The decision of the CJEU in this case leads to a favorable situation for the processing companies (“toll manufacturers”), given that it brings clarity to the concepts detailed above and especially due to the fact that, for the first time, it is a specific case on this model of business. We assume that this will provide clarity for many cases in practical implementation, partly because this judgment builds on the line that was initiated in Berlin Chemie (C-333/20). Companies operating both in Romania and in other European Union states should analyze their factual situation against these conclusions and identify whether or not they have a fixed headquarters in those member states.
Source: blog.pwc.ro
See also
- ECJ C-232/22 (Cabot Plastics Belgium) – Judgment – Toll manufacturing with ancillary services does not lead to Fixed Establishment
- Summary of ECJ-232/22 (Cabot) – No fixed establishment due to lack of human and technical resources even if ancillary services are performed, exclusivity
- 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"
- Briefing Document & Podcast: What is the EN 16931 E-Invoicing Standard?
- 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
