Unofficial translation/summary
- T is a company domiciled and managed in Jersey and is active in the real estate, asset management and housing sectors.
- T has been active since 1995 owner of immovable property in Austria, which was let with the application of VAT to two domestic entrepreneurs.
- The turnover generated by the rental business was its only domestic income.
- T had entrusted the management of the property of an Austrian real estate manager who carried out support and management tasks.
- T retained the power to take fundamental decisions.
- The real estate manager used its own office space and technical equipment for its activities, which were spatially and/or functionally separate from the applicant’s real estate.
- The tax authorities charged value added tax on the services provided by the applicant and ordered the applicant to pay the relevant to pay VAT.
- By its action before the referring court, the applicant contests the contested decision.
- Is the term ‘fixed establishment’ to be understood in such a way that there must always be the commitment of personnel and technical equipment, and thus necessarily the staff of the service provider must be present in the establishment or, in specific cases, an establishment may also be regarded as a ‘permanent establishment’ without the deployment of staff?
No official information available yet on Curia
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- Comments on ECJ C-101/24 (Xyrality) – Judgment on app stores as VAT commissionaires
- ECJ Confirms Deemed Reseller Rule for App Store In-App Purchases
- VAT Challenges in Toll Manufacturing: Goods vs Services Classification Issues
- VAT and Transfer Pricing – Four recent cases @ ECJ/CJEU – 3 cases decided, 1 case pending
- Briefing document & Podcast: ECJ C-580/16 (Hans Bühler) – Late submission of recapitulative statements should not disqualify a business from exemptions
