VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Determination of the taxable amount EU VAT case law

6 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2006 to 2018.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 6 cases, most recent first

Under each case, what the Court decided, from its summary. The summaries are AI-generated and are not official documents: open the case for the Court’s own text.

C-380/16 Commission v Germany

Judgment · 8 February 2018 · Germany

Travel agents' margin scheme excluded for business customers and applied on a global base

The Court upheld both complaints. Articles 306 to 310 do not restrict the special scheme to services supplied to final consumers, so excluding supplies to taxable persons acting for their business narrows the scheme beyond what the directive allows. And the margin must be determined by reference to each supply of travel. A global computation for groups of services or for a whole tax period is incompatible with Article 73 and with the structure of the scheme. Germany was ordered to pay the costs. The judgment that settled the customer-based reading of the travel agents' scheme against Germany and several other Member States, and it matters well beyond tour operators.

C-576/15 Maya Marinova

Judgment · 5 October 2016 · Bulgaria

Estimated assessment where supplies and revenue are concealed

They do not preclude such legislation. Failure to keep accounts and to record invoices may be treated as tax evasion, and Article 273 leaves Member States discretion to re-establish the position that would have existed absent evasion, estimating the taxable amount as closely as possible to the consideration actually received. Fiscal neutrality cannot be invoked by a taxable person who intentionally concealed transactions. The national court must still verify that the rules go no further than necessary. Article 80 was irrelevant, concerning tied parties. Confirms that estimated or "analogous" assessments based on suppliers' invoices, stock absences and typical margins are compatible with the Directive, even though they depart from Article 73 and identify no customer.

C-42/14 Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa w Warszawie

Judgment · 16 April 2015 · Poland

Utilities and service charges recharged by a landlord to tenants

Where the landlord contracts with the suppliers and simply passes on the costs, he is treated as making those supplies to the tenant. Auto Lease Holland does not apply. Such supplies are in principle distinct and independent from the letting, assessed separately, unless the elements are so closely linked as to form a single indivisible economic supply which it would be artificial to split. Individual meters, consumption-based and separately itemised billing, and tenant choice of supplier point to separate supplies. National courts must assess the contract. Relevant to landlords, property managers and their advisers who recharge utilities and waste services.

C-151/13 Le Rayon d’Or

Judgment · 27 March 2014 · France

Lump-sum public funding as consideration for care services

Such a lump sum is consideration for the care supplied by the home to its residents and falls within the scope of VAT. Payment by a third party rather than the recipient does not break the direct link. Where the supply consists in the provider's permanent availability to give care as required, it is unnecessary that the care be defined in advance, personalised, or requested at a specific time, provided the amount is fixed in advance on well-established criteria. Relevant to care homes, hospitals, clinics and other operators funded by block or capitation payments from public insurance or social funds, and to advisers computing partial exemption fractions.

C-300/12 Ibero Tours

Judgment · 16 January 2014 · Germany

An intermediary agent discount does not reduce its own taxable amount

The Court holds that those principles do not apply. The agent is not a link in the chain of supply of the principal service. It supplies a distinct intermediary service to the tour operator, and the discount it funds out of its own commission does not alter the consideration it receives for that service. The taxable amount of the intermediary service is therefore unaffected. The judgment marks the boundary of Elida Gibbs.

C-72/05 Wollny

Judgment · 14 September 2006 · Germany

Taxable amount for private use of a building held wholly in business assets

Article 11A(1)(c) does not preclude fixing the taxable amount at a portion of the acquisition or construction costs determined by reference to the length of the Article 20 adjustment period. Member States have a margin of discretion, provided the aims of Article 6(2), equal treatment with final consumers and correspondence between input deduction and output tax, are respected. Enkler's reference to depreciation does not confine them to national depreciation rules. Land acquisition costs must be included where that acquisition bore VAT which was deducted. Confirms Member States may accelerate the output charge on private use of mixed use immovable property by aligning it with the adjustment period rather than slower depreciation rates, reducing the cash-flow benefit of full allocation to business assets and limiting untaxed final consumption on a later VAT free disposal. Relevant to owner occupiers, professionals and family businesses constructing mixed use buildings, and to advisers modelling the cost of full allocation.

Related topics

Supply of goods or services · Special scheme for travel agents · Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality · Tax evasion and abuse · Supply of goods · Supply of services · Taxable amount