Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Directive amending 77/388/EEC with a view to simplifying, modernising and harmonising the conditions laid down for invoicing in respect of value added tax"

(2001/C 193/13)

On 12 January 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 9 April 2001. The rapporteur was Mr Walker.

At its 381st plenary session (meeting of 26 April 2001), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1. Introduction

1.1. Invoices are amongst the most important documents in business. They are subject to accounting, tax, business and even linguistic rules. VAT legislation forms the core of many of these rules. At the same time, invoices are frequently required for other purposes and may be mandatory even where no VAT is involved.

1.1.1. The Community VAT system is built around the obligation to issue invoices. A VAT invoice has three functions:

- it contains information as to which VAT regime is applicable;

- it assists tax authorities to carry out controls;

- it enables customers to prove, if necessary, their right to deduction.

1.1.1.1. An invoice is also a vast legal concept governed by commercial and tax legislation, on the basis of which the parties (i.e. taxable person, customer and tax authorities) may initiate court proceedings, in particular in the absence of a written contract.

1.2. However, the rules governing invoicing vary widely from one Member State to another. There is no fixed practice dictating what or how much information must be included in an invoice; nor has the EU adopted a common legal framework for electronic invoicing and self-billing. Consequently, Member States' rules in these areas are very diverse, ranging from a total ban to extreme flexibility.

1.3. As a result of these diversities, traders find themselves faced with a highly complex legal situation and one which has clearly failed to keep pace with technological developments. This lack of harmonisation was cited by their representatives as an obstacle to the correct functioning of the Internal Market during the second phase of the SLIM(1) exercise. The results of this consultation were incorporated in the Commission's report on the SLIM initiative(2), whose conclusions were approved by the Internal Market Council on 27 November 1997. This report includes a commitment to study "the details considered necessary for drawing up an invoice for VAT purposes and the legal and technical requirements for electronic invoicing".

1.4. Moreover, in the course of the work on adapting the Community's VAT system to the requirements of electronic commerce, it has become clear that there is an urgent need to authorise the widespread use of electronic invoicing, free of any unnecessary constraints. In June 1998, the Ecofin Council itself stressed the importance of establishing a legal framework for the use of electronic invoicing, while ensuring that the ability of the tax authorities to exercise effective control was in no way impaired. In late December 1998, the Commission therefore commissioned a study from PriceWaterhouseCoopers of the conditions currently laid down for invoicing for VAT purposes.

1.4.1. The final report on this study was delivered to the Commission in August 1999. It concluded that:

- electronic invoicing should be explicitly authorised by Community legislation and should be permitted even between trading partners operating in different Member States;

- the conditions imposed on this practice should be neutral with regard to the technology employed and should take into account the work that has already been carried out on electronic signatures;

- no prior authorisation or notification should be required and only ex-post controls should be carried out by the authorities, leading to a ban, if necessary;

- storage of invoices using an electronic medium should be permitted on a similar basis;

- minimum conditions should be set to ensure that these procedures provide the same level of security for tax authorities as conventional ones.

1.4.2. The report also concludes that Community legislation should include a harmonised mandatory list of those statements which must be included on every invoice. In addition, the report recommends the adoption of a fairly flexible approach to the question of which currencies or languages should be permissible.

1.4.3. Having studied these conclusions in depth and discussed them both with traders and national administrations, the Commission has decided to propose an amendment to paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Sixth VAT Directive, which deals with the obligation to issue invoices. The aims of this amendment are, firstly, to harmonise the rules determining what statements must be included on invoices and, secondly, to establish a Community legal framework for electronic invoicing and self-billing. In both of these domains, the Commission has sought to balance the need to simplify the obligations imposed on traders with the administrations' legitimate needs in terms of tax control.

1.5. The Commission's initiative is not the only one looking at invoicing requirements. Work is being undertaken within the OECD on simplifications to facilitate developments in electronic commerce. Additionally, a "Global Invoice Project" was set up last year by American, European and Japanese automotive manufacturers, their suppliers and EDI experts to develop a harmonised electronic invoice message as a standard for global use in the motor industry.

2. The present provisions of the Sixth Directive

2.1. The obligation to issue an invoice

2.1.1. The current provisions of the Sixth Directive concerning the obligation to issue an invoice (Article 22(3)) are sketchy and leave considerable freedom of interpretation to the Member States. This paragraph was drafted at a time when the only conceivable invoice was a paper document and the idea of electronic invoicing is therefore entirely foreign to it. In addition, the invoicing obligations are entirely based on the concept of a paper invoice and cannot easily be transposed to deal with electronic invoicing. Thus, for example, the obligation to keep a copy of each document is difficult to transpose to invoices using a virtual medium.

2.1.2. While Article 22(3) begins by stating that it is the taxable person himself who must issue the invoice, point (c) of the same paragraph also provides that "Member States shall lay down the criteria that shall determine whether a document may be considered an invoice". This can only be interpreted as providing for the possibility that an invoice issued by a third party or by the customer may also be valid; the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has confirmed this interpretation(3).

2.1.3. Such practices are very common and have been so for a long time. The out-sourcing of invoicing operations is an established practice in almost all European countries, even though it is not specifically provided for in Community law. It is therefore desirable to take the opportunity provided by this Directive to clarify that point.

2.1.4. Self-billing is also standard practice in a number of different sectors, for example, where goods are held by the customer as consignment stock. There is substantial economic justification for this practice and it would therefore be prejudicial to forbid it on a Community-wide scale, particularly as it would not appear to create any major risk of tax fraud. The Commission therefore believes that it would be appropriate to establish common mechanisms to allow self-billing under certain specified conditions.

2.1.5. The Sixth VAT Directive provides that every taxable person is obliged to issue an invoice for every act of supply of goods or services to another taxable person or non-taxable legal person. There is no obligation to issue invoices to non-taxable persons except in the case of the supply of new means of transport (Article 28cA) or some distance selling (Article 28bB(1)). Other laws, however, allow Member States to make invoicing obligatory in other cases as well. The Commission does not see any need to amend these provisions at this stage, as it is not aware of their having created any major problems.

2.2. Invoice contents

2.2.1. Paragraph 3 of Article 22 simply refers to a non-exhaustive list of statements to be mentioned on the invoice. This list can, therefore, be extended by any Member State if it so wishes by adding any further information which is considered useful, on condition that the principle of proportionality is respected (ECJ Judgement of 14 July 1988 - joined cases 123 and 330/87).

2.2.2. In practice, the required statements vary widely from one Member State to another, thus creating many problems for traders who operate in more than one Member State.

2.3. Electronic invoicing

2.3.1. The concept of electronic invoicing, as such, is entirely absent from the Sixth Directive. However, Article 22(3)c allows, but does not require, Member States to accept this type of invoice. The result is that, not only are Member States free to choose whether or not to allow or forbid this practice, but the conditions under which such a framework may be established also vary widely.

2.3.2. The fact that the conditions governing electronic invoicing are not harmonised represents a significant obstacle to the wide-scale deployment of this practice, especially to large companies who may wish to delegate all their invoicing activities to a single subsidiary (or third party) acting on behalf of all their operations in a number of Member States, which are thus subject to different laws.

2.3.3. At the same time, recent technological developments have made it a matter of some urgency to establish a common legal framework for electronic invoicing. Electronic invoicing, which was long the exception, is set to become the rule, particularly given the substantial cost savings it can bring. The study carried out for the Commission has revealed that the cost of an electronic invoice ranges between EUR 0,28 to EUR 0,47, compared to EUR 1,13 and EUR 1,65 for a conventional invoice.

2.3.4. It should be emphasised that this revolution in business practice in no way represents a threat to the tax authorities.

2.3.4.1. These changes should actually make tax control more effective, as new tax-control software programmes which are now available enable electronic invoices to be checked both more quickly and more easily than bulky files of paper invoices.

2.4. Storage of invoices

2.4.1. Under the Sixth VAT Directive, traders are obliged to keep a copy of all documents which they issue. However, this provision does not make much sense in relation to an electronic invoicing system. It should therefore be modernised to take the form of a more general obligation to store information, whatever the method used.

3. The Commission's proposals

3.1. The obligation to issue an invoice (Article 22(3)(a))

3.1.1. It should be noted that the criteria determining in which cases there is an obligation to issue an invoice at Community level would remain unchanged. As far as VAT is concerned, the range of cases presently covered by the Sixth Directive is adequate, though it is possible that other laws may impose an obligation to produce an invoice, or a document serving as an invoice, for other purposes.

3.1.1.1. The conditions imposed on invoicing by Community law would only be applicable in those cases where Community law itself imposes an obligation to issue an invoice for VAT purposes; in other cases, it will be up to the Member States themselves to lay down these conditions.

3.1.2. On the other hand, the right to delegate to a third party the obligation to issue an invoice (out-sourcing) or to the customer (self-billing) would be explicitly laid down. Henceforth, the taxable person who carries out the transaction would simply be the sole person responsible for ensuring that invoices are issued and that they comply with all legal requirements, without being obliged, sensu strictu, to issue them himself.

3.1.3. In the case of self-billing, further conditions might be imposed at some point by the Member States in order to ensure effective control. Such conditions should not discriminate against traders established in another Member State and it would therefore not be possible to impose more restrictive conditions on cross-border self-billing than on self-billing within a single Member State.

3.1.3.1. However, in those cases where the third party or customer who issues the invoices on behalf of the taxable person is established in a non-Community country with which there is no legal framework for mutual assistance, harsher conditions may be justified and Member States would have discretion to impose them.

3.1.4. The proposal provides a clear basis for summary invoicing and debit and credit notes. As regards debit and credit notes, the Commission proposes that they should be treated in exactly the same way as the invoices they qualify. In that case, all the provisions laid down in Paragraph 3 would apply to them mutatis mutandis.

3.2. Invoice contents (Article 22(3)(b))

3.2.1. The Commission believes that it has become essential to harmonise the statements required on invoices and has therefore produced a list of the statements which may be required. This list, unlike previous lists, is exhaustive; as a result, tax administrations would not have the power to require further statements for VAT purposes.

3.2.2. The list proposed by the Commission contains twelve universal components:

- date of issue;

- a specific number;

- the VAT identification number referred to in paragraph 1(c) of the taxable person and, where applicable, his customer;

- the full name and address of the taxable person and his customer;

- a description of the goods or services;

- the quantity of goods supplied or, if applicable, of services rendered;

- the place of supply (i.e. the country) of the goods or the rendering of services;

- the date of supply of goods or rendering of services;

- the taxable amount per rate;

- the VAT rate(s);

- the VAT amount payable;

- the total amount payable.

It also contains the following conditional elements:

- where an exemption is involved, reference to the provision of this Directive which justifies the exemption;

- where the supply of new means of transport is involved, the particulars referred to in Article 28a(2);

- where the margin scheme is applied, reference to Article 26 or 26a;

- where the provisions of Article 28c(E)(3) are applied, an explicit reference to that provision, as well as the identification number for VAT purposes under which the taxable person has carried out the intra-Community acquisition and the subsequent supply of goods and the number by which the person to whom this supply is made is identified for VAT purposes.

3.2.3. This list of statements would be obligatory for registered traders in all Member States and no other statements would be obligatory for VAT purposes. Of course, traders would be free to add other statements as they wished. In addition, the Member States would be allowed to depart from the compulsory list in the case of invoices for smaller amounts and would be allowed to reach their own decisions about waiving any or all of the compulsory statements on condition that they might remove but not add. These provisions relate only to transactions carried out within the jurisdiction of a Member State and do not apply to cross-border transactions within the Community.

3.2.3.1. It should also be remembered that Member States can always, by virtue of the provisions contained in Article 22(9)(a) and Article 25(4), introduce simplifying measures of their own. Under these provisions, Member States are authorised to abolish obligatory statements in cases where the taxable person is carrying out only transactions which are exempt pursuant to Articles 13 and 15, is eligible for the special scheme for small undertakings, is a flat-rate farmer or does not carry out any intra-Community transactions. These powers would remain unchanged.

3.2.4. The proposal also specifically states that, when invoices are sent in batches to a single recipient, the required statements may be made only once if they are identical for all the invoices in the batch. In addition, Member States are not permitted to impose conditions with regard to the signature of invoices, except for those whose sole purpose is to guarantee the technical security of electronic invoicing.

3.2.5. The Commission believes that no problems would be created by giving traders the right to issue invoices in any currency, irrespective of whether or not it is a national currency or a Community currency, on condition, of course, that the VAT amount is converted into the national currency using the conversion methods defined in Article 11(C)(2). With regard to languages, the Commission has applied the principle of subsidiarity in leaving the Member States free to decide the permissible languages, provided that the conditions which they impose apply only to invoices issued by traders within their jurisdiction and not to those which they receive.

3.3. Electronic invoicing (Article 22(3)(c))

3.3.1. Article 22(3)(c) would establish the general principle that an invoice can be issued on any medium, whether physical or, subject to advance notification of the customer before the transaction, electronic, so as to ensure the greatest possible neutrality. The Commission believes that only through such a general principle, unencumbered by any list of acceptable technologies or methods, will it be possible to create a legal framework which will be technologically neutral and thus able to withstand the test of time.

3.3.2. The Commission accepts that a prior notification system may be necessary in the early stages of development but believes that even this could and should be phased out as more experience is acquired by Member State administrations. It therefore proposes to allow Member States the option to require prior notification up to 31 December 2005, provided that this does not prove obstructive and that under no circumstances would a tax administration be able to give prior refusal or impose any form of provisional suspension under such a system.

3.3.3. The proposed legal framework consists of a number of core conditions designed to guarantee the technical security of electronic invoicing and to protect the interests of traders who are aware of the need for secure electronic invoicing, as well as those of the tax authorities. These conditions are:

- authenticity of the invoice's origin must be guaranteed;

- integrity of the invoice's contents must be guaranteed.

3.3.3.1. In order to fulfil these two conditions, an electronic invoice must bear an advanced electronic signature within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 1999/93/EC on a Community framework for electronic signatures. According to Article 2(2) of this Directive, an advanced electronic signature is an electronic signature which fills all of the following requirements:

- it is uniquely linked to the signatory;

- it is capable of identifying the signatory;

- it is created using means that the signatory can maintain under his sole control;

- it is linked to the data to which it relates in such a manner that any subsequent change can be detected.

3.3.3.2. In the case of invoices sent electronically from a non-Community country with which there is no legal framework for mutual assistance, the Member States would be able to impose additional conditions for the acceptance of such invoices for VAT purposes.

3.3.3.3. It would still be possible for traders who so wish to impose stricter requirements on themselves. They may also choose to go further in securing the contents of the messages they send, for example, by the use of encryption techniques. The Commission does not believe that either of these practices should be made compulsory.

3.4. Storage of invoices (Article 22(3)(d))

3.4.1. The idea of an obligation to "store a copy" is to be replaced by a more general obligation to "store" invoices issued and received, as being more appropriate to the developing technology of electronic invoicing. The period of time for which invoices should be stored is left to the discretion of the Member States. Where the invoices were stored in a country other than that in which the registered trader is located, the applicable law would be that of the Member State in which the taxable person is registered.

3.4.1.1. The Commission considers that it is up to traders themselves to freely determine the place in which these invoices are stored; this may lie outside the national territory. This freedom would be subject to two conditions:

- traders must have immediate access at any time from their own premises to all the information contained in the invoices, so as to be able to comply with any request for information which they may receive from the tax authorities of their countries;

- the integrity of the data and its readability must be guaranteed for the entire storage period.

3.4.1.2. Such invoices would have to be stored in electronic form and the advanced electronic signature which accompanies them would have to be stored along with them simultaneously.

3.4.2. For storage facilities located in a non-Community country with which there is no legal framework for mutual assistance, Member States would be able to impose such further conditions as they deem necessary.

3.5. Article 1(2)

3.5.1. Article 22(8) currently allows Member States to lay down additional obligations which they deem necessary to ensure that they collect the correct amount of tax and to prevent fraud. The Commission proposes that this paragraph be amended so as to indicate that it cannot be used to impose additional obligations on the invoicing procedure, as the relevant obligations have now been harmonised.

4. Comments

4.1. The Committee welcomes the proposal to update Community legislation by recognising the right of traders to carry out invoicing by electronic means and endorses the concept of harmonisation of the contents of the invoice.

4.2. The Committee has consistently supported the aims and objectives of the SLIM initiative and consequently welcomes the Commission's present proposals as a further implementation of those principles.

4.2.1. It has also pointed out on several occasions that the differences in VAT regulations, interpretations, requirements, custom and practice, which divide the Community into fifteen different legal and tax systems, create greater problems for traders attempting to carry out cross-border transactions within the Community than differences in the VAT rates.

4.3. The Committee agrees with the Commission that the diversity of VAT regulations between the Member States creates disincentives to cross-border trade, particularly for SMEs, results in distortions of competition and, therefore, interferes with the operation of the Single Market.

4.4. Any measure which seeks to reduce this diversity and produce a more harmonious situation must reduce the administrative costs for European businesses and, as the Commission points out, make them more competitive vis-à-vis non-Community companies.

4.4.1. The Committee therefore accepts the Commission's contention that Community legislation is necessary in this area to harmonise the conditions imposed on invoicing, whether invoices are issued on paper or electronically, in order to ensure that the Single Market functions properly.

4.5. The Committee also agrees with the importance which the Commission attaches to removing obstacles to the development of electronic invoicing if Community businesses are not to be left behind by the technological advances which are being made throughout the world at an increasingly rapid rate.

4.5.1. The Committee endorses the Commission's view that legislation in this area should be neutral as to technology and should be based on a general principle unencumbered by any list of acceptable technologies. Any such list would quickly become outdated by technological advances and would require constant updating of the legislation. It would have been preferable had the Commission adopted a similar approach in its proposals relating to the taxation of e-commerce instead of producing lists of the supplies that were caught by that proposal.

4.5.2. The Committee would observe that traders making use of electronic invoicing and storage systems should be alert to the risk of compromising the confidentiality of sensitive data.

4.6. The Committee takes note of the fact that some Member State administrations are not currently in a position to permit electronic invoicing because they do not have the necessary technology to enable them to control it. It would seem likely that this state of affairs will give rise either to derogations or to a delay in implementing the Commission's proposals sufficient to allow those administrations to re-equip. The Committee hopes that any such derogations or any deferral of the implementation date will be restricted to the shortest possible period.

4.7. The Committee notes that "the new compulsory list that would result should be applicable only in cases in which invoicing is obligatory under the Sixth VAT Directive and not in other cases which might be required by particular national legislation". It also observes that the Member States tax administrations would not have the power to require further statements for VAT purposes. It hopes that Member States will not seek to circumvent this restriction by demanding additional compulsory statements, ostensibly for other purposes.

4.7.1. The list of compulsory data includes a specific invoice number, which need not, however, be in a sequential series. The Committee considers that the scope for fraud would be considerably reduced if there were a requirement for these numbers to be sequential; this would improve the system of control by making it easier to detect when an invoice had been removed. At the very least, Member States should be given the option of stipulating this requirement.

4.8. The Committee agrees with the Commission that prior notification systems are unnecessary in the long run and approves the proposal to prohibit their use after 31 December 2005.

4.9. Certain Member States currently require invoices to be produced on stationery issued by suppliers who are approved by the national tax authorities. The Committee considers that, as long as the invoice format complies with the Directive and fulfils all mandatory requirements, the taxpayer should be allowed to choose the form of document on which the information is printed. In any case, such a requirement in incompatible with the concept of electronic invoicing.

4.10. The Committee welcomes the fact that out-sourcing and self-billing would be specifically recognised in Community legislation and endorses the Commission's proposals in this area, recognising that, while the Commission's proposals authorise traders to delegate the production of the invoice, they cannot evade their responsibility to the tax authorities for ensuring that such production takes place and that the invoice complies with all legislative requirements.

4.10.1. A clear basis is provided for summary invoicing. The Commission has confirmed that there is no linkage here to the continuous-supply provisions in Article 10(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive.

4.10.2. With regard to the proposed treatment for debit and credit notes, the Committee believes that there would be a reduced risk of fraud if Member States were empowered to require that debit and credit notes should be cross-referenced to the original invoice to which they refer.

4.11. The Committee agrees with the Commission that traders should be free to determine the medium on which invoices are recorded as well as the place where they are stored, including locations outside the national territory, subject to the necessary conditions which the Commission has laid down to protect the integrity of the data and ensure ready access to it for tax control purposes. However, it is concerned that, where the storage takes place in a non-EU country with which the Member State concerned does not have a bilateral agreement, there may be a risk of fraud if the additional conditions imposed are not sufficiently strict. Difficulties may also arise where invoices are stored in a country which has a bilateral agreement with one or more Member States but not with others.

4.11.1. The storage of data in non-EU countries may also give rise to data protection implications. The European Data Protection Directive forbids the transfer of personal data to countries that do not subscribe to European data protection principles. Such data might include names, addresses, postcodes, email addresses and other information which is required on the invoice.

4.12. The Committee agrees that Member States should not be permitted to impose conditions for the signing of invoices except for the advanced electronic signature whose sole purpose is to guarantee the technical security of electronic invoicing. Indeed, it considers that, while the requirement for an advanced electronic signature is desirable for invoicing via the Internet, it might prove to be a burden for businesses, and especially small businesses, in relation to Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) systems. The Committee considers that, where a business uses an EDI communications system which is in itself secure and tamper-proof, consideration should be given to dropping this requirement.

4.13. The Committee is concerned by the substantial losses to Member State revenues which stem from the vast scale of fraud in relation to VAT; these losses are estimated to exceed 35 billion Euro per annum in the Community as a whole. It must therefore be a prime requirement of any proposed modifications to the system that they should in no way increase the risk of fraud and should preferably serve to reduce it.

4.13.1. The Committee accepts the Commission's proposition that these proposals do not represent a threat to the tax authorities. However, it considers that they will place an even greater emphasis on the need for close cooperation between the tax authorities. Such cooperation has been sadly lacking in the past and lies at the heart of much of the fraud which is currently depriving Member States of their legitimate revenue. As long as there are fifteen different tax administrations, effective control can only be exercised through a high degree of mutual cooperation and assistance, whatever VAT regime is in force. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Member State tax administrations have allowed a substantial degree of fraud to take place by failing to utilise to the fullest possible extent the instruments of control at their disposal through a lack of coordinated effort. The Committee hopes that a much higher degree of mutual cooperation and assistance can be attained in the future.

4.14. It should be an objective of any modification to the VAT system to reduce the administrative burden on businesses, and especially SMEs, to the greatest extent possible without compromising the ability of the tax authorities to maintain effective controls. The Committee accepts that, while the present proposals would increase the existing burden for businesses located in some Member States, they would reduce the burden for others and it considers that, overall, the objective has been achieved in this instance.

5. Conclusions

5.1. The Committee broadly welcomes the Commission's intended approach. It approves the concept of a harmonised system which imposes the same obligations for paper-based and electronic systems and which makes no distinction between internal and cross-border transactions. The new rules need to be sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of both large and small businesses and to keep pace with the development of new commercial practices and technologies.

5.2. The Committee agrees with the Commission that its proposals will encourage the emergence of standardised inter-operable electronic formats for invoicing. It would like to see this work harmonised as far as possible with wider global initiatives (e.g. the OECD project) on simplification to facilitate developments in electronic commerce.

5.3. The Committee stresses the need for the prevention of fraud in the VAT system. It accepts the Commission's view that the proposals provide the Member State tax administrations with sufficient guarantees that the security they require will not be compromised and that electronic invoicing will facilitate the control process because electronic invoices can be checked more quickly and more easily than bulky files of paper invoices.

5.4. The Committee recognises that the Commission's proposals will require some Member States to forego some of the information which they currently require to be included on an invoice and to relax some of the regulations which are currently in force in the territory under their jurisdiction. Conversely, the harmonised invoice contents may require businesses in some Member States to furnish information which they are not currently required to produce. The Committee believes that such sacrifices are necessary for the completion of the Single Market and will ultimately be to the benefit of businesses and tax administrations alike. It calls upon the Member States to accept these changes as a necessary adjunct of Single Market harmonisation and co-ordination.

5.5. The Committee hopes that any derogations given to Member States in respect of the requirement to accept electronic invoicing will be limited to the shortest possible time.

Brussels, 26 April 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

(1) Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market

(2) COM(97) 618 final, 24.11.1997

(3) Judgement of 17 September 1997: "Finanzamt Osnabrück - Land v Bernahrd Langhorst".