- The case concerns toll manufacturing, where a Belgian toll manufacturer provides processing and other services to Cabot Switzerland, a customer within the same corporate group.
- The dispute is over the place of supply for VAT purposes.
- The taxpayer argues that it is in Switzerland, while the tax authority claims it is in Belgium due to Cabot Switzerland having a fixed establishment there.
- The Court clarifies that the existence of a fixed establishment depends on the degree of permanence and control over resources by the receiving company, and not on legal status or number of customers.
- It also emphasizes that the place of supply should be determined by reference to the receiving company, not the provider. The Court leaves it to the referring court to determine the place of supply in this case.
Source KPMG
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"
- Evaluating EU Rules of Origin: A Call for Public Input
- Briefing Document & Podcast: VAT on Land Registration – Analysis of Amărăşti Land Investment SRL (Case C-707/18)
- Understanding VAT Rules for Dropshipping: Compliance, Registration, and Cross-Border Sales Challenges
- EU Commission Proposes New Revenue Sources for 2028-2034 Budget, Including Corporate Contributions
- EU Customs Reforms 2028: Platforms Become Deemed Importers, Assume Duties and Compliance Responsibilities
