Dec 20

 

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in the Case C-462/16, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma (VAT – The interpretation of Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC)

 

Question referred for a preliminary ruling

On the basis of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (judgment of 24 October 1996 in Elida Gibbs, C‑317/94, EU:C:1996:400, paragraphs 28 and 31) and having regard to the principle of equal treatment under EU law, is a pharmaceutical company which supplies medicinal products entitled to a reduction of the taxable amount under Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax in the case where

–  it supplies those medicinal products to pharmacies via wholesalers,

–  the pharmacies supply those products, subject to tax, to persons with private health insurance,

–  the insurer of the medical expense insurance (the private health insurance company) reimburses the persons insured by it for the costs of purchasing the medicinal products, and

–  the pharmaceutical company is required to pay a “discount” to the private health insurance company pursuant to a statutory provision?

 

The opinion as delivered on July 11, 2017 by Advocate General Tanchev in this case can be found here

 

 

 

 

Dec 20

 

Opinion of the Advocate General expected to be delivered in Case C-480/16, Fidelity Funds (Freedom to provide services – Taxation of undertakings for collective investment)

 

Question referred for a preliminary ruling: 

Is a tax regime, such as that in the main proceedings, under which non-Danish undertakings for collective investment covered by Council Directive 85/611/EEC 1 (the UCITS Directive) are taxed at source on dividends from Danish companies, contrary to Article 56 TEC (Article 63 TFEU) on free movement of capital or Article 49 TEC (Article 56 TFEU) on freedom to provide services, where equivalent Danish undertakings for collective investment can obtain an exemption for tax at source, either because they in fact make a minimum distribution to their members in return for retention of tax at source, or technically a minimum distribution is calculated, on which tax at source is retained in relation to the undertakings’ members?

 

 

 

 

Dec 20

 

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in the joined Cases C-504/16 (Deister Holding) and C-613/16 (Juhler Holding) (Freedom of establishment – The interpretation of Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC)

 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

1.     Does Article 43 in conjunction with Article 48 EC (now Article 49 in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU) preclude national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which denies relief from investment income tax on distributions of profits made to a non-resident parent company whose sole shareholder is resident within the country, to the extent that persons have holdings in it who would not be entitled to the refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and

(1)   there are no economic or other substantial reasons for the involvement of the non-resident parent company, or

(2)   the non-resident parent company does not earn more than 10% of its entire gross income for the financial year in question from its own economic activity (there being no such activity, inter alia, if the foreign company earns its gross income from the management of assets), or

(3)   the non-resident parent company does not take part in general economic commerce with a business establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose,

whereas resident parent companies are granted relief from investment income tax without regard to the aforementioned requirements?

2.     Does Article 5(1) in conjunction with Article 1(2) of Directive 90/435/EEC 1 preclude national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which denies relief from investment income tax on distributions of profits made to a non-resident parent company whose sole shareholder is resident within the country, to the extent that persons have holdings in it who would not be entitled to the refund or exemption if they directly earned the income, and

(1)   there are no economic or other substantial reasons for the involvement of the non-resident parent company, or

(2)   the non-resident parent company does not earn more than 10% of its entire gross income for the financial year in question from its own economic activity (there being no such activity, inter alia, if the foreign company earns its gross income from the management of assets), or

(3)   the non-resident parent company does not take part in general economic commerce with a business establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose,

whereas resident parent companies are granted relief from investment income tax without regard to the aforementioned requirements?

 

 

 

 

Dec 20

 

Opinion of the Advocate General expected to be delivered in Case C-532/16, SEB bankas (VAT – Applicability of the deduction adjustment mechanism provided for in Directive 2006/112)

 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

1.     Must Articles 184 to 186 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the deduction adjustment mechanism provided for in Directive 2006/112 is not applicable in cases where an initial deduction of value added tax (VAT) could not have been made at all because the transaction in question was an exempt transaction relating to the supply of land?

2.     Is the answer to the first question affected by the fact that (1) the VAT on the purchase of the plots of land was initially deducted because of the tax administration’s practice under which the supply in question was incorrectly regarded as being a supply of building land subject to VAT, as provided for in Article 12(1)(b) of Directive 2006/112, and/or (2) after the initial deduction made by the purchaser, the supplier of the land issued a VAT credit note to the purchaser adjusting the amounts of VAT indicated (specified) on the initial invoice?

3.     If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 184 and/or 185 of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that, in a case where an initial deduction could not have been made at all because the transaction in question was exempt from VAT, the taxable person’s obligation to adjust that deduction must be considered to have arisen immediately or only when it became known that the initial deduction could not have been made?

4.     If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Directive 2006/112, and in particular Articles 179, 184 to 186 and 250 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the adjusted amounts of deductible input VAT must be deducted in the tax period in which the taxable person’s obligation and/or right to adjust the initial deduction arose?

 

 

Dec 22

 

OECD – Closing date for providing input for the fourth batch of Mutual Agreement Procedure peer reviews

 

More information on the consultation can be found here

 

 

 

Dec 22

 

Australia – Closing date for providing input on the exposure draft legislation to address hybrid mismatch arrangements as released for consultation by the Australian Government on November 24, 2017

 

More information on this consultation can be found here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
INTERESTING ARTICLES