EMTA treats gaming platforms as suppliers in specified virtual-item sales

Estonia’s Tax and Customs Board has added a VAT example for sales of virtual items between players on a digital gaming platform. Where the platform does not issue the buyer an invoice in the selling player’s name, EMTA treats the platform itself as the seller of an electronic service. The guidance was updated on 4 September 2026. The example appears in the authority’s explanation of intermediary services. Under the VAT Act definition described there, an intermediary acts both in another person’s name and on that person’s behalf. The guidance lists conditions concerning the parties’ agreement, responsibility for the supply, price and terms, accounting for the commission, and invoicing in the supplier’s name. Where a person acts on another’s behalf but in their own name, EMTA instead describes a resale, for which the taxable value is the full resale price. This distinction matters to a platform’s VAT accounting because the guidance treats the specified virtual-item transaction as a supply by the platform itself rather than a commission-only intermediary service. The authority links that analysis to Article 28 of the VAT Directive and Article 9a of Implementing Regulation No 282/2011. Its explanation of electronic services describes a presumption that a participating taxable person acts in their own name unless the underlying provider is expressly identified and that identification is reflected in the contractual arrangements. The guidance also describes the related documentary conditions: invoices issued or made available by a participating taxable person must identify the electronic services and their provider, and the customer’s bill or receipt must do the same. Platform accountants should therefore examine the contractual supplier identification together with the customer-facing documents. EMTA separately distinguishes a person who merely processes payments and does not participate in the electronic-service supply. That description concerns a different role from the platform in the new virtual-item example. For the example itself, the authority’s stated test focuses on player-to-player sales and whether the invoice is issued in the selling player’s name. Platforms should review those facts before applying intermediary accounting.