Other categories of taxable persons EU VAT case law

T-575/24 Digipolis

Judgment · 25 February 2026 · Belgium

VAT status of an intermunicipal commissioning association

Such an association is a taxable person on its supplies to members, with no distinction by reference to members' VAT status, provided the supplies are for consideration and the association independently carries on an economic activity, matters for the national court. Cost-covering, pre-set lump sum contributions do not break the direct link. Article 13(1) does not shelter it. Telematics is telecommunications within Annex I and not negligible, and non-taxation could distort competition. The "emanation" theory cannot override that status. The Belgian "emanation" tolerance for commissioning associations and intermunicipal structures is incompatible with the Directive where the entity has its own legal personality, organs, staff, assets and risk.

C-184/23 Finanzamt T II

Judgment · 11 July 2024 · Germany

Intra-group supplies for consideration where the recipient cannot deduct

Services supplied for consideration between members of the same group treated by a Member State as a single taxable person are not subject to VAT, even where the recipient cannot deduct the input VAT. A supplier inside the group cannot be treated individually as a separate taxable person, so the independence test in Article 4(1) is not reached. The "risk of tax losses" condition from the December 2022 judgments concerns only the designation of the controlling company as single taxable person, not the taxation of internal supplies. Confirmation, on the Sixth Directive and by extension Article 11 of Directive 2006/112, that intra-group supplies remain outside VAT regardless of the recipient's deduction position.

C-239/22 État belge and Promo 54

Judgment · 9 March 2023 · Belgium

Converted buildings and the first occupation test where no national implementing rules exist

The Court held that the exemption applies to a building first occupied before conversion even where the Member State has not adopted such detailed rules. But the absence of binding national rules has no direct effect. Liability follows from the added value generated and from the Court's own definition, so where a building has undergone substantial modifications intended to change its use or alter considerably the conditions of its occupation, an interpretation of national law consistent with the Directive leads to refusal of the exemption. Developers and their advisers cannot rely on a Member State's failure to legislate quantitative or other conversion thresholds to secure exemption on the sale of heavily renovated property.

C-141/20 Norddeutsche Gesellschaft für Diakonie

Judgment · 1 December 2022 · Germany

Financial links and the single taxable person in a VAT group

Designating the controlling company as the single taxable person is permissible, but only where it can impose its will on the other members and the designation carries no risk of tax losses. Requiring a majority of voting rights on top of a majority shareholding is precluded. It is not, in principle, a necessary and appropriate anti-avoidance measure. Member States may not classify members as non-independent by categorisation. Entities bearing their own economic risk carry out independent economic activities notwithstanding group membership. Germany's Organschaft conditions are narrowed: financial integration cannot be made to depend on voting majorities where a majority shareholding exists, widening the range of subsidiaries drawn into (or excluded from) existing groups, with knock-on effects on past returns and assessments.

C-269/20 Finanzamt T (Internal supplies within a VAT group)

Judgment · 1 December 2022 · Germany

Designation of the controlling company as the single taxable person of a VAT group

Article 4(4), second subparagraph, does not preclude a Member State from designating the controlling company, rather than the group itself, as the single taxable person, provided that company can impose its will on the other members and there is no risk of tax losses. Internal supplies made by a group member for the single taxable person's public authority activities are not taxable under Article 6(2)(b). Non-economic activities are not "purposes other than those of the business", and here the services were in any event paid for.

C-868/19 Finanzamt für Körperschaften Berlin

Judgment · 15 April 2021 · Germany

Germany could not require every partner in a partnership to be financially integrated

The Court holds that Article 11 precludes such a condition. The anti avoidance power in the second paragraph of that article allows measures needed to prevent evasion or avoidance, but a blanket requirement of this kind applies irrespective of any risk of abuse and goes beyond what is necessary. It also treats partnerships less favourably than companies without objective justification. One of the series of German grouping cases that also produced Norddeutsche Gesellschaft fur Diakonie and Finanzamt T.

C-501/19 UCMR - ADA

Judgment · 21 January 2021 · Romania

VAT treatment of public performance royalties collected by a collective management organisation

The Court answers both questions in the affirmative. There is a legal relationship of reciprocal performance and a direct link between the licence and the royalty. SAWP (fair compensation levies fixed by law) is distinguished. The society falls within Article 28, so it is deemed to receive and then supply the services. It must invoice the end user in its own name with VAT, and right holders who are taxable persons must invoice the society with VAT. Mandatory collective management and representation of non-members do not alter this, since the management method does not differ by category of holder. Collecting societies in Member States with mandatory or voluntary collective management must treat royalty collection as a chain of two taxable supplies rather than a mere transfer of funds, issuing VAT invoices to venues, promoters, broadcasters and other users, and receiving VAT invoices from right holders registered for VAT.

C-108/14 Larentia + Minerva and Marenave Schiffahrt

Judgment · 16 July 2015 · Germany

Holding company input tax and the scope of VAT grouping

Where the holding company involves itself in the management of the subsidiaries, the acquisition costs are general overheads and VAT is in principle fully deductible, subject to Article 17(5) if there are exempt outputs. Where it manages only some subsidiaries, deduction is proportionate, on apportionment criteria set by Member States. Restricting grouping to subordinated legal persons is precluded unless necessary and appropriate to counter abuse or evasion, a matter for the national court. Article 4(4) has no direct effect. Confirms full deduction for genuine management holding companies, including on share issue and financing costs, and confines partial restriction to cases where some shareholdings are purely passive. Relevant to shipping, private equity and group holding structures.

C-480/10 Commission v Sweden

Judgment · 25 April 2013 · Sweden

Restricting VAT grouping to the financial and insurance sector

The action was dismissed. Article 11 is not a derogating provision to be read narrowly, and its first paragraph imposes no condition as to type of activity or sector, but the second paragraph allows restrictions to combat tax evasion or avoidance, provided EU law is respected, and the Commission had not convincingly shown Sweden's confinement of grouping to entities under Finance Inspectorate supervision was unfounded. The equal treatment plea was inadmissible, having been raised only after a reasoned opinion based on fiscal neutrality. Sector-limited grouping regimes survive, but on anti-avoidance grounds rather than any inherent Member State discretion over scope. Relevant to financial, insurance and outsourced-services groups in Sweden and in other Member States with similarly narrow schemes.

C-65/11 Commission v Netherlands

Judgment · 25 April 2013 · Netherlands

Non-taxable persons may be included in a Dutch VAT group

The Court dismisses the action in its entirety. Nothing in Article 11 confines membership of a VAT group to taxable persons, and any risk of abuse is met by the second paragraph of that article, which allows Member States to take the measures needed to prevent evasion or avoidance. The complaint about the VAT Committee was also rejected. The Commission was ordered to pay the costs. Part of the series of grouping judgments of 25-04-2013 covering Ireland, Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands.

C-74/11 Commission v Finland

Judgment · 25 April 2013 · Finland

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations · Taxation · Directive 2006/112/EC · Articles 9 and 11 · National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons which can be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes and restricting the possibility of forming such a group…

C-86/11 Commission v United Kingdom

Judgment · 25 April 2013 · United Kingdom

Non-taxable persons may belong to a VAT group

The Court dismissed the action. The wording of the first paragraph of Article 11 does not confine grouping to taxable persons. It refers to persons established in the territory of the Member State who are closely bound by financial, economic and organisational links. Nor did the objectives of the provision support the narrower reading advanced by the Commission, particularly since the second paragraph of Article 11 already allows Member States to adopt any measures needed to prevent evasion or avoidance through the use of grouping. The Commission was ordered to pay the costs. Decided together with the parallel actions against Ireland and other Member States, and it settles a question of real structural importance.

C-95/11 Commission v Denmark

Judgment · 25 April 2013 · Denmark

Denmark was entitled to allow non-taxable persons into a VAT group

The Court dismisses the action. The Commission had not established that the objectives of Article 11 support an interpretation under which non-taxable persons cannot be included in a VAT group. If that possibility were itself to give rise to abuse, the second paragraph of Article 11 allows Member States to take any measures needed to prevent evasion or avoidance. The Commission was ordered to pay the costs. Read together with the parallel judgments against Ireland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom, this settles that Article 11 does not restrict membership to taxable persons.

C-109/11 Commission v Czech Republic

Judgment · 25 April 2013 · Czechia

Commission fails to prove that Czech VAT grouping admits non-taxable persons

The Court dismisses the action. In the absence of proof, the alleged failure is not made out. An infringement cannot be established on the basis of mere statements by the authorities of a Member State about how they interpret EU law or how they intend to apply it. The Commission was ordered to pay the costs, and the intervening Member States bore their own. Decided the same day as the parallel actions against Ireland, Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom, Denmark and the Netherlands.

C-85/11 Commission v Ireland

Judgment · 9 April 2013 · Ireland

Whether non-taxable persons may belong to a VAT group

The Grand Chamber dismissed the action. Article 11 refers to "persons", not "taxable persons", and imposes no condition that each member individually satisfy the Article 9(1) definition. The members taken together may collectively satisfy it. Neither the context of Title III nor the aims of administrative simplification and combating abuse supports the Commission's reading. Where the option is abused, the second paragraph of Article 11 allows Member States to adopt measures to prevent evasion or avoidance. Grouping regimes admitting non-taxable members, notably holding companies and other passive entities, are confirmed as lawful, so Member States need not restrict membership to persons carrying out economic activities.