Case C-124/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 168(a) and 176 — Right to deduction — Expenditure related to the purchase of goods and the supply of services for staff — Staff supplied to the taxable persons claiming the right to deduction but employed by another taxable person)
Date: 2013-07-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, allowances and expenses, staff, tax relief








C_2013260EN.01001202.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/12





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
(Case C-124/12) (1)

(Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 168(a) and 176 - Right to deduction - Expenditure related to the purchase of goods and the supply of services for staff - Staff supplied to the taxable persons claiming the right to deduction but employed by another taxable person)
2013/C 260/21
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Plovdiv

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Plovdiv — Interpretation of Articles 168(a) and 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1) — Scope — Limitation of the right to deduct input tax — Company with no employees of its own but hiring workers full-time under a contract for the provision of staff employed by another company — Refusal of the right to deduct the VAT on the acquisition of transport services, work clothing and protective gear for workers and on business travel expenses of workers on the ground that the services are supplied free of charge to natural persons working for the company without being employed by it

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 168(a) and the second paragraph of Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a taxable person which incurs costs for transport services, work clothing, protective gear and business trips for staff working for that taxable person does not have the right to a deduction of the VAT relating to those costs on the ground that that staff is provided to it by another entity and accordingly cannot be regarded, for the purposes of that legislation, as members of the taxable person’s staff, despite the fact that those costs can be regarded as having a direct and immediate link with the general costs connected with all the economic activities of that taxable person;










2.


The second paragraph of Article 176 of Directive 2006/112 is to be interpreted as precluding a Member State, on its accession to the European Union, from introducing a limitation on the right to a deduction under a national legislative provision which provides for the exclusion from the right to a deduction of goods and services intended to be supplied free of charge or for activities outside the scope of the taxable person’s economic activity, when such an exclusion was not provided for in the national legislation in force until the date of that accession;
It is for the referring court to interpret the provisions of domestic law at issue in the main proceedings, so far as possible, in accordance with European Union law. Where such an interpretation proves impossible, the referring court is required to set aside those provisions on the ground that they are incompatible with the second paragraph of Article 176 of Directive 2006/112.






(1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.