- Physical Movement Requirement: The Court confirmed that an intra-Community supply can only be VAT-exempt if the goods are physically transferred to another Member State. In the case of Brose Prievidza, the tooling remained in Bulgaria, leading to a domestic transaction subject to Bulgarian VAT.
- Independent Transactions: The Court emphasized that each supply must be treated independently unless they are so closely linked that they form a single transaction. The supply of tooling and the supply of parts were deemed distinct, with their own economic purposes, rejecting the Bulgarian authorities’ argument of them being an artificial split.
- Implications for VAT Refunds: The ruling clarifies that VAT charged on genuine transactions does not guarantee deductibility or refund. The sale of tooling within a single Member State does not qualify as an intra-Community supply, reinforcing the need for clear differentiation in VAT treatment for independent transactions.
Source VAT-Consult
Click on the logo to visit the website
VAT treatment of tooling (specific production equipment) in the automotive supply chain and the right to a VAT refund
- Case Overview: The case involved three companies: Brose Prievidza (Slovakia), the end customer; IME Bulgaria (Bulgaria), the manufacturer of tooling; and Brose Coburg (Germany), which ordered the tooling. Brose Coburg invoiced IME for tooling that remained in Bulgaria and later sold it to Brose Prievidza, including Bulgarian VAT.
- Tax Authority Rejection: The Bulgarian tax authorities denied Brose Prievidza’s request for a VAT refund, arguing that the supply of the tooling was “artificially split” from the supply of parts, which were exempt intra-Community supplies. They contended that the tooling should also be exempt and thus no VAT refund was warranted.
- CJEU Ruling: The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that Brose Prievidza is entitled to a VAT refund, stating that the supply of tooling is a distinct domestic supply in Bulgaria, separate from the parts supply. Since the tooling did not leave Bulgaria, it could not be classified as an exempt intra-Community supply, confirming that the VAT was correctly invoiced and the refund was justified.
Source BTW Jurisprudentie
- The EU Court of Justice ruled that refusing a VAT refund on equipment delivered to a taxpayer established in a different EU member state than the state of purchase is against EU law.
- This applies even if the equipment has not physically left the supplier’s member state.
- However, if the delivery of the equipment is considered an indivisible economic transaction or ancillary to a main transaction (such as intra-community supplies of goods made with that equipment), the VAT refund can be refused.
- The case involved Brose companies in Slovakia, Germany, and Bulgaria, with the Bulgarian tax authority initially denying the VAT refund.
- The ruling clarifies VAT refund rights in cross-border tooling transactions, especially in the automotive supply industry.
Source: taxlive.nl
See also
- Join the Linkedin Group on ECJ/CJEU/General Court VAT Cases, click HERE
- VATupdate.com – Your FREE source of information on ECJ VAT Cases
- Podcasts & briefing documents: VAT concepts explained through ECJ/CJEU cases on Spotify
Latest Posts in "Bulgaria"
- FAQs on SAF-T Implementation in Bulgaria Published by National Revenue Agency
- ECJ VAT C-744/23 (Zlakov) – Judgment – Pro Bono Legal Services are subject to VAT
- ECJ VAT C-234/24 (Brose Prievidza) – Judgment – VAT Refund Not Barred by Lack of Export
- EPPO Raids Plovdiv Municipality Over Suspected Fraud in Urban Green Space Project
- New VAT Declaration Feature Simplifies Filing for Businesses with No Activity













