The ECJ takes a clear position that subsidiaries should not constitute a fixed establishment of another group company acting as principal. Even in the situation where the subsidiary is exclusively providing tolling services to that principal, the subsidiary is acting for its own risk and account and remains responsible for the staff and resources it uses. The principal cannot dispose of the staff and resources of the subsidiary as its own. By not recognizing a fixed establishment for a typical toll manufacturer, the ECJ gives much welcomed certainty for multinationals operating in such and similar structures.
Source: loyensloeff.com
See also
- ECJ C-232/22 (Cabot Plastics Belgium) – Judgment – Toll manufacturing with ancillary services does not lead to Fixed Establishment
- Summary of ECJ-232/22 (Cabot) – No fixed establishment due to lack of human and technical resources even if ancillary services are performed, exclusivity
- Join the Linkedin Group on ECJ VAT Cases, click HERE
- For an overview of ECJ cases per article of the EU VAT Directive, click HERE
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- Public Consultation on Tobacco taxation – excise duties for manufactured tobacco products
- ViDA Assessment Checklist: 28 key questions for evaluating vendors
- New General Court VAT case – T-569/25 (X-GmbH) – Details not yet known
- Agenda of the ECJ VAT cases – 1 Judgment, 6 AG Opinions, 2 Hearings till October 3, 2025
- Briefing Document & Podcast: What is the EN 16931 E-Invoicing Standard?
