While the ECJ concurred that the provisions give rise to distortions of competition and go against the principal of fiscal neutrality, it said: “It must be borne in mind that, in accordance with the settled case-law of the Court, the interpretation of a provision of EU law in the light of its context and aims cannot have the result of depriving the clear and precise wording of that provision of all effectiveness. Thus, where the meaning of a provision of EU law is absolutely plain from its very wording, the Court cannot depart from that interpretation.”
Source: answerconnect.cch.com
See also
- Summary of ECJ C-180/22 (Mensing) – VAT paid on intra-EU acquisition is to be included in taxable amount under profit margin scheme
- C-180/22 (Mensing) – Judgment – VAT paid on intra-EU acquisition is to be included in taxable amount under profit margin scheme
- C-264/17 (Mensing) – Judgment – Margin scheme on works of art; right to deduct input VAT by taxable dealer
- 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-121/24: Non-payment of declared VAT does not constitute VAT fraud
- European Parliament Approves Simplifications to Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
- Comments on ECJ C-472/24: In-game gold: AG Kokott’s advice on VAT exemption, vouchers & margin scheme
- AG Kokott’s Opinion: VAT Exemption, Vouchers, and Margin Scheme for In-Game Gold Trading
- EU Reaches Agreement on 2028 Customs Reform
