Jun 27

 

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in the joined Cases C-459/17 (SGI versus Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publics) and C-460/17 (Valériane SNC versus Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publiques) (VAT – Interpretation of Article 17 of the Sixth VAT Directive)

 

Question referred for a preliminary ruling:

Must the provisions of Article 17 of the Sixth VAT Directive of 17 May 1977, which have, in essence, been reproduced in Article 168 of Directive [2006/112/EC] of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, be interpreted as meaning that, in order to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct, from the value added tax that he is liable to pay by reason of his own transactions, tax levied on invoices corresponding to goods or services that the tax authorities establish have not actually been supplied to the taxable person, it is necessary, in all cases, to examine whether it has been established that that taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction was connected with value-added-tax fraud, regardless of whether that fraud was committed on the initiative of the issuer of the invoice, its recipient or a third party?

 

 

 

 

Jun 27

 

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case C-364/17, Varna Holideis (VAT – Interpretation of the Articles 90(1) and 185(1) of Directive 2006/112)

 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

1.    Are Articles 90(1) and 185(1) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as requiring the deduction claimed for input tax on a supply also to be adjusted in a case, such as that in the dispute in the main proceedings, where the legal transaction in respect of which the right to deduct input tax was exercised has been declared null and void by a judgment having legal force or should one, in light of the definition in Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112, proceed on the basis that there is no supply and the tax claim did not arise in the first place?

2.    Is Article 185(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a national provision for the adjustment of deduction claimed in respect of input tax, and in the event of a court decision declaring a legal transaction null and void, the adjustment may be made by direct application of Article 90(1) of the directive?

 

 

 

 

Jun 28

 

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case C-203/16 P, Andres (faillite Heitkamp BauHolding) v Commission (State Aid – German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years)

 

Procedure before the Court and forms of order sought

1  By its appeal, HBH claims that the Court should:       

  set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it dismissed the action as unfounded (points 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment) and annul the decision at issue;

  in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it dismissed the action as unfounded (points 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment) and refer the case back to the General Court;

  order the Commission to pay the costs.

2  The Commission claims that the Court should dismiss the appeal and order HBH to pay the costs.

3  By its cross-appeal, the Commission claims that the Court should:

  set aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

  dismiss the action brought at first instance as inadmissible;

  dismiss the appeal;

  set aside point 3 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal ordering the Commission to pay a third of its costs;

  order HBH to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and the Court.

4  HBH claims that the Court should dismiss the cross-appeal as unfounded and order the Commission to pay the costs.

5  HBH, the Commission and the German Government presented oral argument at the hearing held on 19 October 2017.

 

The opinion in this case as delivered on December 20, 2017 by Advocate General Wahl can be found here

 

 

 

 

Jun 28

 

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case C-208/16 P, Germany v Commission (State Aid – Germany – Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel))

 

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

·    quash the General Court’s judgment of 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 in so far as it dismissed the action as being unfounded;

·    annul Commission Decision of 26 January 2011, K(2011)275 final, on State aid C 7/10 — Law on corporation tax (KStG) Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel), according to Article 61(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

·    order the Commission to bear the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

 

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises one ground of appeal in support of its appeal.

 

There is an infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU. The General Court disregarded that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the Law on corporation tax (KStG), known as ‘the restructuring clause’, is not selective:

·    the ‘restructuring clause’ is not prima facie selective, as there is no exception to the relevant reference system and because it is a general measure, which may benefit all undertakings in the territory of the Member State;

·    the ‘restructuring clause’ is also justified by the nature and the internal structure of the tax system. The ‘restructuring clause’ is justified by, first, the principle of taxation according to ability to pay, second, combatting abuse, namely the prevention of abusive arrangements, and, third, the objective differences between a harmful acquisition of shares and an acquisition of shares for the purposes of restructuring.

 

 

 

 

Jul 1

 

Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent BEPS (MLI) to enter into force with respect to:

·   Republic of Austria;

·   the Isle of Man;

·   Jersey;

·   Poland; and

·   Slovenia

 

 

Jul 1

 

 

Entry into force of the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters with respect to Turkey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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