in the Berlin Chemie case (C-333/20), the ECJ deals with the question of whether a sub-subsidiary qualifies as a permanent establishment of its grandmother company in this specific case. The ECJ has come to the conclusion that this is not the case. Although this appears to be a reassuring outcome for practice, the ECJ does leave the possibility open. In Berlin Chemie it provides more guidance on the circumstances in which personnel and technical resources of an independent legal entity can lead to a separate permanent establishment. Whether this will lead to the desired clarity in practice remains to be seen. After the recent ECJ judgments in Dong Yang (C-547/18) and Titanium (C-931/19) shows this case that the concept of permanent establishment continues to demand the necessary attention.
Source: meijburg.nl
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- ICS2 Implementation for Northern Ireland: Transition Details and Support for Carriers by HMRC
- EU Court Upholds VAT Exemption for Exported Goods Despite Initial Intra-EU Delivery Intentions
- Consultation on European CBAM rules
- From Accounting Entry to Taxable Event: The Acromet Case and VAT-TP Implications
- DG TAXUD Extends ICS2 Road and Rail Transport Deadline to December 31, 2025
