In a recent case before the Czech Regional Court in Hradec Králové, the question was raised how the transport of goods could be proven, and if the CMR was sufficient evidence.
The Czech Republic Court reviews various ECJ cases such as Euro Tyre and VSTR, and refers the question back:
“The defendant will therefore consider the abovementioned questions in the further proceedings, in particular whether the applicant is concerned at the time of the transport of the fuel to its establishment, it could have treated the goods as owner (ie mainly whether it had the opportunity to use, steal, destroy, etc. during the carriage, or whether merely arranging their transport, it will find out the circumstances of invoicing the price of the transport of goods (or its including or taking into account this price in the fuel price) and attempt to determine the true intention the applicant (or other links in the chain, if any) at the time of the acquisition of the goods.”
There are quite a lot of cases in CZ related to this topic and usually there are big amounts of VAT at stake. Most of these cases are about trade with fuel, usually more middlemen, intra-Community goods delivery/acquisition, usually the last in the chain claims CZ input VAT and it is questioned by the tax administrator (that it has not been local supply but IC goods acquisition).
The customer questioned organises the transport. It is usually very complicated in practice to assess, whether the party transporting the fuel acted only as a transporting company for its customers (there may not be any specific contract in that regard) – then it would acquire the right to dispose as owner in CZ after the transport ended, or whether it had the right to dispose as owner already during the transport. The purchase contract, CMR, excise duty documents, etc. can play a role in clarifying this picture.
Source: nssoud.cz
Contribution made possible by:
Ondřej Štědrý
Tax Adviser
Prague
Czech Republic
[email protected]
