- Conclusion of Advocate-General Kokott in pension fund cases at the Court of Justice
- Focus on two questions from the Gelderland court regarding VAT exemption for management services to Dutch pension funds
- Comparison with ICBEs (collective investment schemes)
- AG finds Dutch pension funds not comparable to ICBEs
- Elements for comparison include attracting capital from the public, redemption obligation, and investment risk for participants
- AG concludes Dutch pension funds do not meet first two elements, as they are limited to specific groups and lack redemption obligation
- AG questions if these elements are relevant and how they align with previous CJEU rulings
- Key issue is whether participants bear investment risk
- AG raises concerns about guaranteed pension commitments based on service years and income
Source: meijburg.nl
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- Questions to ECJ – Quick Fixes Under Scrutiny: Is an EU VAT ID a Substantive Requirement for Zero-Rating?
- Briefing document & Podcast: ECJ VAT C-622/23 (RHTB) – VAT Implications in Work Contract Cancellations
- New GC VAT Case: C-689/25 (British Company) – No details known yet
- Comments on ECJ Case C-726/23 (Arcomet) – ECJ clarifies VAT rules for Transfer Pricing adjustments in intragroup transactions
- ETAF Calls for Modern, Harmonised VAT Rules for EU Travel and Tourism Sector Reform
