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"
- Advocate-General: Transfer Pricing Adjustments for Intra-Group Goods Likely Subject to VAT Compliance
- Transfer Pricing Adjustments Affect VAT Only if They Alter Agreed Transaction Price Between Parties
- A-G CJEU: Transfer Pricing Adjustments Are VAT Price Corrections for Previous Sales, Not Services
- AG Kokott: Transfer Pricing Adjustments Affect VAT Only if They Change Consideration, Not Just Profit Allocation
- EU Introduces Flat EUR 3 Customs Duty Per Item for Low-Value Imports from July 2026
