- Nature of the Subsidy: Advocate General Kokott determines that the subsidy received by P S.A. does not qualify as consideration for services provided to the local authority, emphasizing that it is an ex-post compensation for financial losses rather than a direct payment for services rendered.
- EU Regulation Limits: The AG notes that the subsidy is governed by an EU regulation that restricts its calculation to the number of vehicle kilometers offered, rather than being tied to the number of users, further supporting the argument that it does not constitute consideration for VAT purposes.
- Indirect Influence on Pricing: Kokott concludes that while the subsidy may have some indirect influence on price calculations, it does not directly affect the prices of transport services, reinforcing the position that the subsidy is not subject to VAT.
Source Taxlive
- Join the Linkedin Group on ECJ/CJEU/General Court VAT Cases, click HERE
- VATupdate.com – Your FREE source of information on ECJ VAT Cases
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- CEN Approves Revised EN 16931: A Milestone for ViDA Implementation
- Successful Implementation of VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) Discussed with Commissioner Hoekstra
- General Court T-638/24 (D GmbH) – AG Opinion – VAT on Intra-Community Acquisitions Not Precluded by Errors
- Commission Backs Italy’s VAT Derogation on certain vehicles Through 2028
- Comments on GC T‑575/24 – AG – Contrary to EU law if services provided to members are regarded as internal acts
