- The Brose Prievidza case clarified that an EU Member State cannot refuse a VAT refund solely because goods did not physically leave its territory.
- The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) ruled that the physical movement of goods is not, by itself, a valid reason to deny VAT reimbursement.
- The decision is based on the interpretation of Directive 2008/9/CE and Directive 2006/112/CE, emphasizing economic substance over formalities.
- The ruling upholds the principle of VAT neutrality and ensures that refund rights are not restricted for purely formal reasons.
- The 8th Directive (2008/9/CE) allows businesses established in one EU Member State to claim VAT refunds on expenses incurred in another Member State.
Source: eurotax.fr
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"
- Briefing Document & Podcast: VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) – Single EU VAT Registration
- Briefing Document & Podcast: VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) – Platform Economy
- VAT Committee – General Principle for Calculating Annual Turnover under the SME Scheme
- ECJ VAT T-680/25 (Mercedes Benz) – Questions – Should a free-of-charge provision of moulds be treated as a supply of services?
- Briefing Document & Podcast: VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) – Digital Reporting Requirements
