- The case concerns toll manufacturing, where a Belgian toll manufacturer provides processing and other services to Cabot Switzerland, a customer within the same corporate group.
- The dispute is over the place of supply for VAT purposes.
- The taxpayer argues that it is in Switzerland, while the tax authority claims it is in Belgium due to Cabot Switzerland having a fixed establishment there.
- The Court clarifies that the existence of a fixed establishment depends on the degree of permanence and control over resources by the receiving company, and not on legal status or number of customers.
- It also emphasizes that the place of supply should be determined by reference to the receiving company, not the provider. The Court leaves it to the referring court to determine the place of supply in this case.
Source KPMG
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"
- Comments on ECJ C-101/24 (Xyrality) – Judgment on app stores as VAT commissionaires
- ECJ Confirms Deemed Reseller Rule for App Store In-App Purchases
- VAT Challenges in Toll Manufacturing: Goods vs Services Classification Issues
- VAT and Transfer Pricing – Four recent cases @ ECJ/CJEU – 3 cases decided, 1 case pending
- Briefing document & Podcast: ECJ C-580/16 (Hans Bühler) – Late submission of recapitulative statements should not disqualify a business from exemptions
