VATupdate

Agenda of the ECJ VAT cases – 1 decision, 2 AG Opinions expected till July 8, 2021

June 17, 2021

Judgment Joined cases C-58/20 (K) & C-59/20 (DBKAG)

C-59/20: An Austrian referral asking whether Article 131(1)(g) of the VAT Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of the tax exemption provided for by that provision, the term ‘management of special investment funds’ also includes the granting by a third-party licensor to an investment management company (IMC) of a right to use specialist software specifically designed for the management of special investment funds where, as in the case in the main proceedings, that specialist software is intended exclusively to perform specific and essential activities in connection with the management of the special investment funds but runs on the technical infrastructure of the IMC and can perform its functions only subject to the minor participation of the IMC and subject to ongoing recourse to market data provided by the IMC?

C-58/20: An Austrian referral asking whether Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘management of special investment funds’ also covers the tax-related responsibilities entrusted by the management company to a third party, consisting of ensuring that the income received by unit-holders from investment funds is taxed in accordance with the law?

For prior newsitems on this case, click HEREHERE

July 1, 2021

AG Opinion in C-324/20 (X-Beteiligungsgesellschaft (TVA – Paiements successifs))

A German referral asking whether the occasion for successive billing or payments within the meaning of Art. 64 (1) VAT Directive already result from the agreement of payment in installmentsa one-off and therefore not period-related service incase of successive billing or payments.

For prior newsitems on this case, click HERE

July 8, 2021

AG Opinion in C-156/20 (Zipvit)

A UK referral asking whether a taxable person, who received supplies of services which were at the time treated by Royal Mail as exempt, but which were (following case C-357/07) actually subject to VAT, was entitled to an input tax credit in respect of those supplies.  Royal Mail did not charge VAT on its invoices to Zipvit (they mentioned that the supplies were exempt) and the contract was silent on VAT.

For prior newsitems on this case, click HERE

 

 

 

Sponsors:

Advertisements:

* click here if you have interesting news to share *