Jan 10

 

Opinion of the Advocate General expected to be delivered in Case C-608/17, Holmen (Freedom of establishment – Deduction of definitive losses in a subsidiary in another Member State)

 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

1. In order for a parent company in one Member State to have the right — which follows from, inter alia, the case of Marks & Spencer — on the basis of Article 49 TFEU to deduct definitive losses in a subsidiary in another Member State, is it necessary that the subsidiary be directly owned by the parent company?

2. Is that part of a loss which, as a result of the rules in the subsidiary’s State, it has not been possible set off against profits which were made there in a particular year, but instead could be carried over so that they could potentially be deducted in a future year, also to be regarded as definitive?

3. In the assessment of whether a loss is definitive, must account be taken of the fact that, under the rules in the subsidiary’s State, the possibility for parties other than the party making the loss itself to deduct the loss is restricted?

4. If account is to be taken of a restriction such as that referred to in question 3, must regard be had to the extent to which the restriction has in fact led to it not being possible to set off any part of the losses against profits made by another party?

 

 

 

 

Jan 10

 

Opinion of the Advocate General expected to be delivered in Case C-607/17, Memira Holding (Freedom of establishment – Deduction of definitive losses in a subsidiary in another Member State)

 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

1. Must account be taken, in the assessment of whether a loss in a subsidiary in another Member State is definitive within the meaning given in, inter alia, the case of A, and the parent company may thus deduct the loss on the basis of Article 49 TFEU, of the fact that, under the rules of the subsidiary’s State, there are restrictions on the possibility for parties other than the party itself which made the loss to deduct the loss?

2. If a restriction such as that referred to in question 1 must be taken into consideration, must account then be taken of whether, in the case in question, there actually is another party in the subsidiary’s State which could have deducted the losses if that were permitted there?

 

 

 

 

Jan 10

 

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case C-410/17, A (VAT – Do the services carried out constitute one single transaction or do they comprise two transactions?)

 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

1. Is Article 2(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax, to be interpreted as meaning that demolition services carried out by a company whose business includes the supply of demolition services, is one single transaction where, under the terms of the contract between the it and the client, the demolition company is required to remove the demolition waste and where the demolition company may, if the demolition waste contains metal scrap, sell it to companies which buy recyclable scrap metal?

2. Or, taking into account Article 2(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 14 (1) of the Directive 2006/112 / EC, is such a contract for demolition services to be interpreted as comprising two transactions: first, a supply of services by the demolition company to the client of demolition services and, second, the purchase of the metal scrap metal from the client for resale by the demolition company?

3. In the present case is it important when fixing the price for the demolition services that the demolition company took into account, as a factor moderating the price, that it is also possible to generate revenues by making use of demolition waste?

4. In the present case, is it important that the quantity and value of the recoverable demolition waste have not been agreed upon in the demolition contract, or that it has not been agreed that that information will be notified later to the client for which the demolition work is carried out, or the fact that the quantity and the value of the demolition waste are known only when the demolition company sells it?

5. Is Article 2(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 14(1) of the VAT Directive 2006/112/EC, in a situation in which a company whose business is the supply of demolition services concludes a contract with the owner of an object to be demolished that the demolition company will buy the object to be demolished and undertakes, subject to a contractual penalty, to demolish and remove the object within a period specified in the contract, to be interpreted as meaning that in such a situation there is a single transaction which includes the sale of objects by the owner of the object to be demolished the demolition company?

6. Or, having regard to Article 2(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 24(1) of the Directive 2006/112 / EC, is a contract of this kind to be interpreted as consisting of two transactions, namely the sale of goods by the owner of the object to be demolished to the demolition company and he demolition services supplied by the demolition company to the seller of the goods?

7. In this case what importance is to be attached to the fact that the demolition company, when fixing the price in its purchase offer for the goods, takes into account, as a factor in reducing the price, the costs to be incurred by the dismantling and removal of the goods?

8. Is it important that the seller of the goods is aware that the costs incurred by the demolition company for dismantling and transporting the items are taken into account as a factor reducing the price of those goods, in view of the fact that no agreement on these costs and the estimated or actual amount of these costs should at no time be known to the seller of the goods?

 

 

 

 

Jan 10

 

Opinion of the Advocate General expected to be delivered in Case C-647/17, Srf konsulterna (VAT – Supply of cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, educational, entertainment and similar services, ancillary transport services and valuations of and work on movable)

 

Question referred for a preliminary ruling:

Must the expression ‘admission to events’ in Article 53 of the VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that it covers a service in the form of a five-day course on accountancy which is supplied solely to taxable persons and requires advance registration and payment?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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