Monday 23 September
Hearing – C-488/18 Golfclub Schloss Igling – A German referral asking whether Article 132(1)(m) of the VAT Directive, under which Member States are to exempt ‘the supply of certain services closely linked to sport or physical education by non-profit-making organisations to persons taking part in sport or physical education’ has direct effect with the result that, in the absence of transposition, that provision may be relied on directly by non-profit-making organisations? If answered in the affirmative is ‘non-profit-making organisation’ a concept that must be interpreted under EU law autonomously, or are Member States authorised to make the existence of such an organisation subject to conditions? If it is a concept that must be interpreted under EU law autonomously, must a ‘non-profit-making organisation’ have rules that apply in the event that the organisation is dissolved, under which it has to transfer its existing assets to another non-profit-making organisation which promotes sport and physical education?
Thursday 3 October
Judgment – C-329/18 Altic – A Latvian referral asking whether a taxable person should be deprived of the right to deduct VAT based on its alleged lack of diligence, assessed by reference to its behaviour in relation to obligations imposed on it and its co-contractors by non-tax-related sectoral rules. Can food safety regulations, interpreted in the light of Article 168(a) of the VAT Directive, require a party that contracts with a business to check that the business is appropriately registered; and is that check relevant for the purposes of determining whether that party knew or should have known that it was taking part in a transaction with a fictitious undertaking, having regard to the characteristics of the transactions in question?
Opinion – C-401/18 Herst – A Czech referral asking whether, in the context of a supply under the Excise Duty Directive, must ‘any taxable person’ be regarded as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 138(2)(b) of the VAT Directive? If not, to which taxable persons does that provision apply?
Thursday 10 October
Opinion – C-211/18 Idealmed III – A Portuguese referral asking whether Article 132(1)(b) of the VAT Directive precludes a hospital owned by a private company, which has concluded agreements for the provision of medical care with the State and with legal persons governed by public law, from being deemed (under certain conditions) to have started to operate under social conditions comparable with those applicable to bodies governed by public law, as referred to in that provision?
Thursday 17 October
Opinion – C-276/18 KrakVet Marek Batko – A Hungarian referral asking whether the VAT Directive, particularly the requirements for the prevention of jurisdictional conflicts between Member States and double taxation, should be interpreted as precluding tax authorities from one Member State from attributing to a transaction (distance sales) a qualification differing from that of another Member State, and which therefore gives rise to the double taxation of the taxable person? Secondly, how should the concept of ‘transport by or on behalf of the supplier’ be interpreted where the buyer is able to opt for a carrier with which the seller cooperates or for another carrier? Is there an abuse of rights where the taxpayer circumvents the application of the distance selling arrangements by arranging transport in this way?
Source EY
