reduction) (Business promotions (VAT Notice 700/7) - GOV.UK). Essentially, the voucher acts like a retailer coupon, reducing the taxable base ().

If the loyalty reward is structured as a discount on a sale (e.g. “Apply your points to get 20% off your next purchase”), the VAT directive (Art. 79 of the EU VAT Directive) says any discount given to the customer at the time of sale reduces the taxable amount. Thus, the company charges VAT on the net price paid after discount. If points fully cover the price (making it free to the customer), EU VAT law considers whether this is a true price reduction (in which case no VAT from the customer) or a deemed supply. Generally, in the context of loyalty programs, it’s treated as a price reduction funded by the initial sale. The initial sale that earned the points was fully VAT-taxed, so the tax authority isn’t losing out overall.

Examples and Complex Scenarios: Complexities arise in cross-company schemes. The Tesco Clubcard Partner Rewards example demonstrates that when vouchers are redeemed with a third party, VAT questions emerge about the nature of payments. Tesco’s subsidiary would exchange Clubcard vouchers for partner reward tokens (e.g., cinema tickets at double value) and pay the partner a fee. The UK tribunal had to decide if Tesco’s payment to the partner included VAT (meaning Tesco was buying a service from the partner) or not (meaning Tesco was just transferring the customer’s entitlement). In that case, the tribunal ultimately allowed Tesco to treat it as buying a service (so Tesco reclaimed VAT on the partner fees) ($) ($). Contrast with the Marriott/Whitbread case: Marriott’s US entity reimbursing UK hotels for free stays – the tribunal there concluded the payment was not third-party consideration for the customer’s stay (implying it was consideration for a service to Marriott, albeit they then debated what kind of service) (PowerPoint Presentation) (PowerPoint Presentation). In practical terms, for an e-commerce business that isn’t running a coalition loyalty program, these issues might not arise. If you run your own loyalty scheme and customers redeem on your own site, VAT is straightforward: treat the points as a discount on your sale.

Another aspect is how VAT deals with non-redeemed credits. Suppose a customer in Germany buys a €100 gift card for an e-commerce store. No VAT on purchase of the card. If the card is never used (expires or lost), technically no VAT was ever collected because no sale happened. Some tax authorities might say the sale of the gift card should be treated as a sale of a “right” after a certain time, but currently EU rules do not impose VAT on unredeemed multi-purpose vouchers – the tax just never materializes. This is different from revenue recognition (where the company might eventually recognize the €100 as revenue for accounting once it can conclude it won’t be redeemed). So there can be misalignment: the company recognizes €100 revenue (with no VAT because none was collected) – effectively that becomes VAT-free revenue which is unusual. However, since it’s due to breakage of a pre-payment, it’s generally accepted. Tax authorities comfort themselves that in many cases, breakage is low or the initial sale had VAT. If the voucher was single-purpose (VAT known upfront), then the company would have already paid VAT to the government at sale of the voucher and might have to adjust if unredeemed.

VAT Compliance for E-Commerce: E-commerce businesses must correctly account for VAT on discounted sales. This means their invoicing systems need to show the full price, the discount from loyalty credit, and charge VAT on the net. They also must be careful with cross-border scenarios under the OSS/IOSS (One-Stop-Shop) regime in the EU: if a German customer redeems a German-issued voucher on a French website, the supply is in France (assuming goods shipped from France), so French VAT applies to the net price. The business may need to allocate the liability of deferred revenue by country for VAT reporting. Additionally, input VAT on costs related to loyalty programs (printing loyalty cards, running promotional campaigns, or paying third-party operators) is generally claimable as these are business expenses. There have been instances where tax authorities questioned if input VAT on rewards should be partly blocked (as it relates to giving away free goods). For example, in a Netherlands case years ago, the court allowed full input VAT deduction on costs of free products given in a loyalty program, reasoning it’s a marketing expense to increase taxable sales.

In summary, VAT’s main principle for loyalty/store credit is that it taxes the actual consumption. The issuance of points is not taxed; redemption is taxed to the extent there’s a taxable sale. E-commerce companies should follow the EU voucher rules to determine if their loyalty points are vouchers. Proper documentation and system capabilities are needed to apply the correct VAT rate on redemption. And as illustrated by cases like Tesco and Marriott, if your loyalty scheme involves intercompany or partner payments, structure contracts clearly to support the desired VAT treatment (either as a discount or a service fee, with VAT consequences either way).

U.S. Sales Tax Considerations

In the United States, sales tax (administered at state and local levels) has a different approach but analogous outcome. Key points for sales/use tax in the context of store credit and loyalty rewards:

• Gift Cards/Store Credit: The sale of a gift card is typically not subject to sales tax at the time of sale. A gift card is considered a payment method (essentially a cash equivalent). Sales tax applies when the gift card is used to purchase tangible goods or taxable services. At that point, the tax is calculated on the full price of the item before the gift card is applied (Rule 5703-9-15 | Sales and use tax - Ohio Laws). In effect, paying with a gift card is like paying with cash – it doesn’t reduce the taxable amount of the item; it’s just cash from a different source. For example, if a customer buys a $100 gift card today (no sales tax on that purchase), and later uses it to buy a $100 jacket that is taxable, the retailer will charge, say, ~$8 of sales tax on the $100 jacket at redemption, deduct the $100 gift card as payment, and remit $8 to the state. This is straightforward for gift cards. If a store credit is issued (say, as a refund), it functions the same as a gift card from a sales tax perspective – tax was already dealt with on the original sale (if that sale was returned, the retailer may refund the sales tax or provide credit including tax). When the credit is used for a new purchase, sales tax applies normally.

• Loyalty Points as Discounts: Loyalty points in the U.S. are generally treated like store coupons or discounts rather than a form of payment. Most states distinguish between manufacturer’s coupons (where a third party reimburses the retailer) and store coupons (where the retailer itself eats the cost). A manufacturer coupon (like a $1 off from the product manufacturer) is usually taxable – the sales tax is calculated on the full price and then the coupon is applied, because the retailer is getting reimbursed that $1 by the manufacturer, so in the eyes of the state, the retailer still received the full price (customer’s $9 + $1 from manufacturer = $10, tax on $10) (). A store coupon, however, is considered a reduction of the price – the retailer is not getting that $1 from anyone else, they are giving a discount. Therefore, tax is calculated on the reduced price ($9, tax on $9). Loyalty points are like store coupons: the retailer is giving up part of the price as a reward. So, if a customer redeems points worth $10 on a $50 purchase, the retailer typically charges sales tax on $40 (the $50 price minus $10 loyalty discount) (). This is common across states, though not universally codified – some states have explicitly addressed loyalty programs in their regulations or rulings. For instance, Ohio’s code notes that sales tax is calculated on the price before applying gift card value (as described above), implicitly treating gift cards as payment, whereas loyalty rewards that function as discounts reduce the taxable price (Rule 5703-9-15 | Sales and use tax - Ohio Laws) ().

• Free Merchandise Rewards: If a loyalty program offers a free item (e.g., buy 10 get 1 free), how sales tax is handled can vary by state. In many cases, the “free” item is considered a nontaxable transaction to the customer (since no consideration). However, some states have use tax rules for promotional items: if a retailer gives an item away for free (with no requirement of purchase at the time of giveaway), the retailer might owe use tax on the cost of that item, because it took the item out of its taxable inventory for a promotional purpose. With loyalty programs, because the free item is earned via previous purchases, states often see it as an adjustment to the overall pricing – essentially a volume discount spread over the transactions. For example, Texas treats a free reward as part of the loyalty program’s incentive and doesn’t tax the free item to the customer, nor does it charge the retailer use tax, viewing it as a discounting mechanism. Minnesota, as cited in a tax analysis, initially took a stricter view: a 1998 Minnesota Tax Court case (St. Paul Abrasives) ruled that merchandise obtained with loyalty points was taxable (the points were treated as consideration, almost like a separate currency) (). Minnesota later refined its stance with a revenue notice treating loyalty “scrip” similar to coupons: if the points are earned by purchasing, they are essentially a rebate and not additional consideration (). This illustrates that while general practice is not to tax the free reward, a few states might have nuances.

• Administrative/Reporting: U.S. retailers must ensure their point-of-sale systems handle these discounts properly. For e-commerce, the checkout system should apply the sales tax rules of the customer’s ship-to state. If an online shopper uses a promo code or loyalty points, the system should recalculate the taxable subtotal accordingly. Most tax automation software (like Avalara or Vertex) have built-in support for coupon codes vs gift card payments. It’s crucial to categorize the loyalty redemption correctly: as a reduction of price (coupon) or a form of payment (gift card). Misclassifying could cause either overcollecting or undercollecting tax.

• Income Tax and Loyalty Costs: On the U.S. corporate income tax side, as discussed, companies can defer the revenue related to loyalty points to align with when they’ll fulfill the obligation (Final regulations help taxpayers compute revenue | Grant Thornton). If a company were not able or opted not to defer, they could alternatively deduct the future cost (if accruable). But tax law generally prefers the deferral method for such advance payments. The IRS has, for credit card rewards (where the bank is effectively giving rebates to customers), treated those not as income at all but as a reduction of revenue (interest income). For retail loyalty, the parallel is that the initial sale’s revenue is partially deferred – effectively a reduction – so taxable income is inherently lower in the initial year.

Key takeaway: In the U.S., sales tax is concerned with the actual sale of goods. Loyalty points reduce the taxable sales price in most cases (like a store-funded coupon) (), whereas store credits/gift cards are just a way to pay for the sale (tax doesn’t apply until a sale happens) (Rule 5703-9-15 | Sales and use tax - Ohio Laws). E-commerce companies must programmatically handle hundreds of tax jurisdictions, but the general theme is aligning loyalty rewards with coupon treatment. This is beneficial to consumers (they don’t pay tax on the discount) and neutral to the business (they just collect less tax to remit). It also means there’s no immediate sales tax due when issuing a loyalty point or store credit, easing cash flow – the business only deals with sales tax when it actually sells a product for which the credit is used.

Impact on Corporate Tax Liabilities

Timing of Income and Deductions: Store credits and loyalty programs can affect a company’s corporate income tax by shifting when income is recognized or when expenses are deducted. Under accrual accounting for tax (which most large e-commerce businesses use), if revenue recognition is deferred for book purposes, there’s a question whether it can also be deferred for tax. The U.S. has explicit rules now allowing deferral of advance payments (within limits) to match book – this includes gift cards and potentially loyalty point allocations as noted earlier (Final regulations help taxpayers compute revenue | Grant Thornton). If a U.S. company did not elect the advance payment deferral, they would have to include the entire sale in taxable income immediately but could potentially deduct an estimated future expense (though accruing that expense for tax could be challenging under the “all events test” since the future redemption is not fixed). It’s generally cleaner to follow the deferral method, which the tax law now supports for companies with an Applicable Financial Statement (AFS). Thus, an e-commerce company’s taxable income is usually aligned with book income for loyalty-related amounts, avoiding large deferred tax entries.

In Europe, most countries similarly allow the tax treatment to follow the accounting. For example, in Germany, as discussed, the tax authorities wanted to deny a provision for loyalty points originally, but the courts said it must be allowed (Rückstellungen für Bonuspunkte: Neue Passivierungsverpflichtung für viele Unternehmen - PKF Fasselt Consulting). That means German taxable profit is lowered in the year points are issued (because they recognize a liability/expense), and correspondingly higher in the year of redemption (when that liability is released and increases profit). In the UK and others, usually the default is that if revenue is not recognized in the accounts, it’s not taxed yet. However, one must be cautious: tax authorities could theoretically argue that loyalty points are just a marketing expense and the full revenue is taxable upfront. Practically, that argument hasn’t prevailed where accounting standards clearly indicate a portion of revenue isn’t earned. Indeed, in some jurisdictions, loyalty rewards are seen as a deductible expense – for instance, Italy might allow a provision for loyalty program costs under certain conditions, treating it like an advertising expense, which achieves a similar deferral of profit.

VAT/Sales Tax vs Income Tax: It’s important to distinguish the two: deferred revenue on the balance sheet for accounting/income tax purposes does not mean any VAT or sales tax is deferred – those indirect taxes are handled as described (either not applicable until redemption, or collected on net sale). So an e-commerce company might have a large deferred revenue liability and no VAT liability associated with it (if it’s multi-purpose vouchers). This can be advantageous from a cash perspective: essentially the company has customer cash on its balance sheet (from selling gift cards, for example) with no corresponding VAT liability, whereas normally a sale would generate a VAT liability to remit. Many EU countries are aware of this and are okay with it because ultimately if the voucher is used, VAT will be paid; if not used, that’s a limited scenario and generally not considered fraud (and often breakage is small or random).

Expenses and Deductibility: Running a loyalty program incurs costs – giving free products (cost of goods), marketing materials, system operations, etc. These costs are generally deductible business expenses as incurred. If a company incurs significant costs to fulfill loyalty rewards in a year (e.g., shipping out free merchandise for redemptions), those costs reduce taxable income in that year. Meanwhile, the corresponding revenue was from a prior period (when points were issued). Because of the accounting deferral, the revenue and expense might align in timing. If a jurisdiction did not allow deferral and insisted on taxing the full original sale, then when the company later gives free product, it would deduct the cost of that product. There’s a risk of mismatch: the original sale might have high profit (taxed) and the redemption yields an expense (deductible later) – a timing mismatch that companies try to avoid through proper accounting and tax elections.

Conclusion on Tax: The primary impact on corporate tax is about timing. Loyalty programs typically defer taxable income, which can be beneficial by delaying tax liability. However, due to regulations (like the U.S. one-year deferral limit for advance payments, or similar constraints elsewhere), companies eventually have to recognize it. There is also the concept of “breakage income” – for tax, if a company ultimately recognizes income from unused credits, that will be taxable income at that time. Some jurisdictions might have specific rules: e.g., in the U.S., certain states treat unredeemed gift cards not as taxable income but require escheat to the state (which is not a tax, but effectively the state taking the money). If a company does have to escheat funds, that amount would likely be a deductible expense (or reduce the income recognized from breakage). In any case, companies must track their loyalty liabilities closely not just for financial reporting but also for tax compliance, ensuring that any required inclusion of those amounts in taxable income is done at the correct time per local laws.

Other Regulatory Considerations

Beyond accounting and tax, a few regulatory points are noteworthy for e-commerce businesses issuing store credits or loyalty points:

• Consumer Protection and Gift Card Laws: In some jurisdictions (notably parts of the U.S.), laws protect consumers holding store credits or gift cards. For example, under U.S. federal law (Credit CARD Act of 2009), gift cards cannot expire in less than 5 years and cannot charge dormancy fees within a year. Some states (like California) prohibit expiration dates on gift cards altogether (or require the ability to cash out small remaining balances). Loyalty points, being promotional and not purchased, are generally exempt from these gift card laws, so companies can impose expiration (e.g., “points expire after 12 months of inactivity”). However, if a company converts a refund into a store credit, that credit is essentially like a gift certificate and might be subject to gift card rules – meaning it shouldn’t expire under certain state laws. E-commerce companies have to carefully separate “promotional” credit from “customer-paid” credit in their systems and disclosures.

• Unclaimed Property (Escheat): As touched on, U.S. states have unclaimed property statutes requiring companies to remit the value of unredeemed obligations to the state after a dormancy period (often 3 or 5 years of inactivity). Gift cards are a prime example. Some states exempt gift cards or have modified rules (for instance, if no expiry, some states don’t require escheat). Loyalty points often fall outside of these statutes because the customer didn’t pay for the points (courts have sometimes viewed points as not “property” of the customer in the same way cash is). But store credits issued for refunds are customer property. A notable situation: if an online retailer is based in a state like Delaware (which aggressively enforces escheat) and has unused gift card balances with no expiration, after a few years those might have to be turned over to the state. A real case involved Delaware suing companies that set up out-of-state subsidiaries to hold gift card liabilities to avoid Delaware escheat. The outcome has been costly for some retailers. Thus, regulatory compliance for store credit includes monitoring unredeemed balances and either using them (encouraging customers to redeem via reminders, etc.) or reporting them to the state when required.

• Financial Services Regulation: If an e-commerce loyalty program becomes very cash-like (for example, if points can be freely transferred or sold, or used at many merchants), regulators might view it as a payment instrument. The EU’s Electronic Money Directive could classify a widely usable stored credit as “electronic money,” requiring authorization. Most single-brand loyalty schemes avoid this by contractually limiting use (points are personal, not transferable for cash, only usable at issuer or selected partners). But some large coalition loyalty programs in Europe have had to get regulatory approval (e.g., if they issue points that are essentially a currency across retailers). E-commerce companies usually stay clear of this by design, yet it’s a consideration if a tech company wanted to create a points system with broad usage.

• Accounting Disclosure Requirements: From a regulatory (securities law) standpoint, public companies have to disclose significant loyalty program obligations. ASC 606 and IFRS 15 both mandate qualitative and quantitative disclosures of performance obligations. Companies might disclose the amount of revenue deferred for loyalty points and the expected timing of its recognition. This gives investors insight into how much future revenue is “in the bank” due to unredeemed rewards. Failure to properly account and disclose can draw scrutiny from auditors and regulators. For instance, the SEC has commented on companies’ loyalty program accounting in comment letters (ensuring they follow ASC 606). In Europe, regulators have also asked for clarity on how breakage is estimated, as this can impact earnings.

• Legal Disputes with Customers: Occasionally, loyalty points become the subject of customer lawsuits, particularly if a company devalues points or cancels a program. While not common in e-commerce retail, in travel loyalty (airlines/hotels) there have been lawsuits when programs changed terms. The legal principle is usually that loyalty points are a revocable license or bonus, and companies often reserve the right to adjust the program. But deceptive practices (like advertising “lifetime points” and then expiring them) could lead to consumer protection claims. E-commerce businesses should ensure their terms of service clearly outline how store credits and points work, any expiration, and that these terms comply with local consumer laws (for example, in the EU, terms should not be unfair or overly punitive to consumers).

In essence, best practices from a regulatory standpoint include: treating customer credits fairly (honoring them or clearly communicating changes), complying with any gift card laws for store credits, and keeping good records for when liabilities might turn into unclaimed property. These practices protect the business legally and maintain customer trust, which is crucial for loyalty initiatives to serve their purpose.

4. Case Studies & References

To ground the discussion, here are a few real-world examples of how major businesses handle loyalty points and store credits, along with any notable legal or tax outcomes:

• Starbucks Corporation (US): My Starbucks Rewards is a loyalty program where customers earn “Stars” for purchases, redeemable for free drinks/food. Starbucks’ financial statements (10-K) explicitly state that they defer revenue for each Star earned, based on the estimated fair value of future free items (net of expected breakage) (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1). The deferred amounts are recorded in “Deferred revenue” (recently re-labeled as “Stored value card liability and loyalty program deferred revenue”). Starbucks historically had no expiration on Stars (though they now expire if no activity for 6 months for non-credit-card members), so they estimate breakage based on inactivity. They recognized $38.3 million of gift card breakage income in 2014 (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1), using the remote method (when redemption is deemed remote) (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1). Starbucks also confirmed that under the new revenue standard, it would continue deferring loyalty revenue, which aligned with how it already did under the multiple-element arrangement accounting (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1). This case shows a consistent approach and also highlights how classification of breakage income can change (Starbucks moved it into “Other revenues” after ASC 606, per the new rules).

• Amazon.com, Inc. (US): Amazon’s massive e-commerce platform sells gift cards and issues promotional credits (e.g., courtesy credits for customer service issues, or Prime Now credits for opting for slower shipping). Amazon treats all these as deferred revenue until used. In an SEC filing, Amazon disclosed that adopting the new revenue recognition rules would result in gift card breakage being recognized sooner and in net sales (Amazon says new accounting rule will change when it recognizes ...). The reason is that ASC 606 requires estimating breakage – Amazon can recognize the portion of gift cards not expected to be redeemed, rather than waiting indefinitely. Amazon’s unearned revenue from gift cards is reported (though lumped with other deferred revenues like Prime subscription fees). Amazon hasn’t faced notable legal issues with loyalty credits, but one could consider its handling of promotional credits: those typically expire quickly and are accounted for as a reduction of revenue on the subsequent sale (effectively they don’t even hit the balance sheet separately if issued and redeemed within a short period and only usable on a specific purchase). Amazon’s practices align with GAAP and they likely have robust systems to track these balances by jurisdiction for tax.

• Walmart and Other Retailers (US): Large retailers often have loyalty programs (though Walmart itself historically had few, focusing more on everyday low prices, but others like Target have “Target Circle” with 1% rewards). These companies in their financials mention loyalty liabilities. For example, Target’s 2021 annual report mentioned gift card liabilities of over $1 billion and noted that promotional gift cards (given in marketing offers like “buy $50 get $5 gift card”) are accounted for by reducing revenue on the initial sale (considered a material right) – effectively similar to loyalty points accounting. This is interesting: some retailers issue coupons or gift cards as promotional incentives; accounting classifies those as either an expense or a reduction of revenue depending on whether a purchase was required. Under ASC 606, if a retailer gives a free gift card conditional on a purchase, that gift card is a performance obligation – Target defers part of the revenue from that sale equal to the $5 gift card’s standalone value, and then recognizes it when the gift card is redeemed. Thus even promotional credits are pulled into the deferred revenue model.

• Tesco PLC (UK): Tesco’s Clubcard is one of the oldest loyalty schemes. On the accounting side, Tesco reports the value of unused Clubcard points as part of “Trade and Other Payables” (deferred revenue). On the tax side, Tesco’s case on VAT (Tesco Freetime Ltd) was mentioned: Tesco effectively won the argument to reclaim VAT on rewards provided by partners ($). Another UK retailer, Sainsbury’s, was part of a case (Loyalty Management UK v HMRC, which went up to the European Court of Justice around 2010) involving the Nectar loyalty program. The ECJ in that case ruled that the operator of a loyalty program (LMUK) could claim input VAT on payments to retailers who honored points, because those payments were consideration for a service (promoting customer loyalty) provided to the operators. This was a landmark in clarifying VAT treatment EU-wide. As a result, companies in coalition programs can recover VAT on what they pay out to redemption partners, which reduces the cost of loyalty programs.

• Air France/KLM (France/Netherlands): As mentioned, after IFRIC 13, Air France-KLM had to change accounting for Flying Blue miles. Previously, they used incremental cost (just expensing the free flight cost when flown). After IFRIC 13 (around 2008), they adopted deferred revenue: now part of each ticket sale is deferred as unearned revenue for the miles earned, and later recognized when miles are redeemed for flights. This caused a one-time drop in retained earnings and an ongoing liability on the balance sheet. The company provided extensive disclosures about the assumption of breakage (they use statistical models to estimate what % of miles will never be used, which is significant because many frequent flyer miles expire or go unused). This case is analogous to e-commerce in that any business with a high volume of loyalty credits must estimate usage carefully to avoid understating liabilities. It also showed IFRS’s influence leading to more transparency about the true cost of loyalty programs.

• Macy’s, Inc. (US): Macy’s (a department store, but with a large online presence as well) has a loyalty program and also issues lots of coupons. Macy’s financial statements (10-K) note that they record an estimate of future redemptions of reward certificates as a reduction of revenue. They also have breakage income from gift cards. Macy’s was involved in a well-known legal case but on gift cards and unclaimed property: Delaware v. Macy’s (and other retailers) regarding the escheatment of unused gift card funds. Macy’s had used a subsidiary in Ohio (with lenient escheat laws) to issue gift cards, trying to avoid Delaware’s stricter laws since Macy’s is incorporated in Delaware. Delaware sued, arguing the substance was that the cards belong to the Delaware company. In 2016, Macy’s settled, agreeing to pay millions. This underscores that companies should not be too aggressive in circumventing unclaimed property laws, as it can lead to legal liability and large settlements.

• Zappos.com (US): An online shoe retailer (owned by Amazon), Zappos faced a unique issue in 2012: a data breach led to customer passwords being compromised, and Zappos unilaterally decided to invalidate all stored credit balances under $10 (citing security). A class action was filed by customers losing their credits. Zappos argued those credits were promotional (many were given as courtesy for returns or apologies) and had the right to void them per terms. The case raised questions if those credits were “property.” The outcome pushed companies to be careful in how they manage customer credits; even though ultimately Zappos provided some remedy, it highlighted that customers perceive store credits as their money and a company can face reputational damage or lawsuits if it wipes them arbitrarily. Accounting-wise, Zappos would have had to remove that liability (which would flow to income) when they invalidated credits – but if they later reinstated them or compensated customers, it’d reverse.

These case studies illustrate the practical implications: significant liabilities on the balance sheet (Starbucks, Amazon, Air France), tax and legal battles over proper treatment (Tesco, Macy’s), and the need for clear policies (Zappos). E-commerce companies, whether large or small, benefit from studying these examples to implement best practices and avoid pitfalls.

(References: Starbucks SEC filings (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1), Amazon 10-K and MarketWatch (Amazon says new accounting rule will change when it recognizes ...), Tesco [UK Upper Tribunal decision], Air France-KLM Annual Report 2008, Macy’s 10-K and Delaware settlement documents, Zappos legal filings.)

5. Comparative Summary and Best Practices

U.S. vs European Approaches – Key Differences and Similarities

Convergence in Accounting: Thanks to ASC 606 and IFRS 15, the fundamental accounting treatment for loyalty points and store credits is now largely the same in the U.S. and Europe – both require deferring revenue for future obligations (balance sheet liability) and recognizing revenue upon redemption (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO) (IFRS - IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes). In the past, differences existed: IFRS (and European companies) had to use the deferred revenue method earlier (since 2008 via IFRIC 13), whereas U.S. GAAP companies could choose to only accrue costs. Now, a U.S. e-commerce company and a European one will report very similar looking balance sheets if they have, say, $1 million of outstanding gift cards or points – it will show up as $1 million in liabilities on both their statements, not in revenue yet.

Local GAAP Nuances: Some differences can arise from local GAAP (for statutory accounts) in European countries. For example, German HGB shows a Rückstellung (provision) for loyalty points, which by nature is recorded as a liability and an expense, whereas IFRS shows a deferred income (liability) and reduced revenue (Rückstellungen für Bonuspunkte: Neue Passivierungsverpflichtung für viele Unternehmen - PKF Fasselt Consulting) (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1). The net impact on profit is similar – both reduce current profit – but the presentation differs. In the U.S., there’s only one GAAP to follow. In the U.K., smaller companies might use FRS 102 (which generally aligns with IFRS on revenue recognition, but with possibly less detail on loyalty points). French GAAP and others usually don’t contradict the IFRS approach either. So any differences in accounting standards are minor and more terminology-based (provision vs deferred revenue) than conceptual.

Financial Reporting Disclosure: Both U.S. and European regulators expect disclosures on these liabilities. European IFRS reports tend to explicitly mention “deferred revenue – loyalty program” in notes. U.S. companies under SEC rules also break out “deferred gift card revenue” if material. The level of detail might differ (U.S. MD&A sections might discuss loyalty initiatives qualitatively; EU annual reports might quantify the number of points outstanding, etc., particularly for airlines or retailers).

Taxation: There is a bit more divergence in tax treatment internationally:

• In the U.S., tax rules are formalized to permit deferral of advance payments like gift cards (within certain timeframes) (Final regulations help taxpayers compute revenue | Grant Thornton). U.S. companies must also manage state-level issues like escheat. The concept of taxing breakage only when it’s recognized is accepted, and if breakage gets recognized for book, it will for tax too. The U.S. concept of “realization” plays in: if a company doesn’t have an enforceable right to the money (because the customer can still demand the product), it’s not yet income for tax (Final regulations help taxpayers compute revenue | Grant Thornton) (Final regulations help taxpayers compute revenue | Grant Thornton). That dovetails with the accounting notion of a liability for unfulfilled obligations.

• In Europe, many countries rely on general principles rather than explicit rules for these scenarios. Germany relied on courts to clarify that loyalty liabilities are deductible (Rückstellungen für Bonuspunkte: Neue Passivierungsverpflichtung für viele Unternehmen - PKF Fasselt Consulting). Other countries might have issued tax rulings or guidance – for instance, the UK HMRC generally follows the accounts, but if a company were overly aggressive in estimating breakage to defer income, HMRC might scrutinize it. One difference: in Europe there’s no concept like U.S. “one-year deferral limit” – if points remain unredeemed for 3 years, a company can keep deferring if they’re still valid. However, accounting standards themselves usually force recognition of breakage by then. So practically, it’s similar.

• VAT vs Sales Tax: Europe’s VAT and U.S. sales tax systems differ fundamentally, but both aim not to double tax. The EU has a formal framework for vouchers/points, whereas each U.S. state has its own sales tax rules for coupons and gift cards (with broad similarity). European businesses must worry about cross-border VAT and possibly needing VAT registrations in multiple countries if they operate e-commerce across the EU (the OSS simplification helps for B2C). U.S. businesses worry about “nexus” and needing to collect sales tax in states due to economic nexus laws (post-2018 Wayfair decision). The presence of loyalty points doesn’t heavily change nexus considerations, but administering the taxes properly is a compliance challenge in either region.

Legal Environment: Consumer protection laws in the EU tend to be a bit stronger on fairness (e.g., EU regulations might frown upon very short expiry of points as unfair, though no law outright forbids it). In the U.S., beyond gift card protections, loyalty programs are more a competitive market issue than a legal one (if customers don’t like terms, they leave; few laws dictate loyalty terms). But U.S. class actions can arise if a company is deemed to not honor its advertised promises. Europe has less of a litigation culture for that, but authorities can act on misleading marketing (for instance, an EU consumer authority could challenge a company if it heavily marketed “free rewards” but 90% of points expired unused due to harsh conditions).

Precedents and Rulings: We saw that the UK and EU courts have tackled VAT issues (Tesco, Marriott cases). The U.S. courts/tax courts have seen cases on income recognition – e.g., there was a Tax Court case American Express v. United States dealing with how to tax credit card rewards (it concluded those rewards to cardholders are akin to rebates, not income). Each jurisdiction has built a body of rulings:

• Germany’s BFH ruling helps all German companies now.
• The EU’s ECJ ruling in Loyalty Management (2012) set a precedent across EU for VAT on multi-party schemes.
• The U.S. with codified rules in tax might actually be more straightforward now than some EU countries that rely on following accounting.

Balance Sheet Impact: A notable difference in practice might be magnitude. U.S. companies (like large retailers) have huge gift card businesses that can make deferred revenue a large number on the balance sheet. In Europe, gift cards are also used but perhaps not to the same extent of volume (culturally, gift cards are popular in North America). However, European loyalty programs (like airline miles) can be very large too. Either way, both U.S. and European investors pay attention to these liabilities. One difference in financial analysis is that IFRS reporters might include deferred revenue in a specific line, whereas U.S. companies often group it under “other current liabilities” if not significant, but break out in footnotes.

Best Practices for E-Commerce Businesses

To ensure compliance and optimize the handling of store credit and loyalty points, e-commerce companies should consider the following best practices:

• Implement Robust Tracking Systems: From the outset, systems should track issuance and redemption of each store credit or loyalty point. This feeds accounting entries (to update the deferred revenue liability) and tax calculations. For example, an online platform should have a sub-ledger for gift card balances and loyalty points, including aging information (to estimate breakage when appropriate).

• Adopt Clear Accounting Policies: Management should document how they determine the standalone selling price of loyalty points (e.g. based on estimated redeemable value) and how they estimate breakage. These estimates should be reviewed periodically against actual redemption patterns and adjusted if needed. Transparency in financial statements about the method (e.g. “We estimate 10% of points will expire unused based on historical data”) can protect against auditor or regulator concerns if those estimates are reasonable (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO) (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO).

• Ensure Compliance with ASC 606/IFRS 15: If not already under these standards (virtually all sizable companies are by now), ensure revenue recognition for any customer incentive follows the performance obligation model. This includes referral credits, sign-up bonuses, or conditional coupons – all can create material rights. For instance, if an e-commerce site offers “Get $20 off your next purchase when you spend $100 now,” that $20 off is a material right; part of the $100 sale should be deferred. Not explicitly accounting for it could misstate revenue. Companies should train their accounting teams to identify such schemes and account properly.

• Coordinate Tax Strategy: Work with tax advisors to align the tax treatment. In the U.S., make the appropriate tax elections (like the advance payment deferral under IRC 451(c)) so that for tax purposes you can mirror the book deferral (Final regulations help taxpayers compute revenue | Grant Thornton). In other countries, ensure that if you take a provision for loyalty points in accounts, you also deduct it on the tax return (and be prepared to justify it with data on redemptions). Keep documentation of any court rulings or tax authority guidance in your jurisdiction – e.g., a French company might keep on file the bulletin that allows provision for “programmes de fidélisation” as deductible.

• VAT/Sales Tax Configuration: For VAT, classify your loyalty vouchers correctly (most likely multi-purpose vouchers) and maintain records of when they’re redeemed and in which country. Use the EU’s OSS scheme if selling to multiple EU countries to simplify reporting of those redemptions. For U.S. sales tax, configure checkout to apply discounts properly and to not charge tax on gift card sales. Regularly audit a sample of transactions with loyalty discounts to ensure the tax calculation was correct, as mistakes can accumulate and lead to under-collected tax liabilities.

• Expiration and Breakage Policies: Decide on reasonable expiration periods for loyalty points/store credits. From a financial perspective, shorter expiration can accelerate breakage revenue (good for P&L) but might diminish customer goodwill. Balance marketing and accounting considerations. Whatever the policy, communicate it clearly to customers. Unambiguous expiration dates and reminders (emails like “Your $10 reward will expire next month”) are not only good service but also reduce later contentions. Maintain evidence that customers were notified of terms, in case of disputes. If local law requires no expiration (as with some U.S. states for gift cards), configure your program accordingly for those regions.

• Prepare for Unredeemed Balances: Have a plan for unused credits. Accounting will eventually turn them into revenue, but operationally consider: could those balances be used to drive sales (e.g., send promotions to users with dormant credits to reactivate them)? Also, set aside funds for any required escheatment. It’s wise to track by state of last known address for U.S. customers in case you need to remit to state X vs state Y. Many companies hire third-party firms or use software to manage unclaimed property compliance due to complexity.

• Learn from Others (Benchmarking): Keep an eye on peer companies’ financial disclosures and any issues they faced. For instance, if a competitor had to restate earnings because they initially ignored loyalty obligations, make sure you’re not making a similar mistake. If industry practice on estimating breakage improves (say, using machine learning to predict redemption more accurately), consider adopting it.

• Legal Review of Terms: Have legal counsel review the loyalty program terms and gift card conditions to ensure they meet all jurisdictional requirements. For international e-commerce, you might need different terms for different regions (for instance, a clause on arbitration for U.S. members, and a clause complying with EU data privacy for EU members if you use their purchase data for loyalty). Legal should also confirm that loyalty points are clearly defined as not cash, not refundable, not transferrable (unless you want them to be). This prevents arguments that they are equivalent to wages or something odd (there have been fringe cases where people try to treat points as taxable income or property – typically unsuccessful, but clarity in terms helps).

• Monitor Regulatory Changes: Regulations evolve – for example, if in the future a country decides large volumes of unredeemed gift cards should be taxed or taken by the state after X years, you want to know in advance. Or if accounting standards issue new guidance (perhaps on digital assets or something that could analogize to loyalty points). Thus, participate in industry groups or accounting forums that discuss revenue recognition and promotional programs.

By adhering to these best practices, e-commerce businesses can ensure they remain compliant across jurisdictions, present accurate financial statements, and uphold customer trust. The balance sheet will correctly show the liability for unredeemed credits, the income statement will only reflect true earned revenue, and tax filings will properly align income with deductions, avoiding surprises in audits. Moreover, a well-run loyalty program, treated properly in the books, can be a strategic asset – driving repeat sales without causing accounting or legal headaches.

Conclusion: Balancing Customer Loyalty and Financial Compliance

Store credit and loyalty point programs, when managed correctly, are a win-win: customers get added value and reasons to return, while businesses get increased sales and customer data. However, these programs effectively create a contractual liability that accountants, lawyers, and tax authorities all pay close attention to. U.S. GAAP and IFRS now provide a cohesive framework to reflect these obligations on the balance sheet, ensuring that revenue isn’t overstated and obligations aren’t hidden. The U.S., U.K., Germany, France, and other jurisdictions each contribute nuances – from how VAT or sales tax is handled, to how long credits can last, to how unused amounts might revert to the state.

Comparatively, the U.S. approach is heavily driven by written standards and a patchwork of state rules, whereas Europe relies on principles and EU directives that unify VAT but still respect local accounting/tax treatments. Despite minor differences, the trend globally is toward transparency and consistency in accounting for loyalty programs (IFRS - IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes) (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO). Companies are expected to estimate future redemptions and reflect them, and not to take profits early. This conservatism protects stakeholders and ensures that when you see a liability labeled “deferred revenue” on an e-commerce firm’s balance sheet, you understand it represents future obligations – effectively, future sales that will be funded by past transactions.

For an e-commerce business, navigating these rules is part of growth. Small startups might begin with a simple store credit system, but as they expand internationally, they’ll encounter the need to adapt to IFRS in Europe, comply with VAT on cross-border redemptions, and manage an increasingly significant deferred revenue balance. By learning from the legal analysis and cases presented above, businesses can design their loyalty programs to be both customer-friendly and compliant. This includes setting appropriate terms (to avoid legal pitfalls), maintaining proper accounting (to keep the balance sheet accurate), and handling tax efficiently (to not overpay or underpay taxes).

In conclusion, the balance sheet implications of issuing store credit and loyalty points are significant but manageable. They revolve around recognizing a liability and carefully timing revenue. Both U.S. GAAP and European standards compel this careful approach, and tax laws generally accommodate it. E-commerce companies should embrace these rules as guidelines that ultimately help them measure the true performance of their loyalty initiatives. A well-accounted loyalty program will show as a liability today, but importantly, it reflects deferred revenue that often converts into loyal customers and future sales – a critical insight for investors and managers alike.

---

References:

• Financial Accounting Standards Board, ASC 606 – Revenue from Contracts with Customers, especially guidance on material rights (606-10-55-42) and loyalty program example (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO) (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO).
• International Accounting Standards Board, IFRS 15 – Revenue from Contracts with Customers, and former IFRIC 13 – Customer Loyalty Programmes (superseded) for treatment under IFRS (IFRS - IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes).
• BDO USA, ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key – industry article explaining the need to defer revenue for loyalty points under the new standard (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO) (ASC 606’s Impact on Loyalty Programs: Redemption is Key | BDO).
• Starbucks Corporation, SEC Correspondence (May 2015) – detailed description of Starbucks’ accounting for stored value cards and loyalty points under then-current GAAP (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1) (SBUX - 5.5.15 - filename1).
• Grant Thornton (US), Tax Alert on Final Regulations for Revenue Recognition – discusses how tax deferral can apply to loyalty program revenue in the U.S. tax code (Final regulations help taxpayers compute revenue | Grant Thornton).
• HMRC (UK), VAT Notice 700/7: Business Promotions – guidance on VAT handling for coupons, loyalty points, and vouchers (Business promotions (VAT Notice 700/7) - GOV.UK).
• Upper Tribunal (UK) – HMRC v. Tesco Freetime Ltd & Tesco PLC [2019] and Marriott Rewards & Whitbread v. HMRC [2018] – legal decisions on VAT treatment of loyalty schemes (input tax entitlement and nature of consideration) ($) (PowerPoint Presentation).
• Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), judgment dated 2022 (IV R 21/19) – allowed provision for loyalty program obligations, establishing tax-deductibility and HGB recognition (Rückstellungen für Bonuspunkte: Neue Passivierungsverpflichtung für viele Unternehmen - PKF Fasselt Consulting).
• PKF Consulting (DE), article Rückstellungen für Bonuspunkte – summary of the German court’s rationale for viewing loyalty points as an obligation arising from the initial sale (Rückstellungen für Bonuspunkte: Neue Passivierungsverpflichtung für viele Unternehmen - PKF Fasselt Consulting) (Rückstellungen für Bonuspunkte: Neue Passivierungsverpflichtung für viele Unternehmen - PKF Fasselt Consulting).
• Alston & Bird LLP, Sales Taxation of Loyalty and Reward Programs (Mary Benton, 2016) – analysis of how U.S. states treat loyalty rewards for sales tax, distinguishing store vs manufacturer discounts () ().
• Tax Analysts / U. of Illinois, Tax Issues with Customer Loyalty Programs – discusses U.S. tax court view on loyalty points (e.g., as non-taxable rebates in some cases) (Tax Issues with Customer Loyalty Reward Programs).
• Annual reports and investor disclosures of companies: e.g., Tesco PLC Annual Report, Air France-KLM Annual Report 2008, Amazon.com, Inc. 10-K 2018, Target Corporation 10-K 2019 – for practical disclosure examples of loyalty and gift card liabilities. These sources reinforce the accounting treatments described above and provide quantitative context for the impacts.