The CEUJ ruled that, simple control or ownership, of another entity is insufficient to create a fixed establishment for VAT purposes. Consequently, a third party location does not inevitably represent a fixed establishment by dint of control/ownership.
Having made that comment, the court impressed that the decision should be made “in the context of the economic and commercial reality”.
The analysis of the place of belonging should recognise that it is not necessary for the fixed establishment to own the resources, but there should be control over these resources in the same way as an “owner”. A fixed establishment is characterised by a suitable structure which enables a business to receive and use services supplied to them for their own needs and not by the decision power of a certain structure that businesses have put in place.
Source Marcus Ward
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- EU and India conclude landmark Free Trade Agreement
- Comments on ECJ Case T-363/25: Hungarian Tax Authorities Cannot Deny VAT Deduction Solely for Unreliable Invoices
- Comments on ECJ C-796/23: Consideration of Czech company for VAT purposes as ‘designated partner’ in violation of EU law
- Advocate General’s Opinion Clarifies VAT Treatment of Transfer Pricing Adjustments in Stellantis Portugal Case
- Agenda of the ECJ/General Court VAT cases -1 Judgment, 1 Hearing till Feb 25, 2026
