mizuumi1/LegalViz huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Slovak

Keďže sťažnosť podaná proti tomuto daňovému výmeru bola zamietnutá, B podal žalobu na príslušný Finanzgericht (Finančný súd, Nemecko), ktorý zrušil uvedený daňový výmer z dôvodu, že tržby presahujúce ziskovú prirážku by sa nemali zohľadniť pri výpočte obratu na účely uplatnenia osobitnej úpravy pre malé podniky.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Finančný súd A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Finanzgericht (Finančný súd, Nemecko)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Finančný súd A"->"daňový výmer 04/10/2012";
  "daňový výmer 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "B"->"Finanzgericht (Finančný súd, Nemecko)"[label="podal žalobu"];
  "Finanzgericht (Finančný súd, Nemecko)"->"ktorý zrušil uvedený daňový výmer";
  "ktorý zrušil uvedený daňový výmer"->"daňový výmer 04/10/2012";
  "ktorý zrušil uvedený daňový výmer"->"tržby presahujúce ziskovú prirážku by sa nemali zohľadniť."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Slovenian

Ker je bil ugovor zoper to odmerno odločbo zavrnjen, je B vložil tožbo pri pristojnem Finanzgericht (finančno sodišče, Nemčija), ki je navedeno odmerno odločbo odpravilo, ker se prejeta plačila, ki presegajo razlike v ceni, ne bi smela upoštevati pri izračunu prometa za namene uporabe posebne ureditve za mala podjetja.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Finanzgericht A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Finanzgericht (Finanzgericht (finančno sodišče, Nemčija))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Finanzgericht A"->"odmerno odločbo 04/10/2012";
  "odmerno odločbo 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "B"->"Finanzgericht (Finanzgericht (finančno sodišče, Nemčija))"[label="je B vložil tožbo"];
  "Finanzgericht (Finanzgericht (finančno sodišče, Nemčija))"->"odpravilo, ker se prejeta plačila, ki presegajo razlike v ceni, ne bi smela upoštevati pri izračunu prometa za namene uporabe posebne ureditve za mala podjetja.";
  "odpravilo, ker se prejeta plačila, ki presegajo razlike v ceni, ne bi smela upoštevati pri izračunu prometa za namene uporabe posebne ureditve za mala podjetja."->"odmerno odločbo 04/10/2012";
  "odpravilo, ker se prejeta plačila, ki presegajo razlike v ceni, ne bi smela upoštevati pri izračunu prometa za namene uporabe posebne ureditve za mala podjetja."->"prejeta plačila, ki presegajo razlike v ceni, ne bi smela upoštevati pri izračunu prometa."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Finnish

Sen jälkeen, kun tästä verotuspäätöksestä tehty oikaisuvaatimus oli hylätty, B nosti kanteen toimivaltaisessa Finanzgerichtissä (verotuomioistuin, Saksa), joka kumosi mainitun verotuspäätöksen sillä perusteella, että saadut vastikkeet, jotka ylittivät voittomarginaalin, on jätettävä huomiotta pienten yritysten erityisjärjestelmän soveltamisessa.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "verotuomioistuin A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Finanzgericht (Finanzgerichtissä (verotuomioistuin, Saksa))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "verotuomioistuin A"->"verotuspäätös 04/10/2012";
  "verotuspäätös 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "B"->"Finanzgericht (Finanzgerichtissä (verotuomioistuin, Saksa))"[label="nosti kanteen"];
  "Finanzgericht (Finanzgerichtissä (verotuomioistuin, Saksa))"->"kumosi mainitun verotuspäätöksen";
  "kumosi mainitun verotuspäätöksen"->"verotuspäätös 04/10/2012";
  "kumosi mainitun verotuspäätöksen"->"saadut vastikkeet, jotka ylittivät voittomarginaalin, on jätettävä huomiotta."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Swedish

Efter att begäran om omprövning av detta skattebeslut avslagits, överklagade B till den behöriga Finanzgericht (Skattedomstolen, Tyskland) som ogiltigförklarade skattebeslutet med motiveringen att inbetalningar som överstiger vinstmarginalen inte ska beaktas vid beräkningen av omsättningen vid tillämpningen av den särskilda ordningen för små företag.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Finanzgericht A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Finanzgericht (Finanzgericht (Skattedomstolen, Tyskland))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Finanzgericht A"->"skattebeslutet 04/10/2012";
  "skattebeslutet 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "B"->"Finanzgericht (Finanzgericht (Skattedomstolen, Tyskland))"[label="överklagade B till den behöriga Finanzgericht (Skattedomstolen, Tyskland)"];
  "Finanzgericht (Finanzgericht (Skattedomstolen, Tyskland))"->"ogiltigförklarade skattebeslutet";
  "ogiltigförklarade skattebeslutet"->"skattebeslutet 04/10/2012";
  "ogiltigförklarade skattebeslutet"->"inbetalningar som överstiger vinstmarginalen inte ska beaktas."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: English

In the appeal on a point of law (‘Revision’) which it has brought before the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court, Germany), Tax Office A submits that point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 of the VAT Directive was misinterpreted.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Tax Office A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court, Germany)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "Tax Office A"->"Appeal";
   "Appeal"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court, Germany)";
   "Appeal"->"The first paragraph of Article 288 of the VAT Directive was misinterpreted."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Bulgarian

В ревизионната си жалба до Bundesfinanzhof (Федерален финансов съд, Германия) данъчна служба A твърди, че е тълкувала погрешно член 288, първа алинея, точка 1 от Директивата за ДДС.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "данъчна служба A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Федерален финансов съд, Германия)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "данъчна служба A"->"ревизионната си жалба";
  "ревизионната си жалба"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Федерален финансов съд, Германия)";
  "ревизионната си жалба"->"е тълкувала погрешно член 288, първа алинея, точка 1 от Директивата за ДДС."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Spanish

En el recurso de casación que interpuso ante el Bundesfinanzhof (Tribunal Supremo de lo Tributario, Alemania), la Oficina tributaria A sostiene que se realizó una interpretación errónea del artículo 288, párrafo primero, punto 1, de la Directiva del IVA.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Oficina tributaria A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Tribunal Supremo de lo Tributario, Alemania))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Oficina tributaria A"->"recurso de casación";
  "recurso de casación"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Tribunal Supremo de lo Tributario, Alemania))";
  "recurso de casación"->"se realizó una interpretación errónea del artículo 288, párrafo primero, de la Directiva del IVA.."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Czech

Finanční úřad A v rámci opravného prostředku „Revision“, který podal u Bundesfinanzhof (Spolkový finanční dvůr, Německo), uvádí, že byl proveden nesprávný výklad čl. 288 prvního pododstavce bodu 1 směrnice o DPH.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Finanční úřad A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Spolkový finanční dvůr, Německo)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Finanční úřad A"->"Revision";
  "Revision"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Spolkový finanční dvůr, Německo)";
  "Revision"->"Byl proveden nesprávný výklad čl. 288 prvního pododstavce bodu 1 směrnice o DPH.."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Danish

I forbindelse med den indgivne revisionsanke til Bundesfinanzhof (forbundsdomstol i skatte- og afgiftsretlige sager, Tyskland) har skatte- og afgiftsmyndigheden A gjort gældende, at Finanzgericht (domstol i skatte- og afgiftsretlige sager) har foretaget en fejlagtig fortolkning af momsdirektivets artikel 288, stk. 1, nr. 1).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "skatte- og afgiftsmyndigheden A A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (forbundsdomstol i skatte- og afgiftsretlige sager, Tyskland))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "skatte- og afgiftsmyndigheden A A"->"revisionsanke";
  "revisionsanke"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (forbundsdomstol i skatte- og afgiftsretlige sager, Tyskland))";
  "revisionsanke"->"momsdirektivets artikel 288, stk. 1, nr. 1) har foretaget en fejlagtig fortolkning."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: German

Das Finanzamt A bringt im Rahmen der von ihm beim Bundesfinanzhof (Deutschland) eingelegten Revision vor, Art. 288 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 der Mehrwertsteuerrichtlinie sei fehlerhaft ausgelegt worden.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Finanzamt A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Deutschland))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Finanzamt A"->"eingelegten Revision";
  "eingelegten Revision"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Deutschland))";
  "eingelegten Revision"->"Art. 288 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 der Mehrwertsteuerrichtlinie sei fehlerhaft ausgelegt worden.."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Estonian

Bundesfinanzhofile (Saksamaa kõrgeim maksukohus) esitatud kassatsioonkaebuses leiab maksuamet A, et käibemaksudirektiivi artikli 288 esimese lõigu punkti 1 on valesti tõlgendatud.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "maksuamet A A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhofile (Saksamaa kõrgeim maksukohus))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "maksuamet A A"->"kassatsioonkaebuses";
  "kassatsioonkaebuses"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhofile (Saksamaa kõrgeim maksukohus))";
  "kassatsioonkaebuses"->"käibemaksudirektiivi artikli 288 esimese lõigu punkti 1 on valesti tõlgendatud.."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Greek

Στο πλαίσιο της αιτήσεως αναιρέσεως που άσκησε ενώπιον του Bundesfinanzhof (ομοσπονδιακού φορολογικού δικαστηρίου, Γερμανία), η φορολογική υπηρεσία Α υποστηρίζει ότι ερμηνεύτηκε εσφαλμένως το άρθρο 288, πρώτο εδάφιο, σημείο 1, της οδηγίας ΦΠΑ.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "φορολογική υπηρεσία A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (ομοσπονδιακού φορολογικού δικαστηρίου, Γερμανία))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "φορολογική υπηρεσία A"->"αιτήσεως αναιρέσεως";
  "αιτήσεως αναιρέσεως"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (ομοσπονδιακού φορολογικού δικαστηρίου, Γερμανία))";
  "αιτήσεως αναιρέσεως"->"ερμηνεύτηκε εσφαλμένως το άρθρο 288, πρώτο εδάφιο, της οδηγίας ΦΠΑ.."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: French

Dans le cadre du recours en Revision qu’il a introduit devant le Bundesfinanzhof (Cour fédérale des finances, Allemagne), le bureau des impôts A soutient qu’il a été fait une interprétation erronée de l’article 288, premier alinéa, point 1, de la directive TVA.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "le bureau des impôts A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Cour fédérale des finances, Allemagne)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "le bureau des impôts A"->"recours en Revision";
  "recours en Revision"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Cour fédérale des finances, Allemagne)";
  "recours en Revision"->"l’article 288, premier alinéa, de la directive TVA a été fait une interprétation erronée."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Croatian

Porezni ured A tvrdi u okviru revizije koju je podnio Bundesfinanzhofu (Savezni financijski sud, Njemačka) da je tumačenje članka 288. prvog stavka točke 1. Direktive o PDV‑u pogrešno.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Porezni ured A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Savezni financijski sud, Njemačka)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Porezni ured A"->"revizije";
  "revizije"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Savezni financijski sud, Njemačka)";
  "revizije"->"tumačenje članka 288. prvog stavka Direktive o PDV-u pogrešno.."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Italian

Nell’ambito del ricorso per cassazione (Revision), che esso ha introdotto innanzi al Bundesfinanzhof (Corte tributaria federale, Germania), l’Ufficio delle imposte A lamenta un’interpretazione erronea dell’articolo 288, primo comma, punto 1, della direttiva IVA.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Ufficio delle imposte A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Corte tributaria federale, Germania)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Ufficio delle imposte A"->"ricorso per cassazione";
  "ricorso per cassazione"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Corte tributaria federale, Germania)";
  "ricorso per cassazione"->"un'interpretazione erronea dell'articolo 288, primo comma, della direttiva IVA."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Latvian

Saistībā ar revīzijas sūdzību, ko Nodokļu pārvalde A iesniedza Bundesfinanzhof (Federālā finanšu tiesa, Vācija), šī pārvalde norāda, ka PVN direktīvas 288. panta pirmās daļas 1. punkts esot kļūdaini interpretēts.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Nodokļu pārvalde A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Federālā finanšu tiesa, Vācija)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Nodokļu pārvalde A"->"revīzijas sūdzību";
  "revīzijas sūdzību"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Federālā finanšu tiesa, Vācija)";
  "revīzijas sūdzību"->"PVN direktīvas 288. panta pirmās daļas 1. punkts esot kļūdaini interpretēts.."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Lithuanian

Savo kasaciniame skunde Bundesfinanzhof (Federalinis finansų teismas, Vokietija) mokesčių inspekcija A tvirtina, kad buvo neteisingai aiškintas PVM direktyvos 288 straipsnio pirmos pastraipos 1 punktas.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "mokesčių inspekcija A A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Federalinis finansų teismas, Vokietija)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "mokesčių inspekcija A A"->"kasacinis skundas";
  "kasacinis skundas"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Federalinis finansų teismas, Vokietija)";
  "kasacinis skundas"->"PVM direktyvos 288 straipsnio pirmos pastraipos 1 punktas buvo neteisingai aiškintas."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Hungarian

A Bundesfinanzhof (szövetségi pénzügyi bíróság, Németország) előtt előterjesztett felülvizsgálati kérelmében az A adóhatóság azt állítja, hogy a héairányelv 288. cikke (1) bekezdése 1. pontjának téves értelmezéséről van szó.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "adóhatóság A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (szövetségi pénzügyi bíróság, Németország)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "adóhatóság A"->"felülvizsgálati kérelmében";
  "felülvizsgálati kérelmében"->"Bundesfinanzhof (szövetségi pénzügyi bíróság, Németország)";
  "felülvizsgálati kérelmében"->"a héairányelv 288. cikke (1) bekezdése 1. pontjának téves értelmezéséről van szó."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Maltese

Fil-kuntest tal-azzjoni ta’ Reviżjoni li huwa ressaq quddiem il-Bundesfinanzhof (il-Qorti Federali tal-Finanzi, il-Ġermanja), l-Uffiċċju tat-Taxxi A jsostni li saret interpretazzjoni żbaljata tal-punt 1 tal-ewwel paragrafu tal-Artikolu 288 tad-Direttiva tal-VAT.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "l-Uffiċċju tat-Taxxi A A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (il-Qorti Federali tal-Finanzi, il-Ġermanja)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "l-Uffiċċju tat-Taxxi A A"->"Reviżjoni";
  "Reviżjoni"->"Bundesfinanzhof (il-Qorti Federali tal-Finanzi, il-Ġermanja)";
  "Reviżjoni"->"saret interpretazzjoni żbaljata tal-punt 1 tal-ewwel paragrafu tal-Artikolu 288 tad-Direttiva tal-VAT."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Dutch

Belastingkantoor A voert in het kader van zijn bij het Bundesfinanzhof (hoogste federale rechter in belastingzaken, Duitsland) ingestelde beroep in Revision aan dat artikel 288, eerste alinea, punt 1, van de btw-richtlijn onjuist is uitgelegd.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Belastingkantoor A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (hoogste federale rechter in belastingzaken, Duitsland))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Belastingkantoor A"->"beroep in Revision";
  "beroep in Revision"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (hoogste federale rechter in belastingzaken, Duitsland))";
  "beroep in Revision"->"artikel 288, eerste alinea, punt 1, van de btw-richtlijn onjuist is uitgelegd.."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Polish

W ramach skargi rewizyjnej wniesionej do Bundesfinanzhof (federalnego trybunału finansowego) urząd skarbowy A podnosi, że dokonano błędnej wykładni art. 288 akapit pierwszy pkt 1 dyrektywy VAT.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "urząd skarbowy A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "urząd skarbowy A"->"skargi rewizyjnej";
  "skargi rewizyjnej"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)";
  "skargi rewizyjnej"->"dokonano błędnej wykładni art. 288 akapit pierwszy pkt 1 dyrektywy VAT.."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Portuguese

No âmbito do recurso de «Revision» interposto para o Bundesfinanzhof (Tribunal Tributário Federal, Alemanha), o Serviço de Finanças A sustenta que foi feita uma interpretação errada do artigo 288.o, primeiro parágrafo, ponto 1, da Diretiva IVA.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Serviço de Finanças A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Tribunal Tributário Federal, Alemanha)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Serviço de Finanças A"->"recurso de «Revision»";
  "recurso de «Revision»"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Tribunal Tributário Federal, Alemanha)";
  "recurso de «Revision»"->"foi feita uma interpretação errada do artigo 288.o, primeiro parágrafo, da Diretiva IVA.."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Romanian

În cadrul unui recurs introdus în fața Bundesfinanzhof (Curtea Federală Fiscală, Germania), Administrația Fiscală A susține că s‑a făcut o interpretare eronată a articolului 288 primul paragraf punctul 1 din Directiva TVA.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Administrația Fiscală A A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Curtea Federală Fiscală, Germania))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Administrația Fiscală A A"->"recurs";
  "recurs"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Curtea Federală Fiscală, Germania))";
  "recurs"->"s‑a făcut o interpretare eronată a articolului 288 primul paragraf din Directiva TVA.."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Slovak

Daňový úrad A vo svojom opravnom prostriedku „Revision“ podanom na Bundesfinanzhof (Spolkový finančný súd, Nemecko) tvrdí, že došlo k neprávnemu výkladu článku 288 prvého odseku bodu 1 smernice o DPH.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Daňový úrad A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Spolkový finančný súd, Nemecko)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Daňový úrad A"->"Revision";
  "Revision"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Spolkový finančný súd, Nemecko)";
  "Revision"->"došlo k neprávnemu výkladu článku 288 prvého odseku bodu 1 smernice o DPH."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Slovenian

V okviru revizije, ki jo je davčni organ A vložil pri Bundesfinanzhof (zvezno finančno sodišče), je ta davčni organ navedel, da je bil člen 288, prvi odstavek, točka 1, Direktive o DDV napačno razlagan.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "davčni organ A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "davčni organ A"->"revizije";
  "revizije"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)";
  "revizije"->"člen 288, prvi odstavek, Direktive o DDV napačno razlagan.."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Finnish

Bundesfinanzhofiin (liittovaltion ylin verotuomioistuin, Saksa) tekemässään Revision-valituksessa A:n verotoimisto väittää, että asiassa oli sovellettu virheellisesti arvonlisäverodirektiivin 288 artiklan ensimmäisen kohdan 1 alakohtaa.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "A:n verotoimisto A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (liittovaltion ylin verotuomioistuin, Saksa)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "A:n verotoimisto A"->"Revision-valituksessa";
  "Revision-valituksessa"->"Bundesfinanzhof (liittovaltion ylin verotuomioistuin, Saksa)";
  "Revision-valituksessa"->"asiassa oli sovellettu virheellisesti arvonlisäverodirektiivin 288 artiklan ensimmäisen kohdan 1 alakohtaa.."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Swedish

I sitt överklagande till Bundesfinanzhof (Federala skattedomstolen, Tyskland) gjorde skattemyndigheten A gällande att Finanzgericht (Skattedomstolen) hade gjort en felaktig tolkning av artikel 288 första stycket led 1 i mervärdesskattedirektivet.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "skattemyndigheten A A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Federala skattedomstolen, Tyskland))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "skattemyndigheten A A"->"överklagande";
  "överklagande"->"Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Federala skattedomstolen, Tyskland))";
  "överklagande"->"Skattedomstolen hade gjort en felaktig tolkning av artikel 288 första stycket led 1 i mervärdesskattedirektivet.."[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: English

Considering that it was necessary, in order to resolve the dispute before it, to interpret provisions of the VAT Directive, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘In cases involving the margin scheme provided for in Article 311 et seq. of [the VAT Directive], must the provision contained in point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 of that directive be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of assessing the relevant turnover, where this arises from a supply of goods as referred to in Article 314 of [the VAT Directive], in accordance with Article 315 of that directive, it is necessary to base [that assessment] on the difference between the selling price charged and the purchase price (profit margin)?’

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "The Court of Justice"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court, Germany)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court, Germany)"->"Stay the proceedings"[dir=none];
   "Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court, Germany)"->"Question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling";
   "Question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling"->"The Court of Justice";
   "Question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling"->"To interpret provisions of the VAT Directive."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Bulgarian

Като преценява, че за решаването на спора, с който е сезиран, е необходимо тълкуване на разпоредбите на Директивата за ДДС, Bundesfinanzhof (Федерален финансов съд) решава да спре производството и да постави на Съда следния преюдициален въпрос:
„Трябва ли в случаи на облагане на маржа на печалбата по член 311 и сл. от Директива[та за ДДС] разпоредбата на член 288, първа алинея, точка 1 от тази директива да се тълкува в смисъл, че за определянето на релевантния съгласно тази разпоредба оборот при доставката на стоки по член 314 от Директива[та за ДДС] съгласно член 315 от същата директива следва да се вземе предвид разликата между продажната и покупната цена (марж на печалбата)?“.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Съда"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Федерален финансов съд)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Федерален финансов съд)"->"спре производството"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Федерален финансов съд)"->"преюдициален въпрос";
  "преюдициален въпрос"->"Съда";
  "преюдициален въпрос"->"тълкуване на разпоредбите на Директивата за ДДС."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Spanish

Al considerar que la solución del litigio que debe resolver requiere la interpretación de las disposiciones de la Directiva del IVA, el Bundesfinanzhof (Tribunal Supremo de lo Tributario) decidió suspender el procedimiento y plantear al Tribunal de Justicia la siguiente cuestión prejudicial:
«En los casos de aplicación del régimen del margen de beneficio con arreglo a los artículos 311 y siguientes de la Directiva [del IVA], ¿debe interpretarse el artículo 288, párrafo primero, punto 1, de la Directiva en el sentido de que, en caso de entregas de bienes conforme al artículo 314 de la Directiva [del IVA], el volumen de negocios ha de determinarse, con arreglo al artículo 315 de la misma Directiva, por la diferencia entre el precio de venta fijado y el precio de compra (margen de beneficio)?»

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Tribunal de Justicia"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"->"suspender el procedimiento"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"->"la siguiente cuestión prejudicial";
  "la siguiente cuestión prejudicial"->"Tribunal de Justicia";
  "la siguiente cuestión prejudicial"->"la interpretación de las disposiciones de la Directiva del IVA."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Czech

Vzhledem k tomu, že se Bundesfinanzhof (Spolkový finanční dvůr) domnívá, že vyřešení sporu, který mu byl předložen, vyžaduje výklad ustanovení směrnice o DPH, rozhodl se přerušit řízení a položit Soudnímu dvoru následující předběžnou otázku:
„Je třeba v případech použití režimu ziskové přirážky podle článku 311 a následujících směrnice [o DPH] vykládat ustanovení čl. 288 první věty bodu 1 této směrnice v tom smyslu, že se při výpočtu relevantního obratu při dodáních zboží uvedených v článku 314 směrnice [o DPH] musí vycházet podle článku 315 uvedené směrnice z rozdílu mezi požadovanou prodejní cenou a kupní cenou (obchodní přirážka)?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Soudnímu dvoru"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Spolkový finanční dvůr))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Spolkový finanční dvůr))"->"přerušit řízení"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Spolkový finanční dvůr))"->"„Je třeba v případech použití režimu ziskové přirážky podle článku 311 a následujících směrnice [o DPH] vykládat ustanovení čl. 288 první věty bodu 1 této směrnice v tom smyslu, že se při výpočtu relevantního obratu při dodáních zboží uvedených v článku 314 směrnice [o DPH] musí vycházet podle článku 315 uvedené směrnice z rozdílu mezi požadovanou prodejní cenou a kupní cenou (obchodní přirážka)?“";
  "„Je třeba v případech použití režimu ziskové přirážky podle článku 311 a následujících směrnice [o DPH] vykládat ustanovení čl. 288 první věty bodu 1 této směrnice v tom smyslu, že se při výpočtu relevantního obratu při dodáních zboží uvedených v článku 314 směrnice [o DPH] musí vycházet podle článku 315 uvedené směrnice z rozdílu mezi požadovanou prodejní cenou a kupní cenou (obchodní přirážka)?“"->"Soudnímu dvoru";
  "„Je třeba v případech použití režimu ziskové přirážky podle článku 311 a následujících směrnice [o DPH] vykládat ustanovení čl. 288 první věty bodu 1 této směrnice v tom smyslu, že se při výpočtu relevantního obratu při dodáních zboží uvedených v článku 314 směrnice [o DPH] musí vycházet podle článku 315 uvedené směrnice z rozdílu mezi požadovanou prodejní cenou a kupní cenou (obchodní přirážka)?“"->"vykládat ustanovení směrnice o DPH."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Danish

Idet Bundesfinanzhof (forbundsdomstol i skatte- og afgiftsretlige sager) finder, at udfaldet af sagen beror på en fortolkning af momsdirektivets bestemmelser, har den besluttet at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
»I sager om fortjenstmargenordningen som omhandlet i [momsdirektivets] artikel 311 ff. […] skal bestemmelsen i [momsdirektivets] artikel 288, stk. 1, nr. 1), […] fortolkes således, at det med henblik på fastsættelsen af den relevante omsætning ved de leveringer af genstande, der er omhandlet i [momsdirektivets] artikel 314 […], i overensstemmelse med [momsdirektivets] artikel 315 […] er forskellen mellem den forlangte salgspris og købsprisen (fortjenstmargenen), der skal lægges til grund?«

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Domstolen"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"->"at udsætte sagen"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"->"følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål";
  "følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål"->"Domstolen";
  "følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål"->"at fortolke bestemmelserne i momsdirektivet."[dir=none];

}