Feb 12

 

Meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs (ECOFIN) Council

 

Ministers will also exchange views on the Commission communication "Towards more efficient and democratic decision-making in EU tax policy" which suggests a roadmap for a progressive and targeted transition to qualified majority voting in certain areas of EU taxation policy.

 

Click here to be forwarded to the Commission’s communication: “Towards a more efficient and democratic decision making in EU tax policy” (from January 15, 2019).

 

 

 

 

Feb 12

 

 

Opinion of the Advocate General expected to be delivered in Case C-568/17, Geelen (VAT – Place of supply of services –  The provision, in return for payment, of live interactive erotic webcam sessions)

 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

(a)   Should the first indent of Article 9(2)(c) of the Sixth Directive, or Article 52(a) of the VAT Directive of 2006 (version to 1 January 2010), respectively, be interpreted as also covering the provision, in return for payment, of live interactive erotic webcam sessions?

 (b   If question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative, should the phrase ‘the place where those services are physically carried out’ in Article 9(2)(c) of the Sixth Directive or ‘the place where the services are physically carried out’ in the introductory sentence of Article 52 of the VAT Directive of 2006, respectively, then be interpreted as meaning that the decisive factor is the place where the models perform in front of the webcamera or the place where the visitors view the images, or could even some other place be envisaged?

 

2.     Should the twelfth indent of Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Directive or Article 56(1)(k) of the VAT Directive of 2006 (version to 1 January 2010), read in conjunction with Article 11 of the VAT Regulation of 2005, be interpreted as meaning that the provision, in return for payment, of live interactive erotic webcam sessions can be deemed to be an ‘electronically supplied service’?

 

3.     If both question 1(a) and question 2 are answered in the affirmative, and the designation of the place of the service according to the relevant provisions of the directives concerned results in a different outcome, how should the place of the service then be determined?

 

 

 

 

Feb 14

 

 

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case T-131/16, Belgium v Commission (State Aid – Belgian excess profit exemption scheme)

 

Form of order sought

The Kingdom of Belgium claims that the Court should:

 

admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the application;

 

annul Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium in as much as it does not properly identify the state aid measure, classifies the excess profit ruling system as a scheme, and considers it incompatible state aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU;

 

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision in so far as they consider the excess profit ruling system as state aid incompatible with the internal market and order the recovery of the alleged state aid from the corporate groups to which the recipients belong in breach of general principles of EU law;

 

order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

 

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the Kingdom of Belgium relies on five pleas in law.

 

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(6) TFEU, Article 5(1) and (2) TEU by using the state aid rules to unilaterally define the tax jurisdiction of the Belgian State.

 

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and in its classification as an aid scheme that does not require any further implementing measures within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and Article 107 TFEU.

 

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFEU in considering that the excess profit ruling system constitutes a state aid measure. The Commission has not evidenced the state resources involved, has not identified the existence of an advantage and has erroneously assessed selectivity and distortion of competition.

 

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the identification of the beneficiaries of the alleged aid not only as the Belgian entities subject to tax in Belgium but also the multinational groups to which they belong.

 

Fifth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging an infringement of the general principle of legality and Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union1 as recovery may be requested from the multinational groups to which the Belgian entities that have received a ruling belong.

 

 

 

 

Feb 14

 

 

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case T-263/16, Magnetrol International v Commission (State Aid – Belgian excess profit exemption scheme)

 

Form of order sought

The Magnetrol International claims that the Court should:

 

annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

 

in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

 

in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an “excess profit ruling” as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration;

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

 

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, Magnetrol International relies on four pleas in law.

 

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium alleges the existence of an aid scheme.

 

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selected measure.

 

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.

 

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision orders Belgium to recover aid.

 

 

 

 

Feb 14

 

 

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case Case C-531/17, Vetsch Int. Transporte (VAT – Intra-community transfer – Acquirer committing tax evasion with a subsequent taxable transaction)

 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

1.      Is the exemption under Article 138 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax for an intra-Community transfer from a Member State to be refused where the taxable person carrying out that transfer in another Member State does declare in the other Member State the intra-Community acquisition linked to the intra-Community transfer, but commits tax evasion in connection with a subsequent taxable transaction with the goods concerned in the other Member State by wrongfully declaring an exempt intra-Community supply from that other Member State?

2.      Is it relevant to the answer to Question 1 whether the taxable person had intended at the time of the intra-Community transfer to commit tax evasion in respect of a subsequent transaction with those goods?

 

 

 

 

Feb 14

 

 

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case Case C-562/17, Nestrade (VAT – VAT refund sought by an undertaking not established in the EU)

 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

1. Can the rule in Petroma (Case C-271/12) 1 be qualified so as to allow a VAT refund sought by an undertaking not established in the EU, even though the national tax authority has already issued a decision refusing the refund on the grounds that the undertaking had failed to respond to a request for information concerning its tax reference number, in view of the fact that the authority was in possession of that information at the relevant time since it had been provided by the undertaking in response to other requests?

 

2. If that question is answered in the affirmative:

Does a retroactive application of the rule in Senatex (Case C-518/14) 2 mean that an administrative act refusing the refund of the VAT in question must be revoked, in view of the fact that the act merely upheld a previous final administrative decision refusing the VAT refund, which was adopted by the AEAT using a procedure which was not the procedure laid down by law for that situation and which, furthermore, curtailed the rights of the applicant, depriving it of a legal remedy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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