- Nature of the Subsidy: Advocate General Kokott determines that the subsidy received by P S.A. does not qualify as consideration for services provided to the local authority, emphasizing that it is an ex-post compensation for financial losses rather than a direct payment for services rendered.
- EU Regulation Limits: The AG notes that the subsidy is governed by an EU regulation that restricts its calculation to the number of vehicle kilometers offered, rather than being tied to the number of users, further supporting the argument that it does not constitute consideration for VAT purposes.
- Indirect Influence on Pricing: Kokott concludes that while the subsidy may have some indirect influence on price calculations, it does not directly affect the prices of transport services, reinforcing the position that the subsidy is not subject to VAT.
Source Taxlive
- Join the Linkedin Group on ECJ/CJEU/General Court VAT Cases, click HERE
- VATupdate.com – Your FREE source of information on ECJ VAT Cases
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- Luxembourg VAT on Directors’ Fees: Impact of CJEU C-288/22 Ruling and District Court Decision
- Arcomet Case: CJEU Rules Transfer Pricing Adjustments Can Trigger VAT Obligations
- VAT Treatment of Transfer Pricing Adjustments: ECJ Ruling on Arcomet Towercranes
- VAT Treatment of Loyalty Points: Discounts vs Vouchers After ECJ Case
- EU Commission Publishes ViDA Implementation Strategy for Digital VAT System Modernization
