VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Supply of goods EU VAT case law

83 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 1990 to 2026.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 83 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.

T-614/25 Trading 4

Judgment · 9 September 2026 · Latvia

Chain of supplies with a single intra-Community transport, triangular transaction, excise goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement, Articles 138(1), 141 and 197(1) of the VAT Directive

Those three circumstances do not, in themselves, exempt the supply made by the taxable person registered in the first Member State to the intermediary acquiring the goods and registered in the second. The third question was held inadmissible. The simplification arrangement in Article 141 concerns the intermediaries established in the second Member State, whereas the dispute concerns the application of Article 138(1), read in the light of Article 141, to the transactions carried out by Trading 4 in the first Member State, so the question bears no relation to the subject matter of the main proceedings. The judgment keeps the ascription of the single transport as the operative question in a chain, and refuses to let three surrounding facts stand in for it. It reaches fuel and other excise goods moving under suspension, where the duty arrangement and the transfer of the right to dispose of the goods run on separate tracks.

T-413/25 Peckeger

Judgment · 2 September 2026 · Austria

Contributing property for no shares, and the limits a Member State may place on Article 19

The General Court held that the contribution is not a supply of goods for consideration, since the transferor obtains no actual consideration for the properties. It is, however, an application of goods forming part of the business assets, transferred free of charge or applied for purposes other than those of the business within the first paragraph of Article 16, and is therefore treated as a supply for consideration. The Court further held that Article 19 precludes national legislation restricting the regime to certain categories of activity or income, including where the legislature opted for the rule before accession but confined it to specific cases not covered by the second paragraph of Article 19. Finally, the first paragraph of Article 19 has direct effect and may be relied on before the national courts. The transfer of a totality of assets is an autonomous concept of EU law, and the second paragraph of Article 19 sets out the only grounds on which a Member State may restrict it.

C-436/24 Lyko Operations

Judgment · 5 March 2026 · Sweden

Loyalty points are not vouchers

The Court held that the concept of "voucher" does not cover such loyalty points, because they carry no obligation on the supplier to accept them as full or partial consideration for a supply of goods. They merely allow the holder, if he chooses to make a further purchase, to obtain low value goods as a bonus. Failing one of the two cumulative conditions, the points are neither single purpose nor multi purpose vouchers. The second question therefore did not need answering. Retailers running points based loyalty schemes in the EU cannot rely on the voucher rules in Articles 30a and 73a to defer or shape VAT on redemption.

C-427/23 Határ Diszkont

Judgment · 1 August 2025

A refund handling fee is its own supply, and it is not a net amount

The Court held that the handling service is a distinct and independent supply and not part of a single supply with the goods, and that it is not covered by the exemptions relied on. The protection of legitimate expectations may be relied on against the tax authority where that authority had consistently treated such services as exempt and had not informed the taxable person of the change in the national legislation which, in its earlier version, expressly listed them among exempt activities. It is irrelevant in that context that the taxable person later received a non-binding reply, given after the event on a request for a ruling, stating that the services were ancillary costs sharing the treatment of the exempt principal transaction. Articles 73 and 78 preclude the practice of treating the amounts invoiced as the handling fee as net amounts not including VAT, where the supplier treated its supply as exempt and it is manifestly impossible for it to recover the VAT afterwards from the purchasers. The judgment separates two operations that a retailer performs in the same transaction with the same customer and gives them different treatment, and it does so without allowing the exemption on the goods to carry across to the service.

C-602/24 W. (Export without the knowledge of the taxable person)

Judgment · 1 August 2025 · Poland

Export exemption where the customer exports without the supplier's knowledge

The exemption applies. Where the right to dispose as owner passed, the goods physically left the European Union and there was no consumption inside it, the objective conditions of Article 146(1)(b) are met. The parties' original intention to make an intra-Community supply and the supplier's ignorance of the export are subjective factors and irrelevant, as is the fact that the tax authorities, not the supplier, produced the proof. The limits remain because formal breaches preventing conclusive proof of the substantive conditions, or the supplier's knowing participation in evasion. Relevant wherever a supplier zero-rates on the basis of the customer's transport documents and the goods turn out to have gone to a third country instead.

C-270/24 Granulines Invest

Order · 14 February 2025 · Hungary

A fictitious invoice label does not replace proof of the buyer knowledge of fraud

The Court answers no on both counts. To refuse deduction the authority must establish to the requisite legal standard that the taxable person actively participated in VAT fraud, or knew or should have known that the invoice issuer had committed such a fraud. A defective date on the invoice cannot found a refusal where the authority has all the information needed to check the substantive conditions, and correcting the invoice cannot be made a precondition. A recent restatement, in a reasoned order, of the two pillars of the deduction case law.

C-60/23 Digital Charging Solutions

Judgment · 17 October 2024 · Sweden

Electric vehicle charging cards and the commission structure

Charging is a supply of goods. Where the intermediary acts in its own name but on the user's behalf, the electricity is deemed supplied twice, operator to intermediary and intermediary to user, under the commission fiction in Article 14(2)(c), notwithstanding that the user controls quantity, time and place. Auto Lease Holland and Vega International do not apply absent a credit or pre-financing mechanism. A separate fixed monthly fee, unrelated to electricity volumes, points to distinct supplies, but that is for the national court. Relevant to e-mobility service providers, fuel and charging card issuers and their advisers.

C-182/23 Makowit

Judgment · 11 July 2024 · Poland

Expropriation of farmland and acting as a taxable person

The Court held that such an expropriation against compensation is subject to VAT where the owner is a farmer who is a taxable person and acts as such, even absent any property marketing activity or steps by him. Article 14(2)(a) is a lex specialis with its own conditions: transfer of ownership, by public authority order or law, and effective payment of compensation directly linked to it. The qualification is that if the land formed part of the owner's private, non farming property, he does not act as a taxable person and the transaction escapes VAT. For farmers and other landholding businesses caught by compulsory purchase, road, rail and infrastructure schemes, the compensation is consideration for a taxable supply whenever the land sits in the business assets.

C-241/23 P

Judgment · 8 May 2024 · Poland

Taxable amount of an in-kind property contribution in exchange for shares

The taxable amount is determined by reference to the issue value of the shares where the companies agreed that this was the consideration. The consideration is the subjective value actually agreed and received, not an objective one, and the fact that the issue value was fixed by reference to market valuations of the property does not change that. The referring court may still check that the agreed value reflects economic and commercial reality and is not abusive. Article 80 applies only in its exhaustive listed cases. Relevant to any share-for-asset capital contribution, common in property and group restructurings.

C-207/23 Finanzamt X (Application and disposal of goods free of charge)

Judgment · 25 April 2024 · Germany

Free-of-charge disposal of surplus heat and calculation of cost price

Yes: where the goods (heat is tangible property) formed part of business assets and input VAT was wholly or partly deductible, the free transfer is a deemed supply for consideration, regardless of the recipient's tax status or use. The only exception is samples and gifts of small value under the second paragraph of Article 16. Cost price under Article 74 applies only absent a purchase price for the goods or similar goods, and then includes direct and indirect costs, including financing costs, whether or not they bore input VAT. Energy producers, biogas and CHP operators and anyone releasing surplus output free of charge cannot argue away Article 16 on the basis that the recipient is a taxable person using the goods in a deductible activity.

C-505/22 Deco Proteste - Editores

Judgment · 5 October 2023 · Portugal

Subscription gifts as an ancillary supply, not a free transfer

The gift is a supply ancillary to the principal supply of the periodicals, forming part of a supply of goods for consideration under Article 2(1)(a), and is not a disposal of goods free of charge under the first paragraph of Article 16. It has no distinct purpose for the average consumer, who pays at least one month's subscription to obtain it, and it aids enjoyment of the magazines. Whether the criteria are met remains for the national court. The questions on the small-value gift ceiling were not answered. Publishers and any business using a device or gadget as an enrolment incentive can treat the item as following the tax treatment of the principal supply, here the reduced rate for periodicals, rather than accounting for output tax as a free transfer. Relevant to subscription media, telecoms bundles and loyalty and acquisition promotions generally.

C-677/21 Fluvius Antwerpen

Judgment · 27 April 2023 · Belgium

VAT on electricity taken unlawfully from the distribution network

Unlawful consumption of electricity is a taxable supply of goods for consideration under Article 14(1). Consumption of electricity coincides with disposal as owner, and the legal relationship criterion is met by the applicable energy legislation and connection regulation, so Article 14(2)(a), a lex specialis, does not apply. It is an economic activity under Article 9(1) because the loss is a risk inherent in operating the network. Even for a public law body acting as a public authority, the activity is negligible only if so minimal in space or time that resulting competitive distortion is insignificant. Where a network operator or utility recovers the cost of energy theft or unmetered consumption, the energy element of the compensation is consideration for a taxable supply and not damages outside VAT. Relevant to advisers on energy, water, gas and heat recovery billing.

C-282/22 Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Judgment · 20 April 2023 · Poland

Electric vehicle recharging as a supply of goods

It is a supply of goods. The transfer of electricity is the characteristic and predominant element. Access to the charging devices is the minimal service necessarily accompanying the marketing of the goods and is disregarded, while technical support and the IT applications are ancillary. Pricing by reference to recharging time, or wholly by duration, still reflects the unit price of the electricity, and a marginally higher price for fast charging does not make speed predominant. Directive 2014/94's reference to "recharging services" is irrelevant to VAT classification. Public recharging is a supply of goods, with the consequences that follow for charge point operators and e-mobility providers on place of supply, rates, invoicing and any reduced rate or exemption applied to electricity in the Member State concerned.

C-612/21 Gmina O.

Judgment · 30 March 2023 · Poland

Municipal renewable energy installations and the limits of economic activity

Such activity does not constitute a supply of goods and services subject to VAT where it is not intended to obtain income on a continuing basis and residents pay at most a quarter of the costs incurred, the balance coming from public funds. The decisive point is the absence of economic activity. No permanence, no staff, structurally loss-making pricing unlike an RES installer. Article 13(1) therefore did not need examination, and the taxable amount question fell away. Useful for advisers to local authorities running subsidised energy efficiency, insulation or renewables schemes.

C-42/22 Generali Seguros

Judgment · 9 March 2023 · Portugal

Sale of salvage by an insurer, no insurance exemption

No on all three points. The resales rest on contracts separate from, and separable from, the insurance policies, are made to persons other than the insured, involve no coverage of risk and raise no difficulty in determining the taxable amount. The salvage value is the residual value of the vehicle, not part of the compensation, so there is no single indivisible supply. Being a supply of goods, it cannot be a broker's or agent's related service. Goods bought merely to be resold unaltered are not "used" for the exempt insurance activity, and neutrality cannot widen an exemption. Where an insurer recovers and resells salvage, those sales are taxable supplies of goods whatever the domestic practice, and the salvage price cannot be treated as embedded in the claims settlement.

C-664/21 NEC PLUS ULTRA COSMETICS

Judgment · 2 March 2023 · Slovenia

Time limits for producing proof of an intra-Community supply

They do not preclude such legislation, provided the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are respected. The Court stressed the qualification. Where the evidence is offered before any assessment notice has been adopted, a refusal to take it into account must rest on particular circumstances, for instance an unjustified delay or a loss of tax revenue. Blanket exclusion at that early stage, ignoring the taxpayer's explanations, is hard to reconcile with proportionality and neutrality. The national court must assess this. National evidential cut-offs in audit procedures survive, but they cannot be applied mechanically.

C-729/21 Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Łodzi

Order · 16 January 2023 · Poland

Transfer of a business without every asset, and no requirement that the buyer succeed the seller

The Court held that Article 19 does not preclude a national provision that omits any condition about the transferee succeeding to the person of the transferor. The option in Article 19 is exercised on the terms the Member State chooses, subject to the limits in the directive. On the second question it held that the concept does cover the transfer of part of an undertaking even where not all of its constituent elements are transferred, provided that the elements actually transferred are sufficient to allow that business to carry on an autonomous economic activity. The operative criterion is functional, and it is the one to apply in practice.

C-604/19 Gmina Wrocław (Transformation of the right of usufruct)

Judgment · 25 February 2021 · Poland

Statutory conversion of perpetual usufruct into ownership by a municipality

The conversion is a supply of goods under Article 14(2)(a). The fee is compensation because it is directly linked to the transfer of ownership and effectively paid, regardless of its nature or amount. Because the fee is payable over 20 years, the municipality obtains income on a continuing basis, so this is economic activity. Absence of active steps is irrelevant. Subject to national verification, the municipality does not exercise public law powers, merely certifying the conversion, so Article 13(1) does not apply. Confirms that Article 14(2)(a) operates independently of Article 14(1). Relevant to municipalities and state property bodies across Member States dealing with statutory land conversions, expropriations and similar compulsory transfers.

C-108/19 Krakvet sp. z o.o. sp.k

Order · 14 January 2021 · Romania

Distance selling where the customer picks a carrier suggested by the website

The Court holds that the goods must be regarded as transported by or on behalf of the supplier where the supplier role is predominant as regards both the initiative for the transport and the organisation of its essential stages. That is for the referring court to determine on all the relevant circumstances. The existence of a separate contract with the carrier is therefore not decisive. The order follows the judgment in KrakVet Marek Batko, delivered a month earlier on the same arrangement.

C-449/19 WEG Tevesstraße

Judgment · 17 December 2020 · Germany

Supply of heat by an association of property owners to its members

Article 135(1)(l) precludes such national legislation. Supplying heat generated by a cogeneration unit is the sale of tangible property resulting from exploiting immovable property, not the grant of a right to occupy immovable property and exclude others. A 1977 Council and Commission declaration permitting such an exemption has no legal significance, being unreflected in the wording. Fiscal neutrality does not assist. Single family homeowners and co-owners are distinct groups of consumers. Associations of residential property owners, and their advisers, can no longer rely on the German exemption for heat supplied to members.

C-528/19 Mitteldeutsche Hartstein-Industrie

Judgment · 16 September 2020 · Germany

Input tax on infrastructure works carried out for a municipality

Deduction is available where the road serves both the taxable person's economic activity and the public, provided the works did not exceed what was objectively necessary for that activity and their cost is reflected in the price of the taxable output transactions. Excess works break the link in part. A unilateral operating authorisation is not consideration but a condition sine qua non, so the works are not made for consideration. Nor are they a deemed supply under Article 5(6), given the actual end-use benefits the taxable person.

C-610/19 Vikingo Fővállalkozó

Order · 3 September 2020 · Hungary

Refusal of deduction where invoices are held implausible in a supply chain

Ruling by reasoned order under Article 99, the Court held that the Directive precludes that national practice. None of those four grounds, alone or together, justifies refusal. The concept of supply of goods is objective and is satisfied even if the goods were neither made nor supplied by the invoice issuer and the actual source is unidentified. Refusal requires the authorities to prove, on objective evidence, active participation in fraud or that the taxable person knew or should have known of fraud upstream. The penalty and Charter questions were inadmissible. A further restatement, in order form, of Mahagében and Signum Alfa for advisers handling Hungarian and other chain-supply deduction denials, especially in goods trading and machinery purchases.

C-276/18 KrakVet Marek Batko

Judgment · 18 June 2020 · Hungary

Distance selling, when goods are transported "on behalf of the supplier"

Regulation 904/2010 provides only for exchange of information. It does not bind one authority to another's classification, so unilateral divergent treatment is permitted (with any overpaid VAT recoverable). Article 33 applies where the supplier's role is predominant in initiating and organising the essential stages of dispatch or transport, judged on economic reality rather than the contracts alone. That is for the national court. No abuse arises merely from the link with the carrier or the buyer's freedom to choose, where both companies genuinely trade independently. Relevant to e-commerce sellers and their advisers dealing with pre-2021 periods and to the reading of "indirect intervention" now in Article 33.

C-242/19 CHEP Equipment Pooling

Judgment · 11 June 2020 · Romania

Cross-border refund where the claimant should have been VAT registered

The derogation applies only where two cumulative conditions are met: the use of the goods in the destination Member State for the service supplied is temporary, and the goods were dispatched from the Member State where the supplier is established. Goods sent from other Member States, or used for an indefinite or extended period, fall outside it. Separately, refunds cannot be refused merely because the claimant is or should be VAT identified in the refund State. Only the cumulative conditions in Article 3 of Directive 2008/9 matter. Relevant to pooling, leasing and equipment hire structures moving assets around the EU, and to anyone facing a refund refusal grounded in national registration requirements.

C-653/18 Unitel

Judgment · 17 October 2019 · Poland

Export exemption where the actual customer is not identified

Such a blanket practice is precluded. Identification of the acquirer is not a condition of a supply of goods, which depends on the objective criteria of transfer of the right to dispose as owner and physical exit from the European Union. The exemption may nonetheless be refused where the failure to identify the acquirer prevents proof that those substantive conditions are met, or where the taxable person knew or should have known the transaction formed part of a fraud damaging the common VAT system. Fraud in a third country does not automatically exclude this. If refused, there is no taxable transaction and no input tax deduction. Exporters facing assessments because the invoiced customer turns out to be a front cannot be denied the zero rate on that ground alone. Relevant to electronics and other high risk export trades.

C-71/18 KPC Herning

Judgment · 4 September 2019 · Denmark

Sale of land with an existing building intended for demolition

A Member State may not classify such a supply as a supply of building land. Where the sale is economically independent of other services and does not form a single transaction with them, land carrying a building at the date of supply cannot be classified as building land, even if the parties intend total or partial demolition. Only objective circumstances, such as demolition undertaken or begun by the vendor and cost borne by the purchaser, can bind sale and demolition into a single supply of undeveloped land (Don Bosco). Relevant to developers, housing bodies and their advisers structuring brownfield and redevelopment deals.

C-242/18 UniCredit Leasing

Judgment · 3 July 2019 · Bulgaria

Reduction of the taxable amount on termination of a finance lease

A final notice of adjustment does not bar reduction under Article 90(1). It is not a formality justified by Article 273. Both the arrears up to termination and the termination compensation (itself taxable consideration for the leasing supply) are cases of non-payment, so a Member State which has not legislated for reduction on non-payment may refuse it. But the derogation cannot apply where the taxable person shows a reasonable probability that the debt will not be honoured, subject to upward re-evaluation if payment occurs. Lessors and other suppliers in Member States which exclude bad debt relief cannot be refused relief indefinitely.

C-235/18 Vega International Car Transport and Logistic

Judgment · 15 May 2019 · Poland

Fuel cards as an exempt grant of credit

No supply of fuel took place at the parent's level. The subsidiary chose the station, quality, quantity, type and timing, bore the full cost, and so disposed of the fuel as owner. The parent merely supplied an instrument for purchasing fuel, acting as intermediary. That supply of services, remunerated by the 2% surcharge, amounts to advance financing akin to the granting of credit and is exempt under Article 135(1)(b). The exemption depends on the nature of the service, not the supplier's status. Card issuers and intra-group fuel card programmes cannot assume a buy/sell chain.

C-410/17 A

Judgment · 10 January 2019 · Finland

Demolition and dismantling contracts as barter transactions

Each contract can comprise two reciprocal supplies. The demolition contract involves a supply of services plus a supply of scrap metal, provided the demolition company attributes a value to the scrap that it factors into its quoted price. The scrap supply is taxable only if made by a taxable person acting as such. The dismantling purchase contract involves a supply of goods plus, where the dismantling and disposal specifically meet the seller's needs, a supply of services valued at the price reduction applied. Non-disclosure and absence of agreed figures are irrelevant. For demolition, dismantling and recycling operators and their scrap suppliers, what decides the point is whether the price quoted was reduced to reflect materials recovered or removal costs absorbed.

C-17/18 Mailat

Judgment · 19 December 2018 · Romania

Letting a fully equipped business as a transfer of a going concern

Not a transfer of a totality of assets. The items necessary to carry on the activity were merely let, with no transfer of related property rights, so the lessee could never dispose of them. Continuation under the same name is irrelevant. The contract is a single supply in which the letting of the immovable property is the principal element, the equipment and inventory being ancillary, and it therefore falls within the Article 135(1)(l) exemption. Landlords letting equipped commercial premises (restaurants, hotels, care and leisure operators) cannot rely on Article 19 to avoid adjusting input VAT recovered on works, fixtures and inventory.

C-51/18 Commission v Austria

Judgment · 19 December 2018 · Austria

VAT treatment of the artist's resale royalty

The Court held that Austria infringed Article 2(1) by taxing the royalty. The legal relationship on a resale exists only between seller and buyer. The artist cannot intervene or prevent it and so supplies nothing, the royalty being a statutory entitlement to share in the economic success of the work. Fiscal neutrality does not require alignment with royalties for successive exploitation of other works, whose situation differs. Nor does the royalty alter the taxable amount of the first sale. Resale royalties collected for artists must be treated as outside the scope of VAT.

C-414/17 AREX CZ

Judgment · 19 December 2018 · Czechia

Ascribing the transport in chain supplies of excise goods

Article 2(1)(b)(iii) covers only taxable persons whose other intra-Community acquisitions fall outside VAT under Article 3(1). Other taxable persons are dealt with under Article 2(1)(b)(i). Liability for excise duty in the Member State of destination does not make that trader's acquisition the intra-Community one if the single transport cannot be ascribed to it. Movement under duty suspension is not decisive. The usual global assessment applies, turning on when the power to dispose as owner passed relative to the transport. Fuel, alcohol and tobacco chains are analysed for VAT on exactly the same basis as any other chain transaction. Relevant to energy traders, excise warehousekeepers and their advisers reviewing historic and current supply chain structures.

C-153/17 Volkswagen Financial Services (UK)

Judgment · 18 October 2018 · United Kingdom

Residual input tax on vehicle hire purchase, apportionment method

General costs actually incurred, at least in part, for the taxable vehicle supplies are cost components of those supplies for VAT purposes, even though the taxable person passed them on only in the exempt interest. The commercial result is irrelevant. A special method which disregards an actual and non-negligible allocation of overheads to taxable supplies cannot be more precise than the turnover key and is therefore not permitted. Banco Mais is confined to its own circumstances. Relevant to lessors, hire purchase providers and captive finance companies with agreed special methods, and to tax authorities imposing use based apportionment.

C-459/17 SGI and Valériane

Judgment · 27 June 2018 · France

Deduction where no actual supply took place

It is sufficient for the authorities to establish that the transactions covered by the invoice were not actually carried out. The right to deduct arises only when the tax becomes chargeable, that is on actual delivery, and does not extend to tax due merely because it appears on an invoice. The good or bad faith of the recipient is irrelevant to whether a supply occurred. The concept of supply is objective. Stroy trans and LVK concerned different facts, where non-delivery had not been established. A clear separation of two lines of case law.

C-665/16 Gmina Wrocław

Judgment · 13 June 2018 · Poland

Expropriation of municipal land against compensation as a supply of goods

Article 14(2)(a) is a lex specialis whose conditions are independent of Article 14(1). Transfer of formal legal title, by order of a public authority or in pursuance of the law, against payment of compensation. No transfer of economic control is required, so continued practical management by the same person and dual representation do not prevent taxation. Payment by internal accounting transfer is irrelevant, provided the payment has become effective. The national court must still verify the conditions, including whether the municipality acted as a taxable person rather than as a public authority under Article 13(1). Public bodies and their advisers cannot argue that expropriation lacks an economic transfer where legal title moves and compensation is fixed by statute or administrative decision. Relevant to municipalities, infrastructure and road projects, and to anyone structuring compulsory purchase transactions involving public sector landowners.

C-421/17 Polfarmex

Judgment · 13 June 2018 · Poland

Transfer of property as consideration for a share buy-back

The two legs must be separated. The property transfer is a supply of goods for consideration, because each party acts as both supplier and beneficiary in a reciprocal legal relationship, and it is taxable provided the property is used in the company's economic activity, a matter for the national court. The share redemption itself is not an economic activity. The Court noted, without deciding, that the exemption in Article 135(1)(j) for supplies of old buildings may apply. Relevant to corporate restructurings and buy-backs settled in kind anywhere in the EU.

C-660/16 Kollroß and Wirtl

Judgment · 31 May 2018 · Germany

Input VAT on advance payments for goods never delivered

Deduction cannot be refused where the advance was paid and received and, at that time, all relevant information about the future supply was known to the buyer and the supply appeared certain. An unfixed delivery date does not create uncertainty. Deduction may be refused if objective evidence shows the buyer knew or should reasonably have known the supply was uncertain. Articles 185 and 186 do not preclude national rules making adjustment conditional on the supplier refunding the advance. Advance payment deductions are tested at the moment of payment, so later non delivery through supplier fraud or insolvency does not retrospectively destroy the right where the goods and price were identified. Relevant to plant and equipment purchasers, prepayment arrangements generally, and any adviser handling failed supplier claims.

C-305/16 Avon Cosmetics

Judgment · 14 December 2017 · United Kingdom

Direct selling through unregistered resellers and the scope of an Article 27 derogation

The derogation is valid and is not precluded by Articles 17 and 27, even though it makes no allowance for input VAT on demonstration items borne by the unregistered resellers. The derogation touches only the taxable amount. The deduction rules remain intact, and non-taxable resellers simply have no right to deduct. Giving credit would itself be an unauthorised derogation from Article 17(2). No obligation existed to notify the Commission of that point. Direct selling groups operating under open market value directions cannot claw back the sticking VAT suffered by their unregistered representatives on demonstration items or third party purchases.

C-552/16 Wind Inovation 1

Judgment · 9 November 2017 · Bulgaria

Deemed supply on deregistration of a company in liquidation

Article 176 was not engaged, as no exclusion from deduction was at issue. The Court drew the line by reference to Article 18(c). A Member State may require VAT on available assets to be calculated and paid on court-ordered dissolution only where the company no longer carries out economic transactions. Where it continues to carry out economic transactions while in liquidation it retains taxable person status, and conditioning deduction on actual payment of that tax restricts the right to deduct contrary to Article 168. Relevant to insolvency practitioners, liquidators and advisers dealing with companies wound up or dissolved while still trading, particularly in Member States that treat dissolution as an automatic ground for deregistration.

C-164/16 Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK

Judgment · 4 October 2017 · United Kingdom

Leasing with an option to purchase, goods or services

Article 14(2)(b) applies to a lease with an option to purchase only where the financial terms show that exercising the option is the only economically rational choice open to the lessee at the relevant time if the contract runs its full term. That is so, in particular, where the aggregate instalments correspond to the market value including financing costs and no substantial additional sum is payable on exercise. A genuine economic alternative for the lessee excludes classification as a supply of goods. Assessment is for the national court. In motor and asset finance a product is classified by reference to the objective financial terms at signature, not by the label used or by how many customers in fact buy. Relevant to leasing, equipment finance and consumer credit structuring.

C-36/16 Posnania Investment

Judgment · 11 May 2017 · Poland

Transfer of land in settlement of tax arrears is not a supply for consideration

Such a transfer is not a supply of goods for consideration. Although a legal relationship of creditor and debtor exists, payment of tax is unilateral. The public authority provides no performance in return, whether the charge is settled in money or in tangible property. There is therefore no reciprocal performance and no supply for consideration. The Court added that any risk of untaxed final consumption where input tax has been deducted on the property is addressed by Article 16 of the VAT Directive. Relevant wherever a Member State permits tax debts to be settled by transferring assets in kind.

C-208/15 Stock ‘94

Judgment · 8 December 2016 · Hungary

Tied vendor finance as part of a single supply of goods

A single transaction, in which the supply of the goods is the principal supply and the tied loan merely a means of acquiring them. The taxable amount comprises both the price of the goods and the interest. The Court's reasoning turns on the loan being usable only to buy the integrator's inputs, so it has no independent interest for the farmer, a matter for the national court to verify. The options to supply additional services or buy the production are irrelevant. Relevant to suppliers offering tied or restricted purchase financing, notably agricultural input suppliers, equipment dealers and other vendor credit arrangements, where interest has been invoiced as exempt under Article 135(1)(b).

C-128/14 Het Oudeland Beheer

Judgment · 28 April 2016 · Netherlands

Valuing a self-supply of an office building held under a long lease

The Court holds that both elements may be included, notwithstanding the earlier payment and full deduction. As to measurement, where the land and the building under construction were acquired through the grant of a right in rem, the value of that right corresponds to the amount payable each year for the remainder of the long lease, corrected or capitalised by the same method used to value the grant of the leasehold. One of the technical anchors of the self supply rules now in Articles 18(a) and 74.

C-277/14 PPUH Stehcemp

Judgment · 22 October 2015 · Poland

Deduction where the invoicing supplier is treated as non-existent

The Court held that the Directive precludes such national legislation. Existence or entitlement to issue invoices is not a condition of deduction. Taxable person status is a factual test and does not depend on registration, returns, tax payment, published accounts or a fuel licence. Goods actually delivered and used for taxed transactions constitute a supply, whatever the supplier's legal power to dispose of them. Deduction may be refused only if objective evidence shows the buyer knew or should have known of a connection with VAT fraud, without imposing checks that are not its responsibility. Confirms that national "non-existent trader" tests cannot be used as a shortcut to deny input VAT.

C-526/13 Fast Bunkering Klaipėda

Judgment · 3 September 2015 · Lithuania

Bunkering exemption and supplies through intermediaries acting in their own name

In principle the exemption does not apply. It is confined to the final supply to the vessel operator who uses the goods, and evidence of ultimate use does not extend it (the aircraft case law under Article 148(f) is not transferable, there being no common registration mechanism for bunkers). However, it may apply where ownership passes to the intermediary no earlier than the moment the operator becomes entitled to dispose of the fuel as owner, that is, on loading into the tanks. That is for the national court to verify. For bunker suppliers and traders, documentary proof of ultimate maritime use does not zero rate a sale into a trading chain. Relevant to marine fuel supply, bunker broking and commodity trading structures across the EU.

C-159/14 Koela-N

Order · 15 July 2015 · Bulgaria

Deduction where goods go straight to the final customer, and what proves knowledge of fraud

Ruling by reasoned order, the Court held that the principle of fiscal neutrality precludes the authorities from denying that a supply took place, and from refusing deduction on that basis, merely because the goods travelled directly to the ultimate customer without passing through the hands of the intermediate acquirers. On the second question, it held that those two circumstances are not by themselves sufficient objective evidence of knowledge or means of knowledge, although both may be taken into account in an overall assessment of all the facts and circumstances. Two points that recur in Bulgarian and Romanian deduction disputes.

C-123/14 Itales

Order · 15 July 2015 · Bulgaria

Deduction cannot be refused for unproven origin of the goods without evidence of fraud

The Court holds that they do preclude it. A tax authority may not refuse the deduction on those grounds where it has not established that the purchaser took part in VAT fraud and knew or should have known that the transaction was involved in such a fraud. The burden of showing the objective evidence of participation in fraud lies with the authority, not with the taxable person. One of the reasoned orders applying Mahageben and David and Bonik to Bulgarian practice.

C-209/14 NLB Leasing

Judgment · 2 July 2015 · Slovenia

Repossession under a finance lease and reduction of the taxable amount

Where the lease provides for transfer of ownership on expiry, or the lessee enjoys all essential powers of ownership with substantially all risks and rewards and the present value of the payments is practically identical to market value, the transaction is an acquisition of capital goods. Article 90(1) does not permit reduction where the taxable person has in fact received all the consideration, or where, absent refusal or cancellation, the recipient is no longer liable for the price. Neutrality does not bar separate taxation of the lease and the onward sale unless they form a single supply, for the national court to decide. Relevant to lessors and to sale and lease back structures over immovable property.

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-446/13 Fonderie 2A

Judgment · 2 October 2014 · France

Place of supply where goods are finished in the customer's Member State before delivery

The place of supply is in the Member State where the customer is established. Dispatch to the subcontractor does not transfer the right to dispose of the goods as owner. It merely renders them compliant with the contract. Only the finished goods were the subject of the contract, and they were already in the customer's Member State when transport to the customer began, there being no sufficient temporal and material link or continuity with the initial movement. Manufacturers who send goods cross-border for finishing, painting, assembly or similar work before delivering to a customer in that same State make a domestic supply there, not an intra-Community supply. Relevant to industrial supply chains using toll processors, and to advisers reviewing refund claims refused on place of supply grounds.

C-589/12 GMAC UK

Judgment · 3 September 2014 · United Kingdom

Direct effect of bad debt relief where national law exempts the resale

Article 11C(1), first subparagraph, is sufficiently precise and unconditional to have direct effect, despite the discretion left to Member States over conditions. A Member State cannot refuse it on the ground that the combined result with national law is one neither system intended. The shortfall stems solely from the national exemption of the auction sale, and a State may not plead its own defective implementation. Whether that national treatment conforms is irrelevant. Abuse remains for the national court, but structuring to limit tax liability is legitimate. Confirms that taxable persons may rely on directly effective Directive provisions transaction by transaction, without the tax authority netting off advantages arising from national rules applied to a linked transaction.

C-438/13 BCR Leasing IFN

Judgment · 17 July 2014 · Romania

Unrecovered leased goods after termination as a deemed supply

The situation is neither a supply of goods for consideration nor one treated as such. Article 16 does not apply. The goods are not in the taxable person's or staff's private use, the lessee's retention results from its own wrongful conduct rather than a disposal free of charge, and hiring out goods is the very essence of the lessor's business. Article 18 does not apply either, as input VAT was fully deductible, the goods were not applied to a non-taxable activity and the lessor did not cease activity. The Court added that the authorities' right to require adjustment under Articles 184 to 186 is unaffected. Leasing and hire purchase companies facing defaulting lessees cannot be charged output VAT on a deemed self-supply merely because the asset is not recovered.

C-366/12 Klinikum Dortmund

Judgment · 13 March 2014 · Germany

Exemption for drugs dispensed during outpatient care

Article 13A(1)(c) contains no reference to closely related activities, so that concept is irrelevant to it. Drugs and other goods are exempt under it only where strictly necessary at the time the care is given and physically and economically indissociable from it. Despite the therapeutic continuum, care from the doctors and drugs from the hospital pharmacy appear to be separate supplies. The national court must assess indissociability. Failing that, the dispensing is taxable. Fiscal neutrality cannot widen an exemption. Relevant to hospitals, hospital pharmacies and oncology day units where outpatient treatment is delivered by independently accredited or self-employed doctors within hospital premises.

C-606/12 Dresser-Rand

Judgment · 6 March 2014 · Italy

Return of goods as a condition for the work on goods exception to deemed transfers

The Court held that return of the goods to the taxable person in the Member State of initial dispatch or transport, after the work has been carried out, is a necessary condition for Article 17(2)(f). The exclusions in Article 17(2) are an exhaustive list of derogations to be construed strictly, consistently with taxation in the Member State of consumption. Since the goods here were never returned to France, the provision could not apply and the first question needed no answer. Relevant to manufacturers and contractors who send components to a subcontractor in another Member State for processing or assembly.

C-494/12 Dixons Retail

Judgment · 21 November 2013 · United Kingdom

Goods handed over against a fraudulently used bank card

The Court answers both questions in the affirmative. The concept of supply of goods is objective. The customer's fraudulent intent as to the means of payment is irrelevant, the retailer voluntarily handed over the goods, and no VAT fraud was involved. This is unlike theft, which neither transfers owner-like power nor produces any payment. Consideration need not come from the recipient. Payment by the card issuer or acquirer, the retailer having complied with the scheme procedures, is the taxable amount. Confirms that retailers and other card-accepting merchants cannot reclaim output VAT on sales later found to involve fraudulent card use where the acquirer or issuer has paid and not charged back. Relevant to high-value retail, e-commerce and any sector with significant card fraud exposure, and to advisers considering repayment claims framed on a theft analogy.

C-78/12 Evita-K

Judgment · 18 July 2013 · Bulgaria

Proof of a supply of goods and formal ownership of livestock

The concept of a supply of goods, and the evidence that one actually took place, are independent of how ownership was acquired. The national court must assess all facts overall, and may look at prior and subsequent transactions and accompanying certificates. Authorities cannot require documents from the issuer showing ear tags. Article 242 does not import IAS 41. Article 226(6) does not require ear tags on invoices. Article 185(1) permits adjustment only where a right to deduct existed initially under Article 168(a). Useful to advisers dealing with livestock, agri-commodity and other fungible goods trades where tax authorities equate defective sector paperwork with a non-existent supply.

C-142/12 Marinov

Judgment · 8 May 2013 · Bulgaria

Taxable amount on retention of goods after deregistration

Article 18(c) covers cessation whatever its cause, including removal from the register by the authorities, subject only to the Article 19 cases. The taxable amount is governed by Article 74, not Article 80 (whose conditions are exhaustive and not met here). It is the residual value of the goods at cessation. An open market value rule is precluded unless in practice it produces that residual value, reflecting the change in value since acquisition. Article 74 has direct effect. Relevant wherever a business is struck off the VAT register while holding assets on which input tax was recovered, in particular vehicle fleets and other depreciating equipment.

C-310/11 Grattan

Judgment · 19 December 2012 · United Kingdom

No retrospective reduction of the taxable amount under the Second Directive

Article 8(a) confers no such right. Under Article 5(5) the chargeable event occurred on delivery and the tax debt arose on the basis of assessment fixed at that moment. The Second Directive contained nothing allowing regularisation afterwards. Fiscal neutrality cannot supply what Article 11C(1) of the Sixth Directive later added. Since the sub-customers, as final consumers, paid the unreduced catalogue price and the commission went to the agents, the taxable amount was that full price. Closes off pre-1978 repayment claims resting on post-supply rebates, credits or agents' commission, a Fleming-style claim pattern familiar to UK retailers and their advisers.

C-165/11 Profitube

Judgment · 8 November 2012 · Slovakia

Sale of goods inside a customs warehouse under suspensive arrangements

No importation occurs while the goods remain under the customs warehousing or inward processing suspension arrangements, and a change between those arrangements does not alter that. But a customs warehouse in a Member State is within the territory of that country, and Article 2(1) draws no distinction between Community and non-Community goods, so the sale is a taxable supply, chargeable on delivery under Article 10(2), unless the Member State has exercised the Article 16(1) exemption option. Relevant to traders, processors and warehousekeepers dealing in non-Union goods held under suspensive customs arrangements, and to their customs and VAT advisers.

C-299/11 Gemeente Vlaardingen

Judgment · 8 November 2012 · Netherlands

Self-supply charge on goods improved by a third party on the taxable person's own land

The self-supply option covers not only goods produced entirely in-house but also goods constructed or improved by a third party using materials, including land, supplied by the business, and VAT may be charged on the aggregate of the transformation costs and the land value, measured by market value at the time of application. But no VAT may be charged on an element of value on which the taxable person has already paid VAT, and the charge cannot apply if the land falls within the exemption for land not built on that is not building land. Relevant to any exempt operator (local authorities, sports and leisure providers, healthcare, education, social housing) that refurbishes or develops its own land using contractors in a Member State applying the self-supply option.

C-587/10 VSTR

Judgment · 27 September 2012 · Germany

Exemption refused for want of the customer's VAT identification number

Such a national requirement is permissible, but exemption cannot be refused on that ground alone where the supplier, acting in good faith and having taken all measures reasonably required, cannot supply the number yet produces other evidence sufficiently showing the customer is a taxable person acting as such. The customer's third-country establishment is irrelevant. The Court also noted that, in chain transactions, exemption of the first supply depends on the transport being ascribable to it, a matter for the national court. Confirms the identification number as a formal, not substantive, condition: suppliers in chain transactions who requested the number and were given the onward customer's number instead retain the exemption if good faith and taxable status are otherwise evidenced.

C-118/11 Eon Aset Menidjmunt

Judgment · 16 February 2012 · Bulgaria

Deduction on leased and finance-leased cars used for home to work travel

For an ordinary lease (a supply of services), deduction requires a direct and immediate link with the economic activity, assessed at the expiry of the period to which each payment relates. Where a finance lease transfers substantially all risks and rewards, or ownership at the end, it is the acquisition of capital goods. If allocated wholly to business assets, input VAT is fully and immediately deductible, with private or staff use taxed under Article 26(1). Such national exclusions are permissible, but not where capital goods are allocated to the business. Relevant to fleet operators, leasing companies and advisers handling company car deductions.

C-444/10 Schriever

Judgment · 10 November 2011 · Germany

Transfer of a going concern where the premises are leased, not sold

There is a transfer of a totality of assets where stock and fittings of a retail outlet are transferred together with a lease of the premises for an indefinite period terminable at short notice, provided the assets transferred suffice for the transferee to carry on an independent economic activity on a lasting basis. Where the nature of the activity requires an inseparable bundle of movable and immovable property, possession of the premises must pass. A lease will do. Lease duration and termination terms count only if they make lasting continuation impossible. Confirms that no-supply treatment does not require transfer of ownership of the premises. Relevant to retail and hospitality disposals where the vendor keeps the freehold, and to advisers pricing VAT risk on asset deals.

C-497/09 Bog and Others

Judgment · 10 March 2011 · Germany

Hot food to go, supply of goods or supply of services

Sales from snack stalls, mobile snack bars and cinema foyers are supplies of goods where a qualitative assessment shows the service elements are not predominant: standardised cooking not done to individual order, plus rudimentary eating facilities requiring negligible human intervention, does not tip the balance, and it is immaterial whether customers use them. Party catering is a supply of services, unless the caterer merely delivers standard meals without additional service elements or other circumstances make the food predominant. "Foodstuffs" in Annex H covers food prepared for immediate consumption. The dividing line is qualitative, judged from the typical consumer's viewpoint, and turns on whether preparation is standardised and whether the facilities require real human intervention.

C-53/09 Loyalty Management UKand Baxi Group

Judgment · 7 October 2010 · United Kingdom

Third party consideration in loyalty rewards schemes

Economic reality governs. Payments by the scheme operator to redeemers are third party consideration for the supply of goods or services to the customers. It is for the national court to check whether they also cover a separate service to the operator. Payments by the sponsor to an operator which itself supplies the rewards split. The purchase price of the rewards is third party consideration for the supply to customers, and the operator's margin is consideration for scheme management services to the sponsor. In a multi-party points scheme the reward element of the payments made by the operator and by sponsoring retailers and manufacturers is third party consideration, with no input tax deduction for the payer.

C-581/08 EMI Group

Judgment · 30 September 2010 · United Kingdom

Samples and gifts of small value in promotional distributions

A sample is a specimen given to promote sales and allow the product's characteristics to be assessed, without final consumption beyond that inherent in the promotion. National law cannot generally restrict this to non-saleable forms or to the first of identical items unless it allows for the nature of the product and the business context. Hundreds of copies to an intermediary may qualify. A GBP 50 ceiling, aggregated over twelve months or a series, is permissible. Deeming gifts to co-employees as made to their employer is not. The recipient's tax status is irrelevant. Businesses distributing free product for promotion, especially in music, publishing, film and other artistic sectors, can treat retail-form goods as samples and can supply intermediaries in bulk where the quantity fits the product and the intermediary's role.

C-237/09 De Fruytier

Judgment · 3 June 2010 · Belgium

Transport of human organs and the exemption for supplies of organs, blood and milk

The exemption does not apply. Supply of goods is an autonomous EU concept requiring transfer of the power to dispose of tangible property as owner. A carrier who merely moves organs and samples physically from one place to another for hospitals and laboratories confers no such power and makes a supply of services. The national prohibition on trading in organs, and the Oviedo Convention (unsigned by the EU, ratified by only a small majority of Member States), do not deprive the exemption of effect, since such transactions may be lawful elsewhere. Medical logistics operators, courier businesses and laboratory transport providers cannot rely on the organs, blood and milk exemption.

C-88/09 Graphic Procédé

Judgment · 11 February 2010 · France

Reprography, supply of goods or supply of services

Reprography is a single indissociable economic operation and has the characteristics of a supply of goods where it is confined to reproducing documents on media (paper) with transfer of the right to dispose of those media, collation and binding being merely ancillary. It is a supply of services where accompanying services (advice, adaptation, modification or alteration of the original) are predominant, judged by their importance to the customer, time taken, extent of processing and share of total cost, so as to be an end in themselves. Print shops, copy bureaux and document reproduction providers must characterise output by reference to the substance of what the customer buys, not by contract label.

C-357/07 TNT Post UK

Judgment · 23 April 2009 · United Kingdom

Scope of the postal services exemption

"Public postal services" covers operators, public or private, who undertake to provide all or part of the universal postal service as defined in Article 3 of Directive 97/67. The exemption applies only to supplies made in that capacity, of services other than passenger transport and telecommunications and goods incidental thereto. It does not extend to supplies whose terms have been individually negotiated. Those meet the special needs of particular users and are dissociable from the public interest service. Fiscal neutrality is not infringed, because the regulatory context differs. Confirms that the exemption is status based, not service based.

C-271/06 Netto Supermarkt

Judgment · 21 February 2008 · Germany

Export exemption where the buyer forged the proof of export

Article 15(2) does not preclude the exemption in those circumstances. Making the supplier bear the entire VAT loss caused by a third party's fraud in which it took no part breaches proportionality and legal certainty, particularly where the authorities initially accepted the documents. The protection depends on the supplier having acted in good faith and taken every measure that could reasonably be required of it. Customs law case law on good faith and remission of duties cannot be transposed to the VAT system. Relevant to retailers and their advisers operating traveller export refund schemes, and more widely to any exporter relying on documents supplied by the customer.

C-111/05 Aktiebolaget NN

Judgment · 29 March 2007 · Sweden

Supply and laying of an undersea fibre-optic cable, goods or services, and where taxed

A single, indivisible transaction, and a supply of goods, where the cable is transferred to the customer to dispose of as owner following functionality tests, the cable price clearly represents the greater part of total cost, and the supplier's services are confined to laying without altering the cable's nature or adapting it to the customer's specific requirements. Each Member State taxes pro rata to the length of cable in its territory, covering materials and laying services alike. No VAT on the parts in the exclusive economic zone, on the continental shelf or at sea. Relevant to contractors installing infrastructure that crosses borders.

C-240/05 Eurodental

Judgment · 7 December 2006 · Luxembourg

Input tax on cross-border supplies of dental prostheses

The Court held that a transaction exempt within a Member State under Article 13A(1)(e) does not give rise to a right to deduct input VAT under Article 17(3)(b), even where it is an intra-Community transaction. The specific public interest exemption takes precedence over the general exemption for intra-Community trade. That conclusion applies regardless of the VAT system in the Member State of destination, including where that State still taxes such supplies under the transitional derogation in Article 28(3)(a). Exempt operators cannot recover input tax by pointing to the cross-border character of their output supplies.

C-419/02 BUPA Hospitals and Goldsborough Developments

Judgment · 21 February 2006 · United Kingdom

VAT on prepayments for goods not yet identified

Prepayments of lump sums for goods described only in general terms in a list alterable at any time by agreement, from which the buyer may possibly select items, under a contract the buyer may terminate unilaterally and recover the unused balance, do not fall within the second subparagraph of Article 10(2). That derogation is to be construed strictly. All information concerning the future supply must already be known, so the goods or services must be precisely identified when the payment is made. The remaining questions, including abuse, were not answered.

C-435/03 British American Tobacco and Newman Shipping

Judgment · 14 July 2005 · Belgium

Whether theft of goods from a tax warehouse is a taxable supply

Theft gives the thief mere possession, not the power to dispose of the goods as owner, and yields no counterpart for the victim. It is therefore neither a transfer under Article 5(1) nor a supply for consideration under Article 2, and cannot itself be taxed. Excise liability is irrelevant, since nothing links VAT chargeability to excise duty. Later illegal importation or supply of the stolen goods remains taxable, but not in the hands of the theft victim. An Article 27(5) authorisation concerning the timing of collection cannot create new taxable transactions. Confirms that warehousekeepers and owners of excise goods cannot be assessed to VAT on stocks lost to theft, however the national rules align VAT with excise. Relevant to bonded warehouse operators, tobacco, alcohol and fuel businesses, and anyone facing assessments on recorded shortages.

C-412/03 Hotel Scandic Gåsabäck

Judgment · 20 January 2005 · Sweden

Taxable amount for staff meals supplied below cost

The Court held that those provisions preclude such a national rule. The deemed-supply rules cover only transactions effected free of charge. Where an actual consideration is paid there is a supply for consideration and the taxable amount is the subjective value actually received, even if below cost. Whether the price exceeds or falls short of cost is irrelevant. A Member State fearing symbolic prices must seek an Article 27 derogation. The employer's own cost is not a subsidy under Article 11A(1)(a), which presupposes three parties. Confirms that below-cost supplies to employees, canteen meals, staff shops, subsidised facilities, are taxed on the price actually charged, not on cost, absent an authorised derogation.

C-137/02 Faxworld

Judgment · 29 April 2004 · Germany

Input tax recovery by a pre-formation partnership

The Court held that the partnership is a taxable person. Status under Article 4 depends solely on that article and is unaffected by whether a Member State has used the Article 5(8) option. Although it made no taxable transactions of its own, unlike in Abbey National, the inputs were acquired for the purposes of the company's planned taxable transactions. Since the recipient is treated as successor to the transferor, the transferor may take the recipient's taxable transactions into account and deduct. Confirms that costs of a pre-incorporation vehicle do not fall into a VAT black hole where a no-supply transfer of a business intervenes.

C-185/01 Auto Lease Holland

Judgment · 6 February 2003 · Germany

Fuel cards and the supply of fuel to lessees

There is no supply of fuel by the lessor to the lessee where the lessee fills up at filling stations, even if this is done in the name and at the expense of the lessor. The lessee chooses quality, quantity and timing and disposes of the fuel as owner. The monthly payments are only advances and the lessee ultimately bears the whole cost. The fuel management agreement is a contract to finance the purchase, so the lessor acts as a supplier of credit. The second question fell away. Fuel card and fuel management structures cannot be treated as a chain of supplies to and from the card issuer or lessor where the cardholder controls the purchase and bears the cost. Relevant to vehicle leasing companies, fleet and fuel card providers, and advisers structuring fuel and other pass-through purchase arrangements.

C-326/99 Goed Wonen

Judgment · 4 October 2001 · Netherlands

Grant of a usufruct treated as exempt letting of immovable property

Neither provision precludes the Dutch rules. Member States may attach conditions when exercising the Article 5(3) option, including a value threshold, even if rarely met in practice, provided the nature of the option is not fundamentally altered. Leasing and letting is an autonomous EU concept, broader than national civil law. A right in rem conferring, for an agreed period and for payment, the right to occupy property as owner and exclude others shares the essential characteristic of letting, so it may be exempted. Confirms that usufruct, emphyteusis and similar rights in rem over immovable property can be captured by the exemption for letting, defeating structures in which an exempt or non taxable body (housing associations, hospitals, banks, insurers, municipalities) grants such a right at below cost to a related entity to unlock input tax on construction.

C-34/99 Primback

Judgment · 15 May 2001 · United Kingdom

Taxable amount where a retailer offers interest-free credit funded by a third party

The taxable amount is the full amount payable by the purchaser. The relationship between seller and purchaser must be distinguished from that between seller and finance house. The commission is consideration for an exempt service supplied to the retailer and does not reduce the basis of assessment, as in Bally. Since the price did not vary with the method of payment, it contained no separable credit element. Any credit element would in any event be ancillary to the sale of goods. Retailers offering "interest-free" or "0%" finance through third-party lenders must account for VAT on the full advertised and invoiced price, treating the lender's commission as a business cost, exactly as with credit card merchant charges.

C-231/94 Faaborg-Gelting Linien

Judgment · 2 May 1996 · Germany

Restaurant transactions, supply of goods or services

Restaurant transactions are supplies of services under Article 6(1), because they are characterised by a cluster of features and acts in which the provision of food is only one component and services predominate (cooking, serving, dining infrastructure, table service). They are deemed supplied where the supplier has established his business under Article 9(1). A catering point on a ship is not a fixed establishment, particularly where the operator's permanent establishment is an appropriate reference point. Take-away food, not coupled with services enhancing consumption on the spot, is different. The foundational authority on the goods/services borderline for catering, and the origin of the on-the-spot consumption versus take-away distinction still applied to fast food, kiosks and delivery.

C-291/92 Armbrecht

Judgment · 4 October 1995 · Germany

Retaining part of a mixed-use building in private assets on sale

A taxable person may keep part of an asset devoted to private use outside the VAT system. On sale of that part he does not act as a taxable person under Article 2(1), and a national option to tax under Article 13(C) cannot bring a supply outside the tax within it. Correspondingly, only the part assigned to the business counts for Article 17(2), and the Article 20(2) adjustment is limited to that part. Apportionment must follow the proportions of private and business use in the year of acquisition, not a geographical split, and the private intention must be maintained throughout ownership. Confirms the taxable person's choice, alongside Lennartz full allocation, to keep the privately used share of mixed-use immovable property wholly outside the VAT system, with deduction and capital goods adjustment restricted accordingly. Relevant to hoteliers, guesthouses, professionals and any trader occupying part of business premises as a dwelling, and to advisers structuring acquisitions and later disposals.

C-18/92 Bally

Judgment · 25 May 1993 · Belgium

Credit card commission and the taxable amount on retail sales

The Court held that the commission retained by the card issuer forms part of the taxable amount on which the supplier must account for VAT. There are two separate transactions: the sale of the goods, and the exempt service supplied by the card issuer to the supplier, in respect of which the purchaser is a third party. The taxable amount cannot vary according to the means of payment, nor differ from the amount on which VAT was charged to the customer. The second question did not arise on the referring court's findings. Confirms the basic retail position. Relevant to any retailer, and to modern payment service and marketplace arrangements where the intermediary settles net of its commission.

C-320/88 Shipping and Forwarding Enterprise Safe

Judgment · 8 February 1990 · Netherlands

Supply of goods without transfer of legal ownership

Supply of goods means the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner, even where legal ownership is not transferred. The concept is autonomous and does not depend on national rules governing transfer of ownership, since a uniform definition of taxable transactions would otherwise be undermined. The Court declined to apply that test to the contract before it. It is for the national court to decide, on a comprehensive appraisal of the facts, whether the right to dispose as owner has passed. The foundational authority on when a supply of goods occurs.

Related topics

Right of deduction · Supply of services · Origin and scope of right of deduction · Supply of goods or services · Taxable amount · Taxable transactions · Fiscal neutrality · Transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof · Tax evasion and abuse · Proof