The author respectfully disagrees with the position advanced by the AG and considers the robust and purposive approach adopted by the CJ to be more in line with the body of authority and application of the fiscal neutrality principle – which gives effect to the wording of Article 26(1)(b) of the VAT Directive – rather than simply stating it to be of no significance. It cannot be the case that when the wording of a provision makes it clear that ‘business purpose’ is a central element, such is then considered to be of no consequence.
Source H&I Journal – Newsletter
See also ECJ C-607/20 (GE Aircraft Engine Services) – Judgment – Issue of retail vouchers to employees
- Join the Linkedin Group on ECJ VAT Cases, click HERE
- For an overview of ECJ cases per article of the EU VAT Directive, click HERE
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- CEN Approves Revised EN 16931: A Milestone for ViDA Implementation
- Successful Implementation of VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) Discussed with Commissioner Hoekstra
- General Court T-638/24 (D GmbH) – AG Opinion – VAT on Intra-Community Acquisitions Not Precluded by Errors
- Commission Backs Italy’s VAT Derogation on certain vehicles Through 2028
- Comments on GC T‑575/24 – AG – Contrary to EU law if services provided to members are regarded as internal acts
