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: Finnish

B suoritti käytettyjen ajoneuvojen jälleenmyyjänä veronalaisia liiketoimia, joihin sovelletaan UStG:n 25 bis §:n nojalla voittomarginaalijärjestelmää. Sen saatujen vastikkeiden perusteella laskettu liikevaihto vuonna 2009 oli 27358 euroa ja vuonna 2010 vastaavasti 25115 euroa.
B katsoi 10.2.2010 (vuodelta 2009) ja 23.3.2011 (vuodelta 2010) päivätyissä arvonlisäveroilmoituksissaan, että sitä voitiin pitää UStG:n 19 §:ssä tarkoitettuna pienenä yrityksenä, koska sen liikevaihto vuodelta 2009 oli 17328 euroa ja vuodelta 2010 vastaavasti 17470 euroa. B ei laskenut näitä liikevaihtoja saatujen vastikkeiden perusteella vaan UStG:n 25 bis §:n 3 momentin mukaisesti voittomarginaalinsa perusteella.
Verohallinto hyväksyi ensin mainitun arvonlisäveroilmoituksen osalta sen, että pienten yritysten järjestelmän soveltamisessa viitearvona käytettävä vuotuinen liikevaihto voitiin määrittää voittomarginaalin määrän perusteella, ja hyväksyi täten sen, että B:hen sovelletaan pienten yritysten erityisjärjestelmää.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Verohallinto"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "UStG:n 19 § UStG"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"B suoritti käytettyjen ajoneuvojen jälleenmyyjänä veronalaisia liiketoimia, joihin sovelletaan UStG:n 25 bis §:n nojalla voittomarginaalijärjestelmää. UStG."[dir=none];
  "B suoritti käytettyjen ajoneuvojen jälleenmyyjänä veronalaisia liiketoimia, joihin sovelletaan UStG:n 25 bis §:n nojalla voittomarginaalijärjestelmää. UStG."->"Sen saatujen vastikkeiden perusteella laskettu liikevaihto vuonna 2009 oli 27358 euroa ja vuonna 2010 vastaavasti 25115 euroa. 2010"[dir=none];
  "B"->"arvonlisäveroilmoituksissaan";
  "arvonlisäveroilmoituksissaan"->"Verohallinto";
  "arvonlisäveroilmoituksissaan"->"B katsoi 10.2.2010 (vuodelta 2009) ja 23.3.2011 (vuodelta 2010) päivätyissä arvonlisäveroilmoituksissaan, että sitä voitiin pitää UStG:n 19 §:ssä tarkoitettuna pienenä yrityksenä"[dir=none];
  "B katsoi 10.2.2010 (vuodelta 2009) ja 23.3.2011 (vuodelta 2010) päivätyissä arvonlisäveroilmoituksissaan, että sitä voitiin pitää UStG:n 19 §:ssä tarkoitettuna pienenä yrityksenä"->"UStG:n 19 § UStG"[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

B har inom ramen för sin verksamhet som återförsäljare av begagnade bilar utfört beskattningsbara transaktioner som omfattas av ordningen för beskattning av vinstmarginal i enlighet med 25a § UStG. Vid en beräkning på grundval av de inbetalningar som gjorts uppgick B:s omsättning till 27358 euro respektive 25115 euro för åren 2009 och 2010.
I sina mervärdesskattedeklarationer av den 10 februari 2010 (för år 2009) och den 23 mars 2011 (för år 2010) bedömde B att han var att anse som ”småföretagare”, i den mening som avses i 19 § UStG, eftersom hans omsättning för åren 2009 och 2010 var 17328 euro respektive 17470 euro. B beräknade inte omsättningen på grundval av de inbetalningar som gjorts utan utifrån sin vinstmarginal i enlighet med 25a § stycke 3 UStG.
När det gäller den första mervärdesskattedeklarationen godtog skattemyndigheten att den årliga omsättningen, som ska tjäna som referensnivå vid tillämpningen av ordningen för små företag, kunde fastställas på grundval av vinstmarginalens storlek och medgav därför att B omfattades av den särskilda ordningen för små företag.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "skattemyndigheten"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "19 § UStG UStG"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"B har inom ramen för sin verksamhet som återförsäljare av begagnade bilar utfört beskattningsbara transaktioner som omfattas av ordningen för beskattning av vinstmarginal i enlighet med 25a § UStG. UStG."[dir=none];
  "B har inom ramen för sin verksamhet som återförsäljare av begagnade bilar utfört beskattningsbara transaktioner som omfattas av ordningen för beskattning av vinstmarginal i enlighet med 25a § UStG. UStG."->"B:s omsättning till 27358 euro respektive 25115 euro för åren 2009 och 2010. 2010"[dir=none];
  "B"->"mervärdesskattedeklarationer";
  "mervärdesskattedeklarationer"->"skattemyndigheten";
  "mervärdesskattedeklarationer"->"I sina mervärdesskattedeklarationer av den 10 februari 2010 (för år 2009) och den 23 mars 2011 (för år 2010) bedömde B att han var att anse som ”småföretagare”"[dir=none];
  "I sina mervärdesskattedeklarationer av den 10 februari 2010 (för år 2009) och den 23 mars 2011 (för år 2010) bedömde B att han var att anse som ”småföretagare”"->"19 § UStG UStG"[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

However, as regards the second VAT return, Tax Office A refused, in a tax notice of 4 October 2012, to apply the scheme for small enterprises to B in respect of the 2010 tax year. A change had been made to the administrative practice by the Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Ruling on the application of turnover tax) of 1 October 2010 (BStBl. 2010 I, p. 846), under which, for the purposes of determining whether the scheme for small enterprises applied, in cases, inter alia, concerning the applicability of the margin scheme to dealers, the turnover for the relevant year was required to be calculated on the basis of amounts received, and not by reference to the profit margin.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Tax Office A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The administrative practice by the Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Ruling on the application of turnover tax) of 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

   "B"->"Tax Office A"[label="The second VAT return"];
   "Tax Office A"->"Tax notice 04/10/2012";
   "Tax notice 04/10/2012"->"B";
   "Tax notice 04/10/2012"->"Refused to apply the scheme for small enterprises to B in respect of the 2010 tax year"[dir=none];
   "Refused to apply the scheme for small enterprises to B in respect of the 2010 tax year"->"The administrative practice by the Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Ruling on the application of turnover tax) of 01/10/2010"[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

По отношение обаче на втората справка-декларация за ДДС данъчна служба А издава данъчен акт от 4 октомври 2012 г., в който приема, че за 2010 г. В не може да се ползва от режима за малки предприятия. Всъщност административната практика е изменена с Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Наредба за прилагането на данъка върху оборота) от 1 октомври 2010 г. (BStBl. 2010 I, стр. 846), която предвижда, че за целите на прилагането на режима за малки предприятия, и по-специално на режима за облагане на маржа на печалбата на дилъри, годишният оборот трябва да се изчислява въз основа на получените суми, а не на маржа на печалбата.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "данъчна служба А A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "административната практика Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1 октомври 2010 г. (Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Наредба за прилагането на данъка върху оборота) 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"данъчна служба А A"[label="втората справка-декларация за ДДС"];
  "данъчна служба А A"->"данъчен акт 04/10/2012";
  "данъчен акт 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "данъчен акт 04/10/2012"->"В не може да се ползва от режима за малки предприятия за 2010 г."[dir=none];
  "В не може да се ползва от режима за малки предприятия за 2010 г."->"административната практика Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1 октомври 2010 г. (Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Наредба за прилагането на данъка върху оборота) 01/10/2010"[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

Sin embargo, por lo que respecta a la segunda declaración de IVA, la Oficina tributaria A denegó, en una liquidación de 4 de octubre de 2012, que el régimen de las pequeñas empresas se aplicara a B en el ejercicio de 2010. En efecto, la práctica administrativa había sido modificada por el Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Decreto sobre la aplicación del impuesto sobre el volumen de negocios) de 1 de octubre de 2010 (BStBl. 2010 I, p. 846), conforme al cual, para aplicar el régimen de las pequeñas empresas, en concreto cuando resulte aplicable el régimen del margen de beneficio a los revendedores, el volumen de negocios anual debía calcularse en función de los cobros y no en función del margen de beneficio.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Oficina tributaria A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "la práctica administrativa Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Decreto sobre la aplicación del impuesto sobre el volumen de negocios) de 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"Oficina tributaria A"[label="la segunda declaración de IVA"];
  "Oficina tributaria A"->"liquidación de 4 de octubre de 2012 04/10/2012";
  "liquidación de 4 de octubre de 2012 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "liquidación de 4 de octubre de 2012 04/10/2012"->"denegó, en una liquidación de 4 de octubre de 2012, que el régimen de las pequeñas empresas se aplicara a B en el ejercicio de 2010."[dir=none];
  "denegó, en una liquidación de 4 de octubre de 2012, que el régimen de las pequeñas empresas se aplicara a B en el ejercicio de 2010."->"la práctica administrativa Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Decreto sobre la aplicación del impuesto sobre el volumen de negocios) de 01/10/2010"[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

Pokud však jde o druhé přiznání k DPH, finanční úřad A v daňovém výměru ze dne 4. října 2012 odmítl, aby se na B za rok 2010 vztahoval režim pro malé podniky. Správní praxe byla totiž změněna Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (výnos o použití daně z obratu) ze dne 1. října 2010 (BStBl. 2010 I, s. 846), na základě něhož pro použití režimu pro malé podniky mimo jiné na případy použití režimu ziskové přirážky u obchodníků musí být roční obrat vypočítán podle přijatých úhrad, a nikoliv v závislosti na ziskové přirážce.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "finanční úřad A A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Správní praxe Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1. října 2010 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"finanční úřad A A"[label="druhé přiznání k DPH"];
  "finanční úřad A A"->"daňovém výměru 04/10/2012";
  "daňovém výměru 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "daňovém výměru 04/10/2012"->"odmítl, aby se na B za rok 2010 vztahoval režim pro malé podniky"[dir=none];
  "odmítl, aby se na B za rok 2010 vztahoval režim pro malé podniky"->"Správní praxe Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1. října 2010 01/10/2010"[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

Hvad angår den anden momsangivelse afviste skatte- og afgiftsmyndighed A i en afgiftsansættelse af 4. oktober 2012, at ordningen for små virksomheder kunne anvendes af B for 2010. Administrativ praksis var nemlig blevet ændret ved Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (anvendelsesbekendtgørelse vedrørende omsætningsafgift) af 1. oktober 2010 (BStBl. 2010 I, s. 846), hvorefter den årlige omsætning ved anvendelsen af ordningen for små virksomheder, bl.a. i tilfælde af anvendelse af fortjenstmargenordningen på videreforhandlere, skal beregnes på grundlag af de modtagne beløb og ikke ud fra fortjenstmargenen.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "skatte- og afgiftsmyndighed A A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Administrativ praksis var nemlig blevet ændret ved Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1. oktober 2010 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"skatte- og afgiftsmyndighed A A"[label="den anden momsangivelse"];
  "skatte- og afgiftsmyndighed A A"->"afgiftsansættelse 04/10/2012";
  "afgiftsansættelse 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "afgiftsansættelse 04/10/2012"->"afviste skatte- og afgiftsmyndighed A i en afgiftsansættelse af 4. oktober 2012, at ordningen for små virksomheder kunne anvendes af B for 2010."[dir=none];
  "afviste skatte- og afgiftsmyndighed A i en afgiftsansættelse af 4. oktober 2012, at ordningen for små virksomheder kunne anvendes af B for 2010."->"Administrativ praksis var nemlig blevet ændret ved Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1. oktober 2010 01/10/2010"[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

Bei der zweiten Umsatzsteuererklärung versagte das Finanzamt A jedoch mit Umsatzsteuerbescheid vom 4. Oktober 2012 B die Anwendung der Kleinunternehmerregelung für das Jahr 2010. Die Verwaltungspraxis hatte sich nämlich durch den Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass vom 1. Oktober 2010 (BStBl. 2010 I, S. 846) geändert, wonach für die Anwendung der Kleinunternehmerregelung u. a. in Fällen der Differenzbesteuerung bei Wiederverkäufern der Jahresumsatz anhand der vereinnahmten Entgelte und nicht anhand der Handelsspanne zu ermitteln war.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Finanzamt A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Verwaltungspraxis Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Umsatzsteuerbescheid vom 4. Oktober 2012 B 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"Finanzamt A"[label="die zweite Umsatzsteuererklärung"];
  "Finanzamt A"->"Umsatzsteuerbescheid 04/10/2012";
  "Umsatzsteuerbescheid 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "Umsatzsteuerbescheid 04/10/2012"->"versagte das Finanzamt A jedoch mit Umsatzsteuerbescheid vom 4. Oktober 2012 B die Anwendung der Kleinunternehmerregelung für das Jahr 2010."[dir=none];
  "versagte das Finanzamt A jedoch mit Umsatzsteuerbescheid vom 4. Oktober 2012 B die Anwendung der Kleinunternehmerregelung für das Jahr 2010."->"Verwaltungspraxis Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Umsatzsteuerbescheid vom 4. Oktober 2012 B 01/10/2010"[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

Teise käibedeklaratsiooni puhul keeldus aga maksuamet A 4. oktoobri 2012. aasta maksuteates B suhtes 2010. aastal väikeettevõtjate korra kohaldamisest. Nimelt oli 1. oktoobri 2010. aasta käibemaksu kohaldamise määrusega (Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass) (BStBl. 2010 I, lk 846) muudetud haldustava ja väikeettevõtjate maksustamise korra kohaldamisel, eelkõige aga kasuminormi maksustamise korra kohaldamisel edasimüüjate suhtes, tuleb aastakäive arvutada laekunud maksete ja mitte kasuminormi alusel.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "maksuamet A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "haldustava Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1. oktoobri 2010. aasta käibemaksu kohaldamise määrusega 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"maksuamet A"[label="Teise käibedeklaratsiooni"];
  "maksuamet A"->"maksuteates 04/10/2012";
  "maksuteates 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "maksuteates 04/10/2012"->"Keeldus aga maksuamet A 4. oktoobri 2012. aasta maksuteates B suhtes 2010. aastal väikeettevõtjate korra kohaldamisest."[dir=none];
  "Keeldus aga maksuamet A 4. oktoobri 2012. aasta maksuteates B suhtes 2010. aastal väikeettevõtjate korra kohaldamisest."->"haldustava Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1. oktoobri 2010. aasta käibemaksu kohaldamise määrusega 01/10/2010"[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

Ωστόσο, όσον αφορά τη δεύτερη δήλωση ΦΠΑ, η φορολογική υπηρεσία Αʹ αρνήθηκε, σε εκκαθαριστικό σημείωμα της 4ης Οκτωβρίου 2012, την εφαρμογή του ειδικού καθεστώτος μικρών επιχειρήσεων ως προς τον Β για το οικονομικό έτος 2010. Ειδικότερα, η πρακτική της διοίκησης είχε μεταβληθεί με την Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (διοικητική πράξη περί εφαρμογής του φόρου κύκλου εργασιών), της 1ης Οκτωβρίου 2010 (BStBl. 2010 I, σ. 846), κατά την οποία, για την εφαρμογή του καθεστώτος μικρών επιχειρήσεων, μεταξύ άλλων στις περιπτώσεις εφαρμογής του καθεστώτος του περιθωρίου κέρδους στους μεταπωλητές, ο ετήσιος κύκλος εργασιών έπρεπε να υπολογίζεται βάσει των εισπράξεων και όχι βάσει του περιθωρίου κέρδους.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "φορολογική υπηρεσία A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "διοίκησης Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (διοικητική πράξη περί εφαρμογής του φόρου κύκλου εργασιών 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"φορολογική υπηρεσία A"[label="η δεύτερη δήλωση ΦΠΑ"];
  "φορολογική υπηρεσία A"->"εκκαθαριστικό σημείωμα 04/10/2012";
  "εκκαθαριστικό σημείωμα 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "εκκαθαριστικό σημείωμα 04/10/2012"->"αρνήθηκε, σε εκκαθαριστικό σημείωμα της 4ης Οκτωβρίου 2012, την εφαρμογή του ειδικού καθεστώτος μικρών επιχειρήσεων ως προς τον Β για το οικονομικό έτος 2010."[dir=none];
  "αρνήθηκε, σε εκκαθαριστικό σημείωμα της 4ης Οκτωβρίου 2012, την εφαρμογή του ειδικού καθεστώτος μικρών επιχειρήσεων ως προς τον Β για το οικονομικό έτος 2010."->"διοίκησης Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (διοικητική πράξη περί εφαρμογής του φόρου κύκλου εργασιών 01/10/2010"[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

Toutefois, s’agissant de la seconde déclaration de TVA, le bureau des impôts A a refusé, dans un avis d’imposition du 4 octobre 2012, que le régime des petites entreprises soit appliqué à B pour l’exercice de 2010. En effet, la pratique administrative avait été modifiée par l’Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (instruction relative à l’application de la taxe sur le chiffre d’affaires), du 1er octobre 2010 (BStBl. 2010 I, p. 846), en vertu de laquelle, pour l’application du régime des petites entreprises, notamment dans les cas d’application du régime de la marge bénéficiaire aux revendeurs, le chiffre d’affaires annuel devait être calculé d’après les encaissements et non pas en fonction de la marge bénéficiaire.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "le bureau des impôts A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "la pratique administrative Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1er octobre 2010 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"le bureau des impôts A"[label="la seconde déclaration de TVA"];
  "le bureau des impôts A"->"avis d’imposition 04/10/2012";
  "avis d’imposition 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "avis d’imposition 04/10/2012"->"a refusé, dans un avis d’imposition du 4 octobre 2012, que le régime des petites entreprises soit appliqué à B pour l’exercice de 2010."[dir=none];
  "a refusé, dans un avis d’imposition du 4 octobre 2012, que le régime des petites entreprises soit appliqué à B pour l’exercice de 2010."->"la pratique administrative Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1er octobre 2010 01/10/2010"[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

Međutim, kad je riječ o drugoj prijavi PDV‑a, Porezni ured A je poreznim rješenjem od 4. listopada 2012. odbio primjenu odredbi za mala poduzeća na osobu B za financijsku godinu 2010. Naime, upravna praksa izmijenjena je Umsatzsteuer‑Anwendungserlassom (Naputak za primjenu poreza na promet) od 1. listopada 2010. (BStBl. 2010 I, str. 846.), kojim se za primjenu odredaba o malim poduzećima, među ostalim u slučaju primjene maržnog sustava na preprodavatelje, određuje da se godišnji promet računa prema naplaćenim naknadama, a ne na temelju razlike u cijeni.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Porezni ured A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "upravna praksa izmijenjena je Umsatzsteuer‑Anwendungserlassom (Naputak za primjenu poreza na promet) od 1. listopada 2010. Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1. listopada 2010. 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"Porezni ured A"[label="drugu prijavi PDV‑a"];
  "Porezni ured A"->"poreznim rješenjem 04/10/2012";
  "poreznim rješenjem 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "poreznim rješenjem 04/10/2012"->"odbio primjenu odredbi za mala poduzeća na osobu B za financijsku godinu 2010."[dir=none];
  "odbio primjenu odredbi za mala poduzeća na osobu B za financijsku godinu 2010."->"upravna praksa izmijenjena je Umsatzsteuer‑Anwendungserlassom (Naputak za primjenu poreza na promet) od 1. listopada 2010. Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1. listopada 2010. 01/10/2010"[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

Tuttavia, per quanto riguarda la seconda dichiarazione IVA, l’Ufficio delle imposte A ha negato, nel suo avviso di accertamento del 4 ottobre 2012, che il regime delle piccole imprese fosse applicabile a B per l’esercizio del 2010. La prassi amministrativa, infatti, era stata modificata dall’Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (decreto applicativo dell’imposta sulla cifra d’affari), del 1o ottobre 2010 (BStBl. 2010 I, pag. 846), in virtù del quale, per l’applicazione del regime delle piccole imprese, in particolare nei casi d’applicazione del regime del margine ai rivenditori, il volume d’affari annuo doveva essere determinato in base agli importi incassati e non in funzione del margine di profitto.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Ufficio delle imposte A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "La prassi amministrativa Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (decreto applicativo dell’imposta sulla cifra d’affari) 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"Ufficio delle imposte A"[label="la seconda dichiarazione IVA"];
  "Ufficio delle imposte A"->"avviso di accertamento 04/10/2012";
  "avviso di accertamento 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "avviso di accertamento 04/10/2012"->"Ha negato, nel suo avviso di accertamento del 4 ottobre 2012, che il regime delle piccole imprese fosse applicabile a B per l’esercizio del 2010."[dir=none];
  "Ha negato, nel suo avviso di accertamento del 4 ottobre 2012, che il regime delle piccole imprese fosse applicabile a B per l’esercizio del 2010."->"La prassi amministrativa Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (decreto applicativo dell’imposta sulla cifra d’affari) 01/10/2010"[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

Savukārt attiecībā uz otro PVN deklarāciju Nodokļu pārvalde A 2012. gada 4. oktobra paziņojumā par nodokli nedeva piekrišanu tam, lai attiecībā uz B par 2010. finanšu gadu tiktu piemērots mazo uzņēmumu režīms. Proti, administratīvā prakse tika mainīta ar 2010. gada 1. oktobraUmsatzsteuer‑Anwendungserlass (Noteikumi par pievienotās vērtības nodokļa piemērošanu) (BStBl. 2010 I, 846. lpp.), saskaņā ar kuriem mazo uzņēmumu nodokļu režīma piemērošanas vajadzībām tostarp gadījumos, kad tirgotājiem piemēro peļņas daļas režīmu, gada apgrozījumu aprēķina, ņemot vērā iekasētās summas, nevis peļņas daļu.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Nodokļu pārvalde A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "administratīvā prakse Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Umsatzsteuer‑Anwendungserlass 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"Nodokļu pārvalde A"[label="otro PVN deklarāciju"];
  "Nodokļu pārvalde A"->"paziņojumā par nodokli 04/10/2012";
  "paziņojumā par nodokli 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "paziņojumā par nodokli 04/10/2012"->"Nodokļu pārvalde A 2012. gada 4. oktobra paziņojumā par nodokli nedeva piekrišanu tam, lai attiecībā uz B par 2010. finanšu gadu tiktu piemērots mazo uzņēmumu režīms."[dir=none];
  "Nodokļu pārvalde A 2012. gada 4. oktobra paziņojumā par nodokli nedeva piekrišanu tam, lai attiecībā uz B par 2010. finanšu gadu tiktu piemērots mazo uzņēmumu režīms."->"administratīvā prakse Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Umsatzsteuer‑Anwendungserlass 01/10/2010"[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

Tačiau, kalbant apie antrą PVM deklaraciją, 2012 m. spalio 4 d. pranešime dėl mokesčių Finanzamt A atsisakė taikyti B smulkiojo verslo įmonėms skirtą schemą 2010 mokestiniais metais. Iš tiesų, administracinė praktika buvo pakeista 2010 m. spalio 1 d.Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Nurodymai dėl apyvartos mokesčio taikymo) (BStBl. 2010 I, p. 846), pagal kuriuos tam, kad būtų taikoma smulkiojo verslo įmonėms skirta schema, ypač taikant maržos apmokestinimo schemą prekybininkams, metinė apyvarta turėjo būti apskaičiuojama pagal gautas pajamas, o ne pagal maržą.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Finanzamt A A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "administracinė praktika Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Nurodymai dėl apyvartos mokesčio taikymo) 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"Finanzamt A A"[label="antrą PVM deklaraciją"];
  "Finanzamt A A"->"pranešime dėl mokesčių 04/10/2012";
  "pranešime dėl mokesčių 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "pranešime dėl mokesčių 04/10/2012"->"Atsisakė taikyti B smulkiojo verslo įmonėms skirtą schemą 2010 mokestiniais metais."[dir=none];
  "Atsisakė taikyti B smulkiojo verslo įmonėms skirtą schemą 2010 mokestiniais metais."->"administracinė praktika Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Nurodymai dėl apyvartos mokesčio taikymo) 01/10/2010"[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 második héabevallással kapcsolatban azonban az A adóhatóság 2012. október 4‑i adóhatározatban elutasította, hogy a 2010. gazdasági év tekintetében B‑re a kisvállalkozókra vonatkozó szabályozást alkalmazzák. A közigazgatási gyakorlatot ugyanis módosította a 2010. október 1‑jei Umsatzsteuer‑Anwendungserlass (a forgalmi adó alkalmazásáról szóló rendelet, BStBl. 2010. I, 846. o.), amely alapján a kisvállalkozásokra vonatkozó szabályozás alkalmazása tekintetében, különösen az árrésre vonatkozó szabályozásnak a használtcikk‑kereskedőkre való alkalmazása esetén az éves árbevételt a kapott ellenértékek, nem pedig az árrés alapján kell kiszámítani.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "adóhatóság A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "A közigazgatási gyakorlatot Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Umsatzsteuer‑Anwendungserlass (a forgalmi adó alkalmazásáról szóló rendelet 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"adóhatóság A"[label="A második héabevallással"];
  "adóhatóság A"->"adóhatározat 04/10/2012";
  "adóhatározat 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "adóhatározat 04/10/2012"->"A adóhatóság 2012. október 4‑i adóhatározatban elutasította, hogy a 2010. gazdasági év tekintetében B‑re a kisvállalkozókra vonatkozó szabályozást alkalmazzák."[dir=none];
  "A adóhatóság 2012. október 4‑i adóhatározatban elutasította, hogy a 2010. gazdasági év tekintetében B‑re a kisvállalkozókra vonatkozó szabályozást alkalmazzák."->"A közigazgatási gyakorlatot Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Umsatzsteuer‑Anwendungserlass (a forgalmi adó alkalmazásáról szóló rendelet 01/10/2010"[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

Madankollu, fil-każ tat-tieni dikjarazzjoni tal-VAT, l-Uffiċċju tat-Taxxi A rrifjuta, f’avviż ta’ tassazzjoni tal-4 ta’ Ottubru 2012, li l-iskema għall-impriżi żgħar tiġi applikata għal B għas-sena 2010. Fil-fatt, il-prattika amministrattiva kienet ġiet mibdula mill-Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (struzzjoni marbuta mal-applikazzjoni tat-taxxa fuq id-dħul mill-bejgħ) tal-1 ta’ Ottubru 2010 (BStBl. 2010 I, p. 846), li fuq il-bażi tagħha, għall-applikazzjoni tal-iskema għall-impriżi żgħar, b’mod partikolari fil-każijiet ta’ applikazzjoni tal-iskema ta’ marġni ta’ profitt għan-negozjanti, id-dħul mill-bejgħ annwali kellu jiġi kkalkolat fuq il-bażi tal-ammonti ta’ flus irċevuti u mhux skont il-marġni ta’ profitt.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Uffiċċju tat-Taxxi A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "il-prattika amministrattiva Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1 ta’ Ottubru 2010 (BStBl. 2010 I, p. 846) 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"Uffiċċju tat-Taxxi A"[label="tat-tieni dikjarazzjoni tal-VAT"];
  "Uffiċċju tat-Taxxi A"->"avviż ta’ tassazzjoni 04/10/2012";
  "avviż ta’ tassazzjoni 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "avviż ta’ tassazzjoni 04/10/2012"->"l-Uffiċċju tat-Taxxi A rrifjuta, f’avviż ta’ tassazzjoni tal-4 ta’ Ottubru 2012, li l-iskema għall-impriżi żgħar tiġi applikata għal B għas-sena 2010."[dir=none];
  "l-Uffiċċju tat-Taxxi A rrifjuta, f’avviż ta’ tassazzjoni tal-4 ta’ Ottubru 2012, li l-iskema għall-impriżi żgħar tiġi applikata għal B għas-sena 2010."->"il-prattika amministrattiva Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1 ta’ Ottubru 2010 (BStBl. 2010 I, p. 846) 01/10/2010"[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

Wat de tweede btw-aangifte betreft, heeft belastingkantoor A in een belastingaanslag van 4 oktober 2012 evenwel geweigerd de regeling voor kleine ondernemers toe te passen op B met betrekking tot het belastingjaar 2010. De bestuurspraktijk was immers gewijzigd bij de Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (beleidsregels inzake de toepassing van de omzetbelasting) van 1 oktober 2010 (BStBl. 2010 I, blz. 846), waarin voor de toepassing van de regeling voor kleine ondernemers is bepaald dat onder meer in gevallen waarin de winstmargeregeling toepassing vindt ten aanzien van wederverkopers, de totale jaaromzet wordt vastgesteld op basis van de ontvangen betalingen en niet op basis van de winstmarge.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "belastingkantoor A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "De bestuurspraktijk bij de Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1 oktober 2010 (beleidsregels inzake de toepassing van de omzetbelasting) 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"belastingkantoor A"[label="de tweede btw-aangifte"];
  "belastingkantoor A"->"belastingaanslag 04/10/2012";
  "belastingaanslag 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "belastingaanslag 04/10/2012"->"heeft belastingkantoor A in een belastingaanslag van 4 oktober 2012 evenwel geweigerd de regeling voor kleine ondernemers toe te passen op B met betrekking tot het belastingjaar 2010."[dir=none];
  "heeft belastingkantoor A in een belastingaanslag van 4 oktober 2012 evenwel geweigerd de regeling voor kleine ondernemers toe te passen op B met betrekking tot het belastingjaar 2010."->"De bestuurspraktijk bij de Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1 oktober 2010 (beleidsregels inzake de toepassing van de omzetbelasting) 01/10/2010"[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

Jednakże w odniesieniu do drugiej deklaracji VAT urząd skarbowy A w decyzji podatkowej z dnia 4 października 2012 r. odmówił stosowania procedury dla małych przedsiębiorstw w odniesieniu do B za rok obrotowy 2010. Praktyka administracyjna została bowiem zmieniona Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (instrukcją dotyczącą stosowania podatku obrotowego) z dnia 1 października 2010 r. (BStBl. 2010 I, s. 846), na mocy której w przypadku zastosowania procedury dla małych przedsiębiorstw, w szczególności w przypadkach stosowania procedury marży dla sprzedawców, roczny obrót powinien być obliczany w zależności od wynagrodzenia, a nie w zależności od marży.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "urząd skarbowy A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Praktyka administracyjna Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (instrukcją dotyczącą stosowania podatku obrotowego) z dnia 1 października 2010 r. 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"urząd skarbowy A"[label="drugiej deklaracji VAT"];
  "urząd skarbowy A"->"decyzji podatkowej 04/10/2012";
  "decyzji podatkowej 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "decyzji podatkowej 04/10/2012"->"odmówił stosowania procedury dla małych przedsiębiorstw w odniesieniu do B za rok obrotowy 2010."[dir=none];
  "odmówił stosowania procedury dla małych przedsiębiorstw w odniesieniu do B za rok obrotowy 2010."->"Praktyka administracyjna Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (instrukcją dotyczącą stosowania podatku obrotowego) z dnia 1 października 2010 r. 01/10/2010"[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

Contudo, no que diz respeito à segunda declaração de IVA, o Serviço de Finanças A recusou, por aviso de liquidação de 4 de outubro de 2012, que o regime das pequenas empresas fosse aplicado a B relativamente ao exercício de 2010. Com efeito, a prática administrativa tinha sido alterada pela Umsatzsteuer‑Anwendungserlass (Circular sobre a aplicação do imposto sobre o volume de negócios), de 1 de outubro de 2010 (BStBl. 2010 I, p. 846), nos termos da qual, para aplicação do regime das pequenas empresas, especialmente nos casos em que se aplica o regime da margem de lucro aos revendedores, o volume de negócios anual devia ser calculado em função dos montantes recebidos e não em função do regime da margem de lucro.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Serviço de Finanças A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "a prática administrativa pela Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1 de outubro de 2010 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"Serviço de Finanças A"[label="a segunda declaração de IVA"];
  "Serviço de Finanças A"->"aviso de liquidação 04/10/2012";
  "aviso de liquidação 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "aviso de liquidação 04/10/2012"->"Recusou, por aviso de liquidação de 4 de outubro de 2012, que o regime das pequenas empresas fosse aplicado a B relativamente ao exercício de 2010."[dir=none];
  "Recusou, por aviso de liquidação de 4 de outubro de 2012, que o regime das pequenas empresas fosse aplicado a B relativamente ao exercício de 2010."->"a prática administrativa pela Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (1 de outubro de 2010 01/10/2010"[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

Cu toate acestea, în ceea ce privește a doua declarație de TVA, Administrația Fiscală A a refuzat, printr‑o decizie de impunere din 4 octombrie 2012, ca lui B să îi fie aplicat regimul pentru întreprinderile mici pentru exercițiul din 2010. Astfel, practica administrativă fusese modificată de Umsatzsteuer‑Anwendungserlass (Instrucțiuni privind aplicarea impozitului de cifra de afaceri) din 1 octombrie 2010 (BStBl. 2010 I, p. 846), în temeiul cărora, pentru aplicarea regimului pentru întreprinderile mici, în special în cazurile de aplicare a regimului marjei comercianților, cifra de afaceri anuală trebuia să fie calculată în funcție de încasări și nu în funcție de marja de profit.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "B"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Administrația Fiscală A A"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "practica administrativă fusese modificată de Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Instrucțiuni privind aplicarea impozitului de cifra de afaceri) din 01/10/2010"[shape=trapezium];

  "B"->"Administrația Fiscală A A"[label="a doua declarație de TVA"];
  "Administrația Fiscală A A"->"decizie de impunere 04/10/2012";
  "decizie de impunere 04/10/2012"->"B";
  "decizie de impunere 04/10/2012"->"a refuzat, printr‑o decizie de impunere din 4 octombrie 2012, ca lui B să îi fie aplicat regimul pentru întreprinderile mici pentru exercițiul din 2010."[dir=none];
  "a refuzat, printr‑o decizie de impunere din 4 octombrie 2012, ca lui B să îi fie aplicat regimul pentru întreprinderile mici pentru exercițiul din 2010."->"practica administrativă fusese modificată de Umsatzsteuer-Anwendungserlass (Instrucțiuni privind aplicarea impozitului de cifra de afaceri) din 01/10/2010"[dir=none];
    
}