minbuza.nl (Dutch) mentions the following background information for this case (unofficial translation):
Topic:
- Council Directive 2006/112 / EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (VAT Directive);
- Council Directive 2008/9 / EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of VAT provided for in Directive 2006/112 / EC to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State;
Facts:
- The applicant (hereinafter: CHEP BE) is a company established in Belgium specializing in rental services for pallets at European level.
- The European pallet stock is subleased in every European country to the CHEP companies, including CHEP România, and those companies in turn rent the pallets to the end customers in the country concerned.
- To perform this activity, CHEP BE purchases new pallets in most European countries, including Romania, to meet local demand for pallets.
- In view of the pallets that she had purchased from a Romanian supplier from 01.10.2014 to 31.12.2014, the applicant requested the Romanian tax authorities to repay an amount of RON 185 822.23 in VAT. (note from VATupdate: it looks like CHEP PE used the 8th Directive refund mechanism)
- The defendant rejected this request by decision of 14.06.2016. That decision states that the applicant has rented out to CHEP România not only pallets that it has purchased from the Romanian supplier, but also other types of pallets that have been sent to Romania from and purchased from other EU Member States.
- The transport or dispatch of goods from one Member State to another, without transfer or transfer of the right to dispose of the goods as the owner, constitutes a transfer in the Member State where the transport has commenced and an assimilation to an intra-Community acquisition act in the Member State where the transport has ended (in this case Romania).
- For this transport, the applicant must be registered for VAT purposes under the Romanian Tax Code (note from VATupdate: so CHEP PE was entitled to a refund, but should have requested a refund via a regular Romanian VAT return).
- The objection to this decision was rejected.
