Apr 19

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case C-580/16, Firma Hans Bühler (VAT – ABC transaction – Taxpayer includes its TIN from a 3rd Member State on the invoice)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

1. Is Article 141(c) of Directive 2006/112, on which the non-application of Article 41(1) of Directive 2006/112 depends, in accordance with Article 42 (in conjunction with Article 197) of Directive 2006/112, to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement laid down in that provision is not met where the taxable person is resident and identified for VAT purposes in the Member State from which the goods are dispatched or transported, even if that taxable person uses the VAT identification number of another Member State for that specific intra-Community acquisition?

2. Are Articles 42 und 265 in conjunction with Article 263 of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that only the submission in due time of the recapitulative statement renders Article 41(1) of Directive 2006/112 inapplicable?

The opinion in this case as delivered on November 30, 2017 by Advocate General Bot can be found here

Apr 19

Opinion of the Advocate General expected to be delivered in Case C-140/17, Gmina Ryjewo (VAT – Municipality – Right to deduct (by effecting an adjustment) input tax on its investment expenditure)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

1. In the light of Articles 167, 168 and 184 et seq. of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax 1 and the principle of neutrality, does a municipality have the right to deduct (by effecting an adjustment) input tax on its investment expenditure in the case where:

–  in the initial period after production (acquisition), the capital goods were used for the purposes of a non-taxable area of activity (in connection with the municipality’s performance of the tasks of a public authority within its area of responsibility); and

–  the use to which the capital goods are put has changed and they will in future be used by the municipality also to carry out taxable transactions?

2. Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that, at the time when the capital goods were produced or acquired, the municipality’s intention to use those goods in future to carry out taxable transactions was not indicated clearly?

3. Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that the capital goods will be used for the purpose of carrying out both taxable and non-taxable transactions (in connection with the performance of the tasks of a public authority) and that it is not possible to ascribe specific investment expenditure to one of the abovementioned transaction categories?