The Advocate General Kokott concludes that in order for there to be a VAT identification for VAT purposes, it must replace the principal place of business in another Member State. A contract with a service provider can only result in a VAT identification if it is not exclusively related to providing services for processing the customer’s goods.
Source Taxlive
See also
- Summary of AG Opinion in ECJ C-533/22 (Adient) – The same means cannot be used at the same time to provide and receive the same services
- ECJ C-533/22 (Adient) – AG Opinion – Fixed establishment solely on the basis that the two companies belong to the same group?
- Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on ”Fixed Establishments” (Art. 44 & 45)
- Join the Linkedin Group on ECJ VAT Cases, click HERE
- VATupdate.com – Your FREE source of information on ECJ VAT Cases
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- ECJ Rules Non-Transactional Profit Adjustments by Principal Are VAT-Applicable Services in Arcomet Case
- Understanding VAT Implications on Transfer Pricing: Insights from Arcomet Case C-726/23
- VAT Implications on Transfer Pricing Adjustments: Insights from Acromet Towercranes Case
- CJEU Ruling: Transfer Pricing Adjustments Impact VAT in Arcomet Case (C-726/23)
- EU Court of Justice Rules Transfer Pricing Payments Subject to VAT in Arcomet Case
