On April 7, 2022, the ECJ issued its decision in the case C-333/20 (Berlin Chemie A. Menarini SRL) related to the concept of ”Fixed Establishment”. No AG Opinion will be issued.
Facts of the case:
BC, a German company, sells goods in Romania where it has a non-resident VAT registration. BCAM, incorporated in Romania, provides BC with marketing, advertising and regulatory support services, has treated those services as being outside the scope of Romanian VAT, and subject to reverse charge VAT in Germany. The Romanian tax authorities believe, by virtue of its own subsidiary, BC has sufficient human and technical resources at its disposal in Romania to create a fixed establishment there. This would mean BCAM’s services to BC are subject to VAT. The concept of business establishment and fixed establishment is relevant to place of supply questions regarding the provision of services and, whilst branch structures create fixed establishments, the question of whether a subsidiary of a company can create a fixed establishment for a parent company, or other legal entity within the group continues to be the subject of disputes.
Source Curia
Reference to the case: ECJ C-333/20 (Berlin Chemie A. Menarini SRL) – Question – Fixed establishment via affiliate?
See also: ECJ Cases on Fixed Establishments (Art. 44 & 45)
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- Comments on ECJ Case C-639/24: Limits on Denying VAT Exemption for Intra-Community Supplies
- European Parliament Analysis: The Role of the Reverse Charge Mechanism in Tackling VAT Fraud
- Mathez Formation: VAT news: the CJEU puts economic reality back at the centre of the game (Feb 6)
- Blog: Navigating Indirect Rebates: A Call for Clarity in VAT Regulations Under ViDA
- Briefing document & Podcast: ECJ C-462/16 – Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG – Discounts reduce the VAT value of pharmaceutical supplies
