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
