MAY 2

(15.00 – 18.30 CET)

Meeting of the European Parliament’s PANA Committee

This meeting will be the second from 2 sessions from in which the findings of three studies that have been commissioned by the PANA Committee will be presented to its Members. The first session was held on April 27, 2017. The presentations are broken down in two panels.

Panel 1 

Experts will present the findings and recommendations of two studies focusing on intermediaries that play a role in offshore schemes. The first looks into the roles of advisors and intermediaries in the schemes revealed in the Panama Papers, the second at rules on independence and responsibility regarding auditing, tax advice, accountancy, account certification services and legal services.

Panel 2 

Three presentations of analyses of tax evasion, money laundering and tax transparency in the EU Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and of France.

A live webstream of the meeting will be available here

Studies released in this respect include a.o.:

·   Role of advisors and intermediaries in the schemes revealed in the Panama Papers (In-depth analysis)

·   Rules on independence and responsibility regarding auditing, tax advice, accountancy, account certification services and legal services

·   Tax evasion, money laundering and tax transparency in the EU Overseas Countries and Territories (Ex-Post Impact Assessment)

MAY 4

(09.00 – 10.30 CET)

Meeting of the European Parliament’s PANA Committee

The PANA Committee will hold a hearing with Pierre Moscovici, European Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs. Members are expected to discuss current and upcoming initiatives of the Commission in the area of fight against tax fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance, and the right of access to documents for members of the PANA Committee.

A live webstream of the meeting will be available here

MAY 4

CJEU expected to judge in Case C-274/15, Commission v Luxembourg (VAT – the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg fail to fulfil its obligations under the VAT Directive, and, specifically, under Article 2(1)(c), Article 132(1)(f), the second subparagraph of Article 1(2), Article 168(a), Article 178(a), Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 of that directive)

Form of order sought 

declare that in laying down the VAT regime applicable to independent groups of persons, as defined in Article 44(1)(y) of the Law of 12 February 1979 on VAT, in Articles 1 to 4 of the Grand-Ducal Order of 21 January 2004 on the exemption from VAT of supplies of services to their members by independent groups of persons, in Administrative Circular No 707 of 29 January 2004 in so far as it comments on Articles 1 to 4 of the Grand-Ducal Order, and in the Note of 18 December 2008 by the working group within the Comité d'Observation des Marchés (Cobma; the Financial Market Observation Committee) with agreement from l'Administration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines (the Registration and Land Authority), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the VAT Directive, 1 and, specifically, under Article 2(1)(c), Article 132(1)(f), the second subparagraph of Article 1(2), Article 168(a), Article 178(a), Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 of that directive;

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments 

Article 132(1)(f) of the VAT Directive stipulates that Member States are to exempt from VAT ‘the supply of services by independent groups of persons, who are carrying on an activity which is exempt from VAT or in relation to which they are not taxable persons, for the purpose of rendering their members the services directly necessary for the exercise of that activity, where those groups merely claim from their members exact reimbursement of their share of the joint expenses, provided that such exemption is not likely to cause distortion of competition’.

However, according to the Commission, the legislation applicable in Luxembourg does not restrict the VAT exemption only to services provided by an independent group of persons and directly necessary for activities undertaken by its members which are not liable to VAT or are exempt.

Further, the Commission submits that under Luxembourg law, the members of an independent group of persons whose turnover partly derives from taxable activities may deduct the VAT invoiced to the independent group of persons for its purchases of goods or services from a third party from the VAT which they themselves are liable to pay; whereas under Article 168 of the VAT Directive, the right to deduct input VAT is granted only to a taxable person who acquires the goods or services subject to VAT and uses them for the direct purposes of his taxed transactions.

Lastly, the Commission maintains that Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 of the VAT Directive preclude the national legislation in so far as it provides that, where a member of an independent group of persons acquires goods and services from a third party in his own name, but on behalf of the group, the transaction by which that member assigns such expenditure to the group falls outside the scope of VAT.

The Opinion as delivered by Advocate General Kokott on October 6, 2016 can be found here

MAY 4

CJEU expected to judge in Case C-699/15, Brockenhurst College (VAT – Exemption under Article 132(1)(i) of the VAT Directive — Services closely related to education)

Questions referred 

With regard to article 132(1)(i) of the VAT Directive, are supplies of restaurant services and entertainment services made by an educational establishment to paying members of the public (who are not recipients of the principal supply of education) "closely related" to the provision of education in circumstances where the making of those supplies is facilitated by the students (who are the recipients of the principal supply of education) in the course of their education and as an essential part of their education?

ln determining whether the supplies of restaurant services and entertainment services are within the exemption in article 132(1)(i) as services "closely related" to the provision of education: 

·    is it relevant that the students benefit from being involved in the making of the supplies in question rather than from the subject matter of those supplies; 

·    is it relevant that those supplies are not received or consumed either directly or indirectly by the students but are received and consumed by those members of the public who pay for them and who are not recipients of the principal supply of education; 

·    is it relevant that, from the paint of view of the typical recipients of the services in question (that is to say, the members of the public who pay for them), the supplies do not represent a means of better enjoying any other supply but are an end in themselves; 

·    is it relevant that, from the point of view of the students, the supplies in question are not an end in themselves but participating in the making of the supplies represents a means of better enjoying the principal supply of education services; 

·    to what extent should the principle of fiscal neutrality be taken into account?

The Opinion as delivered by Advocate General Kokott on December 21, 2016 can be found here

MAY 4

CJEU expected to judge in Case C-33/16, A (VAT – Article 148(d) of Directive 2006/112/EC – Supply of services to meet the direct needs of vessels used for navigation on the high seas or of their cargoes)

Questions referred

Is Article 148(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning the loading and unloading of cargo onto and off a vessel are supplies of services made to meet the direct needs of the cargo of vessels for the purposes of Article 148(a)?

Given the findings of the Court of Justice in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-181/04 to C-183/04 Elmeka, according to which the exemption provided for in those rules could not be extended to services supplied at an earlier stage in the commercial chain, is Article 148(d) of Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that applies also to the services at issue in the case in main proceedings in which the service supplied by A Oy’s subcontractor in the first phase of operations concerns a service which has a direct physical relationship to the cargo, which A Oy invoices to the forwarding or transport company?

In light of the findings of the Court of Justice in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Elmeka, according to which the exemption provided for by the rules in question apply only to services which are supplied to the ship owner, is Article 148(d) of VAT Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that that exemption cannot apply if the service is supplied to the cargo owner such as the exporter or importer of the cargo concerned?

The Opinion as delivered by Advocate General Kokott on December 7, 2016 can be found here