On Octover 24, 1996, the ECJ issued its decision in the case C-217/94 (Eismann Alto Adige Srl).
Context: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 1996. – Eismann Alto Adige Srl v Ufficio IVA di Bolzano. – Reference for a preliminary ruling: Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Bolzano – Italy. – Value added tax – Interpretation of Article 22(8) of the Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) as amended by Directive 91/680/EEC – Equal treatment of domestic transactions and transactions carried out between Member States by taxable persons. – Case C-217/94.
Summary
- Background of the Case: The Italian Tax Court referred a question to the European Court of Justice regarding Article 22(8) of the Sixth Directive, specifically whether a national rule requiring accompanying documents for goods transported within Italy conflicted with the principle of equal treatment in VAT law.
- Question to the Court: The national court sought clarification on whether the obligation to prepare accompanying documents for internal transactions, while exempting international transactions, violated the equal treatment principle established in the amended Article 22(8).
- Decision of the Court: The Court ruled that Article 22(8) does not preclude Member States from imposing stricter formalities for internal transactions compared to those for intra-Community trade, thus validating Italy’s requirement for accompanying documents in domestic transport.
- Justification for the Decision: The Court emphasized that the Community legislature has not fully harmonized internal transaction formalities, allowing Member States discretion to impose additional requirements for domestic goods transport to ensure VAT compliance and prevent evasion.
- Implications of the Ruling: The ruling confirms that Member States can maintain or introduce national rules that may be more stringent for internal transactions, reinforcing their ability to regulate VAT collection and compliance within their jurisdictions.
Article in the EU VAT Directive
Article 22(8) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Article 273 of the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC),
Article 273
Member States may impose other obligations which they deem necessary to ensure the correct collection of VAT and to prevent evasion, subject to the requirement of equal treatment as between domestic transactions and transactions carried out between Member States by taxable persons and provided that such obligations do not, in trade between Member States, give rise to formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers.
The option under the first paragraph may not be relied upon in order to impose additional invoicing obligations over and above those laid down in Chapter 3.
Facts
- Eismann sells foodstuffs from door to door. To that end, it employs salesmen who go with a lorry loaded with goods intended for sale to the homes of potential private consumers.
- Following inspections, the Ufficio IVA di Bolzano served on Eismann a number of notices imposing fines on it for failing to draw up or drawing up incorrectly accompanying documents in respect of goods transported within Italy.
- Eismann thereupon brought a number of actions before the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Bolzano seeking annulment of those fines. In support of its actions, it maintained in particular that the obligation to issue accompanying documents was incompatible with the Community provisions relating to the abolition of fiscal frontiers between the Member States and, in particular, with Article 22(8) of the Sixth Directive, as amended.
Questions
Is the application from 1 January 1993 onwards of the provisions laid down by Presidential Decree No 627 of 6 October 1978 to internal trade alone and not to transactions carried out between Member States contrary to the principle of equal treatment laid down in the amended version of Article 22(8) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977?
AG Opinion
N/A
Decision
Article 22(8) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Article 28h inserted by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers, is to be interpreted as not precluding a national rule requiring accompanying documents to be drawn up in respect of goods transported within the confines of the Member State concerned.
Source
Similar ECJ cases
Reference to other ECJ Cases
- Case C-30/93 AC-ATEL Electronics Vertriebs v Hauptzollamt München-Mitte: This case is cited in the context of interpreting provisions of Community law, emphasizing the need to consider both the wording and the context of the legislation.
- Case 86/78 Peureux v Services Fiscaux de la Haute-Saône et du Territoire de Belfort: This case is referenced to illustrate that the Treaty does not prohibit a Member State from imposing higher taxes on national products compared to imported ones, highlighting disparities resulting from unharmonized national laws.
- Case C-387/93 Banchero: This case is mentioned to reinforce the principle that it is up to the national court to determine the relevance of the questions submitted for preliminary rulings, which is crucial in establishing the admissibility of the question at hand.
Newsletters
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
