Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1998:244
Date: 1998-05-19
Language of the case: French
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgmen t 
1. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value 
added tax — Recovery of the tax — Limitation period — National procedural rules — Condi­
tions for application 
(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 4 and 10) 
2. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value 
added tax — Deduction of input tax — Application to benefits in kind granted by an under­
taking to its employees irrespective of the State in which the supplier is established 
(Council Directives- 67/227 and 77/388) 
I - 7447 
SUMMARY — CASE C-85/97 
1. Articles 4 and 10 of the Sixth Directive 
77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws 
of the Member States relating to turnover 
taxes do not preclude a national practice 
which, in the case of transactions subject 
to value added tax effected by a company 
before it was registered for value added 
tax, consists in fixing the starting-point of 
the limitation period for the recovery of 
that tax at the 20th of the month following 
the quarter in which that registration took 
place. 
Since those articles do not determine the 
point in time from which the limitation 
period for the recovery of value added tax 
begins to run and there are no other pro­
visions in the Sixth Directive concerning 
that question, Member States are autho­
rised to apply their own procedural rules, 
provided that the latter are not less favour­
able than those governing similar domestic 
actions nor arranged in such a way as to 
render it virtually impossible or exces­
sively difficult to exercise rights conferred 
by Community law. 
2. The principle that taxable persons are 
authorised to deduct from the value added 
tax for which they are liable the tax which 
the goods have already borne on each 
input transaction is of general application. 
Thus, neither the First Directive 67/227 
nor the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the har­
monisation of the laws of the Member 
States relating to turnover taxes establishes 
a distinction according to whether a supply 
of services is made by a supplier estab­
lished in the national territory or by one 
established in another Member State. 
Therefore, the First and Sixth Directives 
preclude the value added tax on a benefit 
granted by an employer to his employee 
in the form of the placing of a vehicle at 
his disposal for private use from being cal­
culated by including in the taxable amount 
the value added tax paid by the employer 
in another Member State on the renting of 
that vehicle, whereas, if the vehicle had 
been rented in the Member State in ques­
tion, the taxable amount would not have 
included the value added tax paid. 
I -7448