The Court ruled that Art. 44 of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person receiving services, whose business is established outside the European Union, does not have a fixed establishment in the Member State in which the provider of the services concerned is established, in the circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings.
Source Zampa Debattista
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"
- General Court T-643/24 (Credidam) – AG Opinion – Unauthorized use of copyrighted works incurs VAT on fees
- General Court T-646/24 (MS KLJUCAROVCI) – Judgment – Triangular transactions can qualify for VAT simplifications despite delivery variations
- Comments on GC T-657/24: VAT exemption for credit intermediation applies when the intermediary searches for and recruits customers
- Briefing documents & Podcasts: VAT concepts explained through ECJ/CJEU cases on Spotify
- ECJ on the relevant sale for determining the transaction value of goods
