Oct 4

 

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case C-164/16, Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK (VAT – Article 14(2)(b) of Directive 2006/112/EC – Leasing agreement with an option to purchase)

 

Leasing agreements continue to cause problems of interpretation on the basis of the rules governing value added tax (‘VAT’).Due to the mixed nature of such agreements it is not always evident whether they should be classed as a supply of goods or a supply of services. This in turn has significant consequences for taxpayers.

 

Although the Court has already dealt with numerous cases concerning leasing agreements, none has had a conclusive bearing on the method of classifying such transactions for VAT purposes. The present case will provide the Court with an opportunity to provide further clarification in this matter.

 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

1. What is the meaning of the words “a contract … which provides that in the normal course of events ownership is to pass at the latest upon payment of the final instalment”, contained in Article 14(2)(b) [of Directive 2006/112]?

2. In particular, in the context of the present case, does the phrase “in the normal course of events” require a tax authority to do no more than to identify the existence of an option to purchase which can be exercised no later than upon payment of the final instalment?

3. Alternatively, does the phrase “in the normal course of events” require the national authority to go further and to determine the economic purpose of the contract?

4. If the answer to Question 3 is yes:

(a)   Should the interpretation of Article 14(2) be influenced by an analysis of whether the customer is likely to exercise the option to purchase?

(b)   Is the size of the price payable on exercise of the option to purchase relevant for the purposes of determining the economic purpose of the contract?’

 

More information regarding the Opinion of the Advocate General in this case can be found here

 

 

 

 

Oct 4

 

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case C-273/16, Federal Express Europe (VAT – Interpretation of Articles 144 and 86(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC)

 

Question referred for a preliminary ruling:

Can Articles 144 and 86(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (corresponding to Article 14(1) and (2) and Article 11.B(3) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977), taken together, be interpreted to mean that the only condition in order for connected services consisting of the ‘inbound’ transport service — from airports to the place of destination within the territory of the Member State, with the ‘free-at-destination’ clause — not to be liable to VAT is that their value is included in the taxable amount, regardless of whether or not the goods in question were in fact subject to customs duties, at the time of their importation; and is it therefore incompatible with those EU-law provisions if the domestic rules laid down in Articles 9(1).2 and 69(1) of Presidential Decree No 33 of 26 October 1972, read together in the versions in force at the time of the material facts, provide that in every case, and therefore also in the case of imports that are not liable to VAT — as is the case here, since it concerns documents and goods of negligible value — there has to be compliance with the additional requirement that those imports must in fact be liable to VAT (and customs duty must in fact be paid) at the time of the importation of such goods, even, if need be, when account is taken of the ancillary nature of the transport services in relation to the main services (namely the importation) and of the rationale of simplification underlying both the main and the ancillary operations?se of the option to purchase relevant for the purposes of determining the economic purpose of the contract?’

 

 

 

Oct 5

 

Opinion of the Advocate General expected to be delivered in Case C-387/16, Nidera (VAT – Interpretation of Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC)

 

Question referred for a preliminary ruling:

Must Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principle of fiscal neutrality, be interpreted as precluding a reduction in the interest that is normally payable under national law on a VAT overpayment (excess) which was not refunded (set off) in due time, which reduction takes into account circumstances other than those resulting from the actions of the taxable person himself, such as the relationship between the interest and the amount of the overpayment not refunded in due time, the period of time during which the overpayment was not refunded and the underlying reasons for this, as well as the losses actually incurred by the taxable person?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

The schedule above merely contains a selection of events/important dates taking place during the week and should in no way be considered to be complete. It is very well possible that other important events take place during the week that were not included in the schedule above. It is your own responsibility to research other sources to review whether other important events take place that are not included in the schedule above.

 

Furthermore the schedule above is solely based on the information provided as by the respective authorities when the schedule above was drafted. It is your own responsibility to check whether the information included in the schedule above is complete, accurate and correct. International Tax Plaza and/or its owners do not accept any liability if the information provided in the schedule above is incomplete, not accurate and/or incorrect.

 

Copyright – Internationaltaxplaza.info

 

 

Are you looking for a highly motivated new member for your tax team? Then place your Job Ad on International Tax Plaza!

 

and

 

Stay informed: Subscribe to International Tax Plaza’s Newsletter! It’s completely FREE OF CHARGE!

 

 

 

Submit to FacebookSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
INTERESTING ARTICLES