Source: http://uk.jha.com/tag/vat/
Timestamp: 2018-11-19 22:00:51
Document Index: 135797794

Matched Legal Cases: ['CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'art 26', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

VAT Archives | JHA
AG Opinion: Vehicle Leasing Agreements and the VAT Directive
AG Opinion Agility Agreements VAT
Mercedes offered vehicles to customers in so-called ‘Agility Agreements’, under which the lessee paid monthly instalments in exchange to use the vehicle for a specified period. At the end of the period, the lessee had an option to purchase the vehicle in consideration for a ‘balloon’ payment (varying between 42% and 48% of the initial purchase price). The question is whether such an agreement constitutes a supply of goods or services under the VAT Directive. The AG considers that they constitute agreements for the supply of services.
Council Directive amending the VAT directive in respect of treatment of vouchers
EU Council EU Directive VAT Vouchers
The directive is narrower in scope than the one proposed by the Commission in 2012. It defines single-purpose vouchers and multi-purpose vouchers and sets out rules to determine the taxable value of transactions in both of these cases. The directive is directed at increasing legal certainty for such transactions and stopping double taxation and non-taxation by reducing the risk of mismatches in national tax legislation.
The Council of the European Union’s Newly Adopted Rules and Directive
BEPS EU Commission EU Council OECD Tax Avoidance VAT VAT Directive
The Council of the Europe Union has been busy this week in the area of both direct and indirect taxation at EU and international level. First, in the area of direct taxation, the Council adopted rules on the exchange of tax-related information on multinational enterprises (MNEs). In the area of indirect taxation, the Council has adopted a directive, amending the VAT Directive, whereby the minimum standard VAT rate of 15% will be maintained until 31 December 2017. At global level, the Council agreed on the establishment of an EU list of third country non-cooperative jurisdictions, more commonly known as tax havens.
Judgments in Cases C-607/14 Bookit and C-130/15 National Exhibition Centre
Bookit CJEU Council Directive 2006/112/EC Court of Appeal National Exhibition Centre Transfer Exemption VAT
The Court of Justice last Thursday handed down its judgments in C-607/14 Bookit and C-130/15 National Exhibition Centre, clarifying the application of the VAT payment and transfer exemption under Article 135(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC. The decision has a bearing on the VAT treatment of card handling services.
Partial payment of VAT liability pursuant to Schemes of Arrangement – Degano Transporti (Case C-546/14)
Advocate General's Opinion CJEU Debt Compromise Arrangement Degano Transporti District Court of Udine EU Law Insolvency Legislation VAT
In Degano Transporti, the District Court of Udine (Italy) was presented with an application by Degano Transporti (“the Taxpayer”) for approval of a debt compromise arrangement similar in nature to a scheme of arrangement pursuant to the UK Companies Act 2006, Part 26. The proposed scheme of arrangement would result in the Italian tax authorities receiving only a partial payment of the Taxpayer’s VAT liability. The Court, of its own motion, requested a preliminary reference from the CJEU on the question of whether the acceptance by the Italian tax authority of a partial payment of the Taxpayer’s VAT liability would be in breach of the provisions of TFEU and the VAT Directive (Directive 2006/112/EC) concerning the principle of the fiscal neutrality and the obligation on Member States to take the necessary administrative and legislative measures to ensure the proper collection of VAT due. The Court, largely following the Opinion of AG Sharpston, reasoned that the acceptance of the partial VAT liability would not constitute a breach of EU law.
Court of Justice rules on VAT liability of claims settlement services
CJEU Insurance Transactions Poland VAT VAT Directive
The Court considered first of all whether the services provided consisted of insurance transactions covered by the exemption in Article 135(1)(a) of the VAT Directive, defined in the case-law as transactions where “the insurer undertakes, in return for prior payment of the premium, to provide the insured, in the event of materialisation of the risk covered, with the service agreed when the contract was concluded”. The Court found that the transactions were not insurance transactions. The Court also found that the services could not benefit from the exemption for “services related” to “insurance and reinsurance transactions, … performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents”.
VAT Notice 701/14: Scottish Snowballs
First Tier Tribunal Food HMRC Scottish Snowballs VAT
HMRC has updated VAT Notice 701/14 to confirm that Scottish snowballs, defined as “a dome of marshmallow coated with chocolate or coconut, aerated and boiled (not baked), they have a short shelf life and harden rapidly when removed from the packet”, are not liable for VAT.
Case C-595/13 Fiscale Eenheid X N.V.
A Beheer BV CJEU Fiscale Eenheid management services Pension Funds Real Estate Fund Tax Exemption VAT
The Dutch courts referred two questions to the ECJ. The first was whether a special investment fund can include a real estate fund. The second was whether the term management included the actual management of the company’s real estate, which the company has entrusted to a third party.
C-89/14 A2A: Compound interest
A2A AEM ASM Brescia CJEU Corporation Tax Court of Cassation EU Commission EU Law Italy State Aid Tax Exemption VAT
ASM Brescia and AEM, which merged to create the company A2A, benefitted from a three year exemption from corporation tax and subsidised loans granted by Italy. In 2002, the Commission considered that those tax exemptions constituted state aid incompatible with the common market and ordered Italy to recover the aid. In 2008, Italy took the necessary measures to recover the aid in question and provided in its legislation that, by reference to an EU regulation (not yet applicable on the date the recovery of the aid was ordered by the Commission), the amounts to recover would be subject to compound interest. A2A contested the basis of calculation of interest before the Italian courts.
CJEU EU Law VAT VAT Directive
Advocate General considers VAT treatment of Bitcoins
Advocate General's Opinion Bitcoin CJEU David Hedqvist EU Directive Sweden VAT
David Hedqvist intended to buy and sell Bitcoins, a virtual currency, in exchange for Swedish Krona. Before commencing this activity he sought a preliminary opinion from the Swedish Tax Law Committee as to whether he would need to account for VAT. The preliminary opinion evaluated the activity as a supply of services for consideration, but a supply of services which was exempt from VAT, since Bitcoins are a method of payment that are used like legal tender. The Swedish tax authorities appealed this ruling and the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court referred two questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
ECJ rules on customs duties and the Community transit procedure
CJEU Community Transit DSV VAT VAT Directive
Community transit is a customs procedure allowing the movement of goods that are not in free circulation, i.e., non-EU goods that have not been cleared into the EU, between two points in the EU under suspension of customs duties. The Court ruled that if it could not be established that the two transit procedures concerned the same goods, then a customs debt is incurred under Article 203, because the goods would be regarded as removed from customs supervision, having never been presented to the customs authority. If on the other hand, the two transit procedures did concern the same goods, the mere fact that the goods were not presented to either the customs office of destination or at origin as part of the first transit procedure is insufficient to constitute removal from customs supervision if it is established that the same goods were subsequently transported again to their destination under a second, correctly discharged transit procedure. Accordingly no customs debt would be incurred under Article 203 and Article 204 would need to be considered instead. Lastly, the Court ruled that Article 168(e) of the VAT Directive did not preclude national legislation excluding the deduction of import VAT by the carrier of goods who is neither the importer nor owner of the goods in question.
Supreme Court judgment in Rank: VAT on Gaming Machines
Gaming Machines HMRC Rank Group Plc Supreme Court VAT
This case has a long and complex procedural history. The remaining question was whether, during the period 1 October 2002 to 5 December 2005, the takings on a particular category of gaming machines operated by Rank were subject to VAT or exempt. Rank had argued that the difference in treatment between takings from the disputed machines, assuming they were exempt, and other similar machines which were taxable infringed the EU law principle of fiscal neutrality. The Court has dismissed Rank’s appeal.
Supreme Court holds that car sales VAT scheme is abusive
Car Sales Court of Appeal EU Law First Tier Tribunal HMRC Supreme Court Upper Tribunal VAT
The respondent car sales group employed a VAT liability reduction scheme, so that it would only account for VAT on the difference between the wholesale purchase price and the retail sale price of its demonstrator cars. The scheme satisfied the conditions for VAT exemption and the application of the margin scheme. HMRC argued that the scheme was abusive under EU law and that the respondent should pay back the VAT avoided. The FTT dismissed the appeal decision, which was overturned by the UT on appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with the FTT and ruled that the scheme was not abusive. The Supreme Court agreed with the Upper Tribunal.