In both cases the Courts noted that the municipalities bear only risks of loss, without any prospect of profit. The Courts were therefore of the view that both municipalities were not carrying out an activity of an economic nature within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 9(1).
The absence of liability to tax arising from the performance of transactions by a body governed by public law acting as a public authority – Given the Court concluded that such activities did not fall within the scope of the VAT Directive it considered that it was not necessary to determine whether that activity would also have been excluded from that scope under Article 13(1).
Source KPMG
See also
- C-612/21 Gmina O. (Municipality of O.) – A municipality is not a taxable person due to a project to increase the proportion of renewable energy sources
- C-616/21 Gmina L. (Municipality of L.) – A municipality is not a taxable person for contracting out removal of asbestos
- 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
Follow us on
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- Roadtrip through ECJ cases: Focus on Promotional activities/Discounts (Art. 79, 87, 90(1))
- Briefing document & Podcast: Ibero Tours (C-300/12): VAT Principles Clarified on Price Reductions by Intermediaries
- Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on ”Vouchers” (Art. 30a, 30b, 73a)
- Comments on ECJ C-472/24: Court Rules Virtual Gold Not Exempt from VAT
- European Parliament Research Service (EPRS) analyses US tariff impacts on EU economy, finance policy
