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"
- CJEU Clarifies 0% VAT Documentation for Intra-Community Supplies: Key 2025 Ruling for Businesses
- Key CBAM Changes for EU Importers Effective January 2026: New Thresholds and Reporting Rules
- GENA Urges EU to Harmonise and Expand Digital E-Invoicing in Public Procurement Reform
- Audit Office Monitors Council’s VAT Filing Amid Potential £600k HMRC Fine Risk
- EU VAT Gap 2023: Key Findings, Country Comparisons, and Policy Insights from Mind the Gap Report
