Highlights & Insights on European Taxation (H&I) bevat diepgaande informatie over actuele ontwikkelingen binnen het Europees belastingrecht zoals de omzetbelasting, douane, accijnzen en de winstbelasting. Een team van internationale experts becommentarieert jurisprudentie van het Europese Hof van Justitie, voorstellen van de Europese Commissie en andere Europese instanties.
Kijk hieronder voor de inhoudsopgave van de laatst verschenen aflevering.
Verschenen in Highlights & Insights
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof in the case Finanzamt Österreich.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case TP v Administration de l’enregistrement, des domaines et de la TVA. Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the member of the board of directors of a public limited company under Luxembourg law carries out an economic activity, within the meaning of that provision, where he or she supplies services to that company for consideration provided that that activity is effected on a continuing basis and for a remuneration for which the procedures for fixing that amount are foreseeable.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira. Point 2 of Annex IV to Council Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for the application of a reduced rate of VAT to services relating to the renovation and repair of private dwellings on condition that the dwellings concerned are actually used for residential purposes at the time when those works are carried out.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen in the case Palmstråle.
Judgment of the General Court in the case Hispavima v Commission on the Spanish tax leasing regime. The Court dismisses the action of Hispavima.
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in the case Casino de Spa. Article 135(1)(i) of the VAT Directive has no direct effect. It is neither unconditional nor sufficiently precise.
Opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta in the case Digital Charging Solutions. Council Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the recharging of an electric vehicle at a network of charging points to which a user has access by means of a subscription concluded with a company other than the charging-point operator implies that the electricity consumed is delivered from that operator to that user, and the company offering access to those charging points acts, in that supply, as a commissionaire within the meaning of Article 14(2)(c) of that directive.
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in the case Chaudfontaine Loisirs. Article 135(1)(i) of the VAT Directive has no direct effect. It is neither unconditional nor sufficiently precise.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) on BEFIT. The EESC notes that Member States will be entitled to add tax base increases, tax deductions or tax incentives to their allocated parts. While the EESC acknowledges the value of allowing Member States room for manoeuvre, such flexibility could come at odds with the Commission objective of reducing the compliance costs weighing on companies. Furthermore, the EESC believes that, in order to actually simplify and reduce costs...
Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case B2 Energy. Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT of a supplier established in one Member State, having supplied goods to another Member State, must be refused where that supplier has not shown that the goods were supplied to a recipient having the status of a taxable person in that Member State and that, in the light of the factual circumstances and evidence provided by the supplier, the information necessary to verify that the recipient did not have that status is lacking.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București in the case Arcomet Towercranes. Is Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the amount invoiced by a company (the principal company) to an associated company (the operating company), equal to the amount necessary to align the operating company’s profit with the activities carried out and the risks assumed in accordance with the margin method of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, constitutes a payment for a service which therefore falls within the scope of VAT?
Action in the case Commission v Luxembourg. The Commission submits that Luxembourg added securitisation special purpose entities to the types of financial undertakings listed in Article 2(5) of Directive 2016/1164 with a view to allowing their exclusion from the scope of the interest limitation rules of Article 4 of that directive.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Omya CZ. The fifth indent of Article 2(4)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the use of electricity for the operation of machines used for the processing of limestone extracted from a quarry consisting of several stages of grinding and crushing thereof until obtaining fine and coarse limestone fillers does not constitute a use of electricity for mineralogical processes.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Gemeente Dinkelland. EU law must be interpreted as not requiring the payment of interest to a taxable person as from the payment of an amount of VAT which is subsequently refunded by the tax authority, where that refund results, in part, from the finding that that taxable person, due to errors in its accounts, did not fully exercise its right to deduct input VAT for the years concerned and, in part, from an amendment, with retroactive effect, of the detailed rules for calculating the deductible VAT relating to the general costs of that taxable person where those rules are established under the sole responsibility of that taxable person.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Feudi di San Gregorio Aziende Agricole. Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as meaning that it may not lead to a person being denied the status of taxable person for VAT where that person, during a given tax period, carries out transactions that are subject to VAT and the economic value of which does not reach the threshold prescribed by national legislation, which corresponds to the return that can reasonably be expected from the assets held by that person. Article 167 of Directive 2006/112 and the principles of VAT neutrality and of proportionality must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the taxable person is denied the right to deduct input VAT on account of the transactions subject to output VAT carried out by that taxable person being considered insufficient.
Grenswerkers die gebruik willen maken van de zogenoemde Kaderovereenkomst, moeten uiterlijk 1 juli 2024 een aanvraag indienen. In de periode tussen 1 juli 2023 en 1 juli 2024 kan een werknemer tot maximaal 1 jaar terug aanvragen. Dat meldt de Sociale Verzekeringsbank (SVB).
Een renteschuld die is ontstaan op basis van een onderhandse renteafspraak komt bij het overlijden van de langstlevende echtgenoot in mindering op diens nalatenschap, als de renteafspraak is opgenomen in de tijdig ingediende aangifte erfbelasting van de eerst stervende echtgenoot. Dat staat in een standpunt van de Kennisgroep successiewet.
In oktober vorig jaar kwam het nieuws naar buiten: informatie- en softwareleverancier Wolters Kluwer Benelux neemt MFAS over, het gerenommeerde fiscale adviessysteem. Oprichters Henry Meijer en echtgenote Trudie Hoffman zeggen hun bedrijf te hebben verkocht met het oog op de continuïteit. “Een goede keuze om het bij ons onder te brengen”, zo stellen Wolters Kluwer-medewerkers Ilona Benjamins en Lieve Meyers. Volgens de twee informatiespecialisten moet de integratie van MFAS in het productportfolio van Wolters Kluwer nog dit jaar zijn afgerond en liggen er grootse plannen op de plank om de gebruiker van praktische content en software in de toekomst nog beter te bedienen.