9. 4. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 87/19 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Rejected amendment 
The following proposed amendment to the opinion of the Section for External Relations, which was 
tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, was rejected by the Committee during the 
proceedings. 
Insert a new point 40, worded as follows : 
To avoid awakening false hopes among the Mediterranean countries as to the scope of such legisla­
tion, the Committee insists that the attention of the negotiating parties must immediately be drawn 
to the fact that the Community is bound by a number of constraints in addition to those arising out 
of the impending accession of Spain and Portugal. These constraints are conditioned by the common 
agricultural policy, especially as regards Mediterranean products, as well as by such factors as 
budgetary discipline, limited financial resources and trade obligations to non-member countries.' 
Voting:' 
For : 4, Against: 49, Abstentions : 24. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Sixteenth Council Directive on the harmonization 
of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — common system 
of value added tax : common scheme for certain goods on which value added tax 
has been finally paid and which are imported by a final consumer in one 
Member State from another Member State 
(85/C 87/07) 
On 7 August 1984 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Economic and Financial Questions, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 22 January 1985 in the light 
of the report by Mr Delia Croce. 
At its 223rd plenary session (meeting of 30 January 1985) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following opinion with no votes against and one abstention : 
1. General comments 
The Commission's proposal for a Sixteenth VAT 
Directive is part of its programme to harmonize VAT 
systems. 
The proposal is a follow-up to the Sixth VAT Directive 
and the relevant rulings of the Court of Justice. 
By abolishing double taxation the proposal for a 
Sixteenth Directive improves the position of indivi­duals who acquire used goods in another Member 
State or who move house from one Member State to 
another. 
The proposal is welcomed by the Committee. It will 
undoubtedly help to facilitate intra-Community trade 
and the movement of persons between Member States. 
The Committee would ask the Commission to 
continue its work with a view to making subsequent 
improvements in the proposed Directive on the basis 
of the experience acquired. 
No C 87/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 4. 85 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 2, second paragraph 
This lays down that goods purchased from a taxable 
person less than 30 days before exportation are to be 
excluded from the scope of the Sixteenth Directive; 
this period is too short in the Committee's view. With 
such a short period it would be difficult to prevent 
new goods acquired in a country with a low VAT rate 
from being immediately resold and imported into 
another country with a high VAT rate. A period of 60 
days would seem more appropriate for reducing fraud. 
2.2. Article 3 
For the definition of 'final consumer' reference is 
made to provisions of the Sixth VAT Directive. 
The Committee feels that this definition could be 
open to various interpretations in certain cases, parti­
cularly where persons are engaged in the professions 
or similar activities. Consequently the definition 
should be improved. 
2.3. Article 4 (1) and (2) 
The Committee proposes that the two categories 
described in subparagraphs 1 (a) and (b) should be 
combined by providing for refund in respect of all 
goods whose value inclusive of VAT exceeds three 
times the amount of the allowance laid down in 
Article 2 of Council Directive 69/169/EEC, regardless 
of the date when the goods were last sold. Paragraph 2 
would have to be amended accordingly. 
Done at Brussels, 30 January 1985. The Committee considers that these changes are 
necessary in order to simplify the procedures and 
ensure fair treatment for all goods. 
The Committee also feels that the value referred to 
above (three times the amount of the allowance) 
should be index-linked, in order to give the valuation 
mechanism the necessary flexibility over time. 
2.4. Article 5 
The Committee notes that the burden of proof lies 
with the final consumer and that where proof is not 
produced the importing Member State (Article 9 of the 
proposal) may accept any other means of proof or 
presume that VAT Was levied by the exporting 
Member State. 
The Committee feels that the burden of proof should 
be eased and that, in addition, all Member States 
should apply identical or similar standards as regards 
the choice of other means of proof to be taken into 
consideration. 
The Committee suggests shortening the period of 
three months within which the exporting Member 
State has to refund tax. 
2.5. Articles 6 and 7 
The Committee asks that its remarks on Article 4 
should be taken into account in connection with 
Articles 6 and 7. 
Finally, the Committee recommends that the 
Sixteenth Directive should be applied without delay 
and without exceptions in all the Member States. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR