BPFL (C-644/22) & others – Judgment – Pension funds – whether asset management services provided to them are exempt – whether various Dutch pension funds were SIFs – ECJ leaves actual decision to referring court but on balance seems to think they are not – taxpayer loss
The key points from the condensed text are:
The dispute concerns the VAT exemption for the management of special investment funds (SIFs). The funds in question were not UCITS, but case law has established that non-UCITS funds can be considered SIFs if members bear the investment risk. The referring court was uncertain how to interpret this risk condition. The ECJ commented that the primary factor affecting pension entitlement did not seem to be investment performance, and individual or collective risk was a relevant but not decisive factor. The ECJ also addressed the issue of fiscal neutrality in comparing the funds to UCITS or other non-UCITS funds.
Source KPMG
See also
- ECJ C-639/22 & others – Judgment – Interpretation of VAT exemption for pension funds
- Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on Exemption – Management of special investment funds (Art. 135(1)(g))
- Other comments on ECJ C-639/22
- Join the Linkedin Group on ECJ VAT Cases, click HERE
- VATupdate.com – Your FREE source of information on ECJ VAT Cases
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- ECJ C-726/23 (Arcomet Towercranes) – Judgment – Transfer Pricing Adjustment for intra-group services subject to VAT; documentation required
- 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
