Flashback on ECJ Cases ECJ C-419/14 (WebMindLicenses Kft) – When are Services supplied from a Fixed Establishment

On Dec 17, 2015, the ECJ issued his decision in the case C-419/14 (WebMindLicenses Kft)

Context: Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 2, 24, 43, 250 and 273 — Place of supply of electronically supplied services — Artificial fixing of that place by means of an arrangement not reflecting economic reality — Abuse of rights — Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7, 8, 41, 47, 48, 51(1) and 52(1) and (3) — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Use by the tax authorities of evidence obtained without the taxable person’s knowledge in the context of a parallel criminal procedure that has not been concluded — Interception of telecommunications and seizure of emails

Articles in the EU VAT Directive

Articles 2(1)(c), 24(1), 43, 250 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC

Article 24 (Taxable transaction – Supply of services)
1. ‘Supply of services’ shall mean any transaction which does not constitute a supply of goods

Article 43 (Place of supply of services)
For the purpose of applying the rules concerning the place of supply of services:
1. a taxable person who also carries out activities or transactions that are not considered to be taxable supplies of goods or services in accordance with Article 2(1) shall be regarded as a taxable person in respect of all services rendered to him;
2. a non-taxable legal person who is identified for VAT purposes shall be regarded as a taxable person.

Article 250 (Returns)
1. Every taxable person shall submit a VAT return setting out all the information needed to calculate the tax that has become chargeable and the deductions to be made including, in so far as is necessary for the establishment of the basis of assessment, the total value of the transactions relating to such tax and deductions and the value of any exempt transactions.
2. Member States shall allow, and may require, the VAT return referred to in paragraph 1 to be submitted by electronic means, in accordance with conditions which they lay down.

Article 273 (Misc. provisions)
Member States may impose other obligations which they deem necessary to ensure the correct collection of VAT and to prevent evasion, subject to the requirement of equal treatment as between domestic transactions and transactions carried out between Member States by taxable persons and provided that such obligations do not, in trade between Member States, give rise to formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers.
The option under the first paragraph may not be relied upon in order to impose additional invoicing obligations over and above those laid down in Chapter 3.

Articles 7, 8, 41, 47, 48, 51(1) and 52(1) and (3) of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Facts

The judgment concerned a request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Specialised Criminal Court, Bulgaria). The referring court had to decide whether the defendants could be convicted of VAT evasion. The court noted that interception of the defendants’ telecommunications had been authorised by a court that no longer had jurisdiction after reform of the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure in 2012. However, the court added the following:

None of the authorisations were reasoned;
The interceptions fell into a transitional phase before and after the reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure transitional rules remained unclear that governed the transfer of jurisdiction to courts competent to authorise “special investigation methods” after the reform;
In the case of Mr. Dzivev, only the interceptions of telecommunications initiated on the basis of authorisations granted by the court, which lacked jurisdiction, clearly establish the commission of the tax offences he was accused of.

Against this background, the referring court asks whether reliance on the illegally obtained evidence (here: wiretapping) would counteract the Member State’s obligations stemming particularly from Art. 325 TFEU and Art. 2(1), 1(1)(b) of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (“PIF Convention”), which, as established by previous CJEU case law, require the effective criminalisation of VAT fraud.

Questions

Under Articles 2(1)(c), 24(1) and 43 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’), in order to identify the person supplying the service for the purposes of VAT, when examining whether the transaction is fictitious, has no real financial or commercial content and is intended only to secure a tax advantage, is it relevant for the purposes of interpretation that, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, the managing director and 100% owner of the commercial company which grants the licence is the natural person who created the know-how transferred by means of the licensing agreement?

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, when applying Articles 2(1)(c), 24(1) and 43 of the VAT Directive and assessing whether there is an abusive practice, is it relevant that this natural person exercises or may exercise influence informally over the running of the commercial company which acquired the licence and over the decisions of that company? For the purposes of that interpretation, might it be relevant that the creator of the know-how participates or may participate directly or indirectly, by advising professionally or offering advice on the development and exploitation of the know-how, in taking business decisions relating to the supply of the service based on that know-how?

In the circumstances of the main proceedings and in the light of the considerations set out in the second question, in order to identify the person supplying the service for the purposes of VAT is it relevant, in addition to the analysis of the underlying contractual transaction, that the creator of the know-how, as a natural person, exercises influence, or decisive influence, or issues directions regarding the way the service based on that know-how is supplied?

If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, when determining the extent of that influence and those directions, what circumstances can be taken into account, or, more specifically, on the basis of what criteria may it be found that a decisive influence is exercised over the supply of the service and that the real financial content of the underlying transaction was for the benefit of the undertaking which grants the licence?

In the circumstances of the main proceedings, in considering whether a tax advantage has been gained, is it relevant when analysing the relations between the traders and the persons involved in the transaction that the taxable persons who took part in the contested contractual transaction, which is intended to avoid tax, are legal persons, when the tax authority of a Member State attributes the adoption of strategic and operational decisions on exploitation to a natural person? If so, must account be taken of the Member State in which that natural person took those decisions? In circumstances such as those obtaining in the present case, if it can be found that the contractual position of the parties is not decisive, is it relevant for the purpose of interpretation that subcontractors carry out the management of the technical instruments, human resources and financial transactions necessary for the supply of the internet-based service at issue here?

If it can be established that the terms of the licensing agreement do not reflect real financial content does the reclassification of the contract terms and the restoration of the situation which would have obtained if the transaction involving the abusive practice had not taken place imply that the tax authority of the Member State may make a different decision as to the Member State of supply and, therefore, the place where the tax is payable, even though the company which acquired the licence paid the tax payable in the Member State where it is established and in accordance with the legal requirements laid down in that Member State?

Must Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a contractual arrangement such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a company which is a taxable person in a Member State, transfers by means of a licensing agreement the know-how for the supply of services providing adult content through interactive communication technology to an undertaking which is a taxable person in another Member State, in circumstances where the burden of VAT of the Member State of residence of the company which acquired the licence is more advantageous as regards the service transferred, is contrary to those articles and may represent a abuse of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to supply services.

In circumstances such as those obtaining in the present case, what significance must be attached to the tax advantage which may be presumed to arise and to the commercial considerations taken into account by the company which grants the licence? In that connection and more specifically, is it relevant for the purposes of interpretation that the 100% owner and manager of the commercial company which grants the licence is the natural person who originally created the know-how?

In analysing abusive conduct may circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, for instance the technical and infrastructure data relating to the setting up and performance of the service which is the subject of the transaction at issue and the preparation and human resources available to the company which grants the licence to supply the service in question, be taken into account and, if so, what significance do they have?

In the situation analysed in the present case, must Articles 2(1)(c), 24(1), 43 and 273 of the VAT Directive, in conjunction with Articles 4(3) and 325 TFEU, be interpreted as meaning that, in the interests of the proper observance of the obligation of the Member States of the Union to collect the total amount of VAT effectively and punctually and prevent the loss to the public coffers entailed by tax evasion and avoidance across the borders of the Member States, in the case of a transaction for the supply of services and in order to identify the person supplying the service, the tax authority of the Member State, at the evidence-gathering stage of the administrative tax procedure and in order to clarify the facts, is entitled to admit data, information and evidence, and, therefore, records of intercepted communication, obtained without the knowledge of the taxable person by the investigating body of the tax authority in the context of a criminal procedure and to use them as a basis for its assessment of the tax implications, and that, for its part, the administrative court hearing the action brought against the administrative decision of the tax authority of the Member State is entitled to carry out an assessment of those matters as evidence, while examining the legality of that evidence?

In the situation analysed in the present case, must Articles 2(1)(c), 24(1), 43 and 273 of the VAT Directive, in conjunction with Articles 4(3) and 325 TFEU, be interpreted as meaning that, in the interests of the proper observance of the obligation of the Member States of the Union to collect the total amount of VAT effectively and punctually and compliance with the obligation of the Member States to guarantee observance of the obligations imposed on the taxable person, the discretion with regard to the means available to the tax authority of the Member State includes the option for that Member State to use evidence obtained initially for the purpose of criminal proceedings to prevent tax avoidance, including where national law itself does not allow information to be obtained without the knowledge of the person concerned in the context of an administrative procedure to prevent tax avoidance, or subjects it in the context of criminal proceedings to guarantees which are not provided in the administrative tax proceedings, recognizing at the same time the right of the administrative authority to act in accordance with the principle of the freedom of evidence?

Does Article 8(2) of the ECHR, in conjunction with Article 52(2) of the Charter, prevent recognition that the tax authority of the Member State has the authority described in questions 10 and 11, or in the circumstances of the present case, can it be considered justified, in order to combat tax avoidance, to use in the context of an administrative tax procedure, conclusions drawn from information obtained without the knowledge of the person concerned, with a view to the effective collection of tax and for the sake of the financial well-being of the country?

If the answer to questions 10 and 12 is that the tax authority of the Member State may use such evidence in the administrative procedure, is the tax authority of the Member State required, in order to guarantee the effectiveness of the right to good administration and the rights of the defence pursuant to Articles 7, 8, 41 and 48 of the Charter, in conjunction with Article 51(1) of the Charter, to hear the taxable person in the course of the administrative procedure, to guarantee him access to the conclusions suggested by the information obtained without his knowledge and to respect the purpose for which the data appearing in the evidence were obtained, or, in that context, does the fact that the information collected without the knowledge of the person concerned is intended solely for an investigation of a criminal nature prevent from the outset the use of such evidence?

In the event that evidence is obtained in breach of Articles 7, 8, 41 and 48 of the Charter, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, does national legislation under which the challenging in judicial proceedings of the procedural legality of decisions given in tax matters can only succeed and result in the setting aside of the decision if, according to the circumstances of the case, there is the possibility in practice that the contested decision would have been different if the procedural error had not occurred and if, moreover, that defect affected the substantive legal position of the applicant, or do the procedural errors made in that way have to be taken into account in a wider context, regardless of the influence the procedural error which infringes the Charter has on the outcome of the proceedings?

Does the effectiveness of Article 47 of the Charter require that, in a procedural situation such as the present, the administrative court hearing the action against the administrative decision of the tax authority of the Member State may review the legality of the obtaining of evidence collected for the purpose of criminal proceedings without the knowledge of the person concerned in the context of criminal proceedings, in particular when the taxable person against whom the criminal proceedings have been brought in parallel has no knowledge of that documentation and has been unable to contest its legality before a court?

Also having regard to question 6, must Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 ² of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax, in the light, in particular, of its seventh recital, according to which, for the purposes of collecting the tax owed, Member States should cooperate to help ensure that VAT is correctly assessed and, in order to do so, they must not only monitor the correct application of tax owed in their own territory, but should also provide assistance to other Member States for ensuring the correct application of tax relating to activity carried out on their own territory but owed in another Member State, be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the facts are as in the present case, the tax authority of the Member State which discovers the tax debt must make a request to the tax authority of the Member State in which the taxable person was subject to a tax inspection and complied with its obligation to pay tax?

If the answer to question 16 is in the affirmative and the decisions adopted by the tax authority of the Member State are challenged before a court and are found to be unlawful in procedural terms on that ground, in other words, on the basis of failure to obtain information and the absence of a request, what action should the court hearing the action against the administrative decisions adopted by the tax authority of the Member State take, having regard also to the considerations set out in question 14?

AG Opinion

(1) The conclusion of a licensing agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings may be regarded as an abuse in the light of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax only if its essential aim is to obtain a tax advantage the grant of which would be contrary to the purpose of the provisions of that directive, an issue which it is for the referring court to determine.

(2) The risk of double taxation does not prevent the tax authorities of a Member State from reclassifying the place of supply of a service as being in its territory.

(3) Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax (recast) must be interpreted as not imposing on the tax authorities of a Member State which discover the existence of a value added tax debt an obligation to send a request to the tax authorities of the Member State in which the taxable person forming the subject of the tax inspection has already fulfilled his obligation to pay value added tax. It is for the referring court to determine whether the evidence forming the basis of the Hungarian tax authorities’ decision finding the existence of abuse is sufficient to support the existence of the tax debt.

(4) The gathering of evidence, in the course of a criminal procedure running parallel to the procedure for the adjustment of value added tax, by intercepting telephone conversations and seizing and storing emails is compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union only if it is provided for by law, pursues a legitimate purpose and is proportionate, an issue which it is for the referring court to assess.

Decision

1. EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a licensing agreement concerning the making available of know-how enabling operation of a website by which interactive audiovisual services were supplied, concluded with a company established in a Member State other than that in which the company granting the licence is established, arose from an abuse of rights designed to benefit from the fact that the rate of value added tax applicable to those services was lower in that other Member State, the fact that the manager and sole shareholder of the latter company was the creator of that know-how, that that same person exercised influence or control over the development and exploitation of that know-how and over the supply of the services which were based on it and that management of the financial transactions, staff and technical instruments necessary for the supply of those services was carried out by subcontractors, and the reasons which may have led the company granting the licence to make the know-how at issue available to a company established in that other Member State instead of exploiting it itself, do not appear decisive in themselves.

It is incumbent upon the referring court to analyse all the circumstances of the main proceedings in order to determine whether that agreement constituted a wholly artificial arrangement concealing the fact that the services at issue were not actually supplied by the company acquiring the licence, but were in fact supplied by the company granting it, examining in particular whether the establishment of the place of business or fixed establishment of the company acquiring the licence was not genuine, whether that company, for the purpose of engaging in the economic activity concerned, did not possess an appropriate structure in terms of premises and human and technical resources and whether it did not engage in that economic activity in its own name and on its own behalf, under its own responsibility and at its own risk.

2. EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, if an abusive practice is found which has resulted in the place of supply of services being fixed in a Member State other than the Member State where it would have been fixed in the absence of that abusive practice, the fact that value added tax has been paid in that other Member State in accordance with its legislation does not preclude an adjustment of that tax in the Member State in which the place where those services have actually been supplied is located.

3. Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the tax authorities of a Member State which are examining whether value added tax is chargeable in respect of supplies of services that have already been subject to that tax in other Member States are required to send a request for information to the tax authorities of those other Member States when such a request is useful, or even essential, for determining that value added tax is chargeable in the first Member State.

4. EU law must be interpreted as not precluding, for the purposes of the application of Article 4(3) TEU, Article 325 TFEU and Articles 2, 250(1) and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, the tax authorities from being able, in order to establish the existence of an abusive practice concerning value added tax, to use evidence obtained without the taxable person’s knowledge in the context of a parallel criminal procedure that has not yet been concluded, by means, for example, of the interception of telecommunications and seizure of emails, provided that the obtaining of that evidence in the context of the criminal procedure and its use in the context of the administrative procedure do not infringe the rights guaranteed by EU law.

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, by virtue of Articles 7, 47 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union it is incumbent upon the national court which reviews the legality of the decision founded on such evidence adjusting value added tax to verify, first, whether the interception of telecommunications and seizure of emails were means of investigation provided for by law and were necessary in the context of the criminal procedure and, secondly, whether the use by the tax authorities of the evidence obtained by those means was also authorised by law and necessary. It is incumbent upon that court, furthermore, to verify whether, in accordance with the general principle of observance of the rights of the defence, the taxable person had the opportunity, in the context of the administrative procedure, of gaining access to that evidence and of being heard concerning it. If the national court finds that the taxable person did not have that opportunity or that that evidence was obtained in the context of the criminal procedure, or used in the context of the administrative procedure, in breach of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, it must disregard that evidence and annul that decision if, as a result, the latter has no basis. That evidence must also be disregarded if the national court is not empowered to check that it was obtained in the context of the criminal procedure in accordance with EU law or cannot at least satisfy itself, on the basis of a review already carried out by a criminal court in an inter partes procedure, that it was obtained in accordance with EU law.

Personal comments/VATupdate

The WebMindLicences case did not focus on the concept of an FE but on the activities which must be performed by an FE in order for the services to be considered to have been supplied from there. The CJEU ruled that services are supplied from an FE if the FE is engaged in the economic activity in its own name and on its own behalf, under its own responsibility and at its own risk.

Source