Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2006:156
Date: 2006-03-07
Language of the case: German
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

summary of the conclusions arising therefrom and the legislative procedure, see http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs. 20 – According to the Commission in the introduction to the consultation paper, ‘this would be essentially the same as the existing Article 9(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive. The existing rule is reasonably straightforward to apply and generally results in taxation where the service is consumed’, at p. 3. See also the Explanatory Memorandum to the original proposal in COM(2003) 822 final, unchanged in this respect by the subsequent amendment of the proposal, at p. 7. 21 – COM(2003) 822 final, unchanged in this respect by the subsequent amendment of the proposal, at p. 18, emphasis added. In its opinion on the Commission's proposal concerning Article 9(2)(a), the Parliament stated simply that ‘services connected with immovable property would reasonably continue to be taxed where that property is located (Article 9a of the amended directive, merely transcribing the current rules)’, and approved the proposal (European Parliament, A5-0233/2004 Final, of 6 April 2004, PE 333.127; emphasis added). The European Economic and Social Committee’s opinion on the proposal states even more simply ‘the place of supply of services relating to an immovable property would continue to be the country in which the property is located’ (OJ 2004 C 117, p. 15, at p. 17). 22 – All three quotations are taken from p. 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the amended proposal (COM(2005) 334 final), cited above in footnote 18. 23 – COM(2003) 822 final, unchanged in this respect by the subsequent amendment of the proposal, at p. 11. 24 – Of which, as a matter of logic, ‘the provision of hotel or similar accommodation’ merely forms a subset. 25 – It is entirely a matter for the Community legislature whether or not to adopt those proposals and, in so doing, to opt for accepting the negative consequences of a broader interpretation of Article 9(2)(a) that I have identified above in the broader interests of moving towards taxation at the place of consumption.