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"
- ECJ Upholds Czech Joint VAT Liability in Fuel Fraud Case, Validates EU Law Compliance
- CJEU Rules on VAT for Transfer Price Adjustments in Arcomet Towercranes Case C-726/23
- Agenda of the ECJ VAT cases – 4 AG Opinions, 1 Hearings till October 10, 2025
- CJEU Ruling: VAT Applies to Intra-Group Transfer Pricing Adjustments in Arcomet Case
- Non-Payment of Declared VAT Not Considered VAT Fraud, Says Advocate General Kokott
