De Danske Bilimportører v Skatteministeriet.
Date: 2006-06-01
15. According to Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive, the taxable amount within the interior of the country is, in respect of supplies of goods, everything which constitutes the consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier from the purchaser. Article 11(A)(2) and (3) enumerate certain items which are to be included in the taxable amount and other items which are not to be included (Case C-126/88 Boots Company  [1990] ECR I-1235, paragraph 15).
17. As the Advocate General observed at points 16 and 17 of her Opinion, in order for such items to fall within the scope of the basis of assessment, even though they do not represent any added value and do not constitute the financial consideration for the supply of the goods, they must be directly linked to that supply (see to that effect Case 230/87 Naturally Yours Cosmetics  [1988] ECR 6365, paragraphs 11 and 12; Case C-33/93 Empire Stores  [1994] ECR I-2329, paragraph 12; and Case C-380/99 Bertelsmann  [2001] ECR I-5163, paragraphs 17 and 18).
18. In the present case, as the Danish and Netherlands Governments and the Commission of the European Communities have stated, the occurrence that triggers liability to the registration duty is not the supply of the vehicle but its first registration in Danish territory (see De Danske Bilimportører , paragraph 34, and Case C-138/04 Commission  v Denmark , not published in the ECR, paragraph 12).
19. That analysis is borne out by the fact, which constitutes the subject-matter of the third question referred by the national court, that a new car bought for a purpose other than being put into circulation within the areas in which the Danish Law on road traffic applies (for example, a collector’s vehicle, a vehicle intended for use exclusively on private ground or a vehicle destined for transfer outside the national territory) does not give rise to the levying of the registration duty in spite of a supply taking place within that territory.
20. Such an analysis is also borne out by the fact, mentioned in the fourth question referred by the national court, that the registration duty is due in certain situations in which there is no supply within Danish territory, such as that of a vehicle transferred by its owner to Denmark in connection with moving house and intended for use on public roads in that Member State or that of a vehicle rebuilt after a road accident and again employed for such use.
27. Admittedly, as DBI states, the registered dealer is, in such a case, the person responsible for payment of the registration duty to the competent tax authorities. The fact remains that, as regards that duty, the person liable for payment is the purchaser of the vehicle, as is shown by the fact that the dealer subsequently passes on to that purchaser the amount of the duty he has paid.
28. In answer to the second question, it is also important to point out that, subject to certain exceptions which are not relevant in the present case, the taxation of motor vehicles has not been harmonised and differs considerably from one Member State to another. Member States are therefore free to exercise their powers of taxation in that area provided they do so in compliance with Community law (Case C-451/99 Cura Anlagen  [2002] ECR I-3193, paragraph 40, and Case C-464/02 Commission  v Denmark  [2005] ECR I-7929, paragraph 74).