Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:217
Date: 2013-04-09
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - unfounded
Origin: Ireland

summary of the deduction system, see Case C‑324/11 Tóth [2012] ECR, paragraph 25 and case‑law cited. 28 – See Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the VAT group option provided for in Article 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on common system of value added tax (COM(2009) 325 final), pages 11 and 12. 29 – See the judgment in Polysar, paragraphs 15 to 17. 30 – See Case C‑77/01 EDM [2004] ECR I‑4295, paragraph 49, and Case C‑437/06 Securenta [2008] ECR I‑1597, paragraph 26. ‘It is apparent from the information supplied by the national court that Securenta carries out three types of activity: (i) non‑economic activities, which do not fall within the scope of the Sixth Directive; (ii) economic activities, which as such fall within the scope of that directive but are exempt from VAT; and (iii) taxed economic activities. The question therefore arises, in that context, whether – and, if so, to what extent – such a taxable person has the right to deduct input VAT relating to expenditure which is not attributable to specific output transactions.’