- The court ruled that the pension fund cannot be considered a common investment fund.
- It was not proven that pension rights and payments depend primarily on investment results.
- Participants do not bear investment risk.
- The pension fund is not comparable to other funds classified as common investment funds.
- The appeal was dismissed.
- The court posed questions to the European Court of Justice regarding the interpretation of the VAT directive.
- The European Court of Justice clarified that participants are considered to bear investment risk only if pension amounts depend primarily on investment results.
- Factors such as years of pension accumulation and salary are not relevant in this assessment.
- The risk being individual or collective and employer guarantees are relevant but not decisive factors.
Source: uitspraken.rechtspraak.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"
- Ecofin report on EU VAT reforms
- Roadtrip through ECJ cases: Focus on Promotional activities/Discounts (Art. 79, 87, 90(1))
- Comments on ECJ case C-234/24 (Brose Prievidza): No VAT Exemption for Tooling Without Physical Movement
- Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on “Liability to pay VAT – Jointly and severally liability of the payment of VAT” (Art. 205)
- ECJ Customs – C-488/24 (Kigas) – AG Opinion – Traders must inform consumers about customs duties before contracts
